Comments on: Fahrenheit 9/11

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:15:52 +0000

I am absolutely amazed as I sit here and read this self centred amerrrogance about your country…unfortunately you have once again proven how small you really are in a world that is constantly frustrated by your action/hypocracy…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:11:02 +0000

WHAT EVER!!! our president is an idiot!! "evil-doers"??? COME ON NOW!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:07:16 +0000

no nothing wrong with that. if that's your preference that ok by me. all I ment was I don't have a username and password on this web site

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:09:18 +0000

me too. I like chris… but not THAT much

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 03:54:50 +0000

not to start an argument but i posted anonymously because i dont have a username or password for this forum

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:50:17 +0000

Wow…all the Moore haters are in denial. I especially like the one that said most of the info in this film has already been debunked. Riiiight….

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:12:04 +0000

Boring film. Loses any sort of power half way through. Obviously two different movies pinned together. Only thing I agree on is it's stupid airlines allow people to take 3-4 boxes of matches and a lighter on board a plane. That's it. The rest is just the usual wacko far-left junk. Heck, if you follow his line then he is connected to bin lid too
http://www.mooreexposed.com/paranoia.html
Obvious conclusions: War sucks. No shit. But while Moore loves to play the “happy iraqis dancing in the streets” before the war, he forgets to show the footage of the hundreds of thousands they of bodies they found tortured, gassed, executed etc.
Death sucks. But then so do bleedin' heart liberals.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Jul 2004 06:47:13 +0000

>>That Act does nothing but put unreasonable standards on students, teachers, and schools. I mean seriously does it make any sense to take away money from a school that doesn't preform well on standarized tests, but give more money to schools that do actually preform well.
>>>So just how should we hold schools, administrators, counselors and teachers accountable for their jobs? Where I work, if I don't do my job well, I don't get a raise. Educators get a raise every year even if they do a piss poor job – I've seen the pay matrix. If there isn't some mechanism to hold them accountable, they will continue down the path of mediocrity.
Wow you actually think the school boards, and administators are the ones getting the pay cuts. Hahaha.. right. Nope its the teachers that are getting pay cut, and less funding. Even teachers are getting laid off because the schools don't have enough money to keep them, which in turn increases class size. Now seriously how does that help students in the Public School System. Yeah there are bad teachers but there are far more good teachers and they are losing pay, benefits, and end up having to buy school suplies out of their own pocket. School cut back, by not buying updated books, and conserve by limiting the amount of copies that a school can make per year. They out source jobs to private compianes to save money. School lay of literacy coaches, cut back on elective classes (esspecially in foreign language), and they cut back on after school activities. I ask you once again how does this help our children learn any better. The No Child Left Behind Act leaves countless children behind, and only makes poorer schools poorer, and the rich schools get richer, sounds like typical Bush politics. Schools are forced to act like corporations rather than educational institutions. Its a shame that you actually believe that taking money away from these already strugling schools will help.
>>Iraq, which allegedly was prosuing Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is kinda funny when at the beginning of this Administration both Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice (sp?) said the Iraq posed no threat to the United States and couldn't even defend against its neighbors according to Intelligence reports. Yes, the same Intelliegence reports that supposedly said only 4 months later that Iraq had huge stock piles of WMD's and was agressively prosuing more.
>>>The information from a woefully underfunded and understaffed intelligence agency under the previous administration (Oh no! I'm Clinton bashing!) Once even minimal amounts of intelligence were procured we found out otherwise. Yes, there have been WMD's found: biological mainly, but some nuclear. The biologicals were being tested on northern Iraqi towns.
Actually according to the FY 2001 report President Bush is the one who approved cutting money to the military, department of transportation, and intelligence (CIA, FBI, FTA). So you facts or woefully inadaqute, because it was President Bush who cut intelligence funding not President Clinton. I bet he was saying whoops on that one during that seven minutes he did absolutly nothing but sat in a class room reading a book (actually appropriate for his intelligence). But lets go to your clams which are laugh out loud rediculous. The only amount of WMD found was trace amounts of Cemical Weapons in Northren Tikrit by the UN Weapons Inspectors before the War In Iraq began. It was then confirmed after we invaded Iraq. Oh and the trace amounts were dated from use in the 1980's when the Iraqi Army gased the Kurds. As for fisile material (Nuclear), Iraq never has possed this not even at the height of Iraq's WMD program. Intelligence for Desert Storm only declared that Iraq possed Cemical and Biological Weapons, which they never did use against US Soldiers, in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yet more strickingly is the fact that we know for sure that Iran, Pakastan, North Korea, and China posses WMDs, yet we choose the country that we were well not so sure about.
>>>>Given the fact that the democratic party is made up demographically of the youth, the under-educated, the poor, and the blue collar workers of this country, it's not difficult to see how a moron like Michael Moore could sell this pile of propaganda and lies to them.
While you are all sitting around with your dunce caps trying to decide what's best for this country, the Republicans are out there doing it. Just say thank you and go back to drooling in the corner watching the latest episode of survivor.
Hmm typical pompuous ass republican. When at first you can't get the facts to support you, lets get down to the name calling. Though I do believe part of his demographic is correct Democrats seem to attact the poor. Why? Well certainly not because they arn't educated, but because the democrats offer them a chance at a better life. I mean seriously the Republican party has nothing to say about education, when they mainly attract southren voters that are lucky to have an 8th grade education and are still ticked off at the 60s Civil Rights Movements. Did I mention that any President that uses the word “misunderestimated” and “evil-doers”, sound very intellectual to you?
>>>>>I've had to shovel through as much shit on this post as was in Moore's movie… it's simple to sit back and point fingers… a leader has to make decisions… the same people bitchin' about going to war with Iraq are the same ones who would have been saying why didn't we do anything when something else bad happened… go study history… and while you're at it, go do something else productive… join the Marine Corps and learn how NOT to whine…
Actually if you even paid attention in class. You might have learned that Moore supports the action in Afganistan, because they did have the link to terrorism, but Iraq, where was the link? the American people would have rallied behind Bush had he attacked say Saudi Arabi, because even they had a stronger link to the 9/11 attacks than Iraq. Yes I do agree with you though people should serve in the military when they believe the cause is just. The military is one of the greatest things in this country and offers a lot of opportunities to many young adults across the country that otherwise wouldn't have.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:07:29 +0000

>> Yeah, I'll bring up the BJ: if a CEO gets caught in the same situation he's history; why not the President? Oh, I'm sorry it's all Bush's fault (either the elder or younger).
If a CEO gets caught getting a blowjob, he gets fired. BUT HEY, if he gets caught ripping of hard working American's, breaking the law, rapeing their companies coffers, and putting Americans out of work — well, they get a free invite to the next Bush Whitehouse dinner. Don't even talk to me about Bush's morals and ethics. He's essentially let every single one of those CEO white collar criminal f*cks go free, and they did a lot more damage to this country than Bill Clinton ever did.
>> They needed food, clothes, transportation to and from Iraq, transportation in Iraq, housing, the list goes on and on. It wasn't all spent on bombs and guns.
Iraq wouldn't need all your “gracious help” if we hadn't demolished their entire country. They didn't seem to need or want our help before the Iraq war.
>> If that's how other countries see us, fine. Next time France gets invaded we'll sit back and watch instead of coming to their aid. Likewise with nearly all of Europe. Same goes for Japan. Who do you think funded their rebuilding after WWII? Certainly not Germany or Japan or Italy (the instigators). Have we been repaid by these countries? NO! With that kind of attitude I'm not sure I want their respect.
Hmmm..Japan, well, we did drop the most damaging, devastating bomb in the history of mankind on their country, instantly vaporing thousands of innocent men, women and children and leaving them with untold causaulties and cities they could barely rebuild on because of the radiation. And you want to be paid back?
How about this for a concept, we donate money to help people and don't expect ANYTHING in return from them. They won't even have to agree with our politics, our stance on the war in Iraq, or share our religious beliefs, and we can forget past aggressions. Normally it would be called humanitarian aid, but America's humanitarian aid comes with a hidden price tag, it always has.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:29:55 +0000

martin luther king WAS a liberal… and gusse what? NOT a racist!!! the crime of racisem is most (70%) found in republicans. it's just like a republican to switch things around.

By: Coyote

Coyote — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:25:24 +0000

Lets take security and safety of this country as the central argument for Bush being better. Is the country safer, did the war in Iraq increase or decrease terrorism? Is our homeland security better? If I were a terrorist do you have any idea how easy it would be to slip a nuke through our ports or borders. Where precisely has any money gone to make our country safer against attack. How is it most states are struggling and nearly going bankrupt to achieve homeland security when there is little to no money coming in from federal sources.
Has Bush then made our country safer then.
When you think of military tactics and strategy you think of threat level, on threat level what was Saddam as compared to say Kim Jong of North Korea. I would consider a proven unstable nuclear power more dangerous then a stable unproven nuclear power a higher threat any day.
As to WMD information try and post recent information rather then information from the nineties, recent information has found little to no evidence of weapons of mass destruction of any kind. He did have them but he did not have them before the attack the US iniated.
And I have studied history, if the Bush administration had studied history in particular the history of the Middle East region, they would have understood why their asses are being handed to them right now in Iraq.
Funny isn't it how what you don't like is automatically propaganda?, and what you do like is not propaganda.
Here come the predictable insults, if you wish to respond try arguing logically, its what you Reps are supposed to be famous for, so argue logically that is with facts, all facts, not just ones you censor to fit your own views, as amusingly enough you acuse Michael Moore of doing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:50:44 +0000

Nascar Dads are Republicans? Wow….with morons like you in Kerry's corner, Bush is virtually assured 4 more years in the white house. Ever notice how the biggest stereotypers and racists also happen to be liberals?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:47:41 +0000

I've had to shovel through as much shit on this post as was in Moore's movie… it's simple to sit back and point fingers… a leader has to make decisions… the same people bitchin' about going to war with Iraq are the same ones who would have been saying why didn't we do anything when something else bad happened… go study history… and while you're at it, go do something else productive… join the Marine Corps and learn how NOT to whine…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:28:29 +0000

actually the bigest demographic for survivor is NASCAR DADS!!!!!!! (witch by the way, are REPUBLICANS!!!!!)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:19:19 +0000

Given the fact that the democratic party is made up demographically of the youth, the under-educated, the poor, and the blue collar workers of this country, it's not difficult to see how a moron like Michael Moore could sell this pile of propaganda and lies to them.
While you are all sitting around with your dunce caps trying to decide what's best for this country, the Republicans are out there doing it. Just say thank you and go back to drooling in the corner watching the latest episode of survivor.