The Man wrote:

Yikes. Double post. Didn't mean to .

No prob. Happens to the best of us!
_________________

Xavio wrote:

It's really amazing in America, how lobbies, tv and can influence your vote...

Hmmmm....sounds like you're describing Michael Moore.

I am looking forward to the elections. It will be nice if I can turn on the news and not see Bush making bizarre faces at the camera anymore trying to whitewash the past 4 years.
_________________

gregsan wrote:

Hmmmm....sounds like you're describing Michael Moore.

I have only seen the big one from mickael moore.
I don't know him at all... He says that, maybe because there is a part of truth in it.

You just look on how the % on trust in Bush or Kerry change after a TV show...

@bmwracer

Quote:

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what other way is there to vote???

First when you vote, you have to show your ID card, Then a card allowing you to vote.
People have to check both of the card and write that you have voted.
Then you shoudn't vote with electronic, because it's so confusing for old people... and you can't trust it at all.
Then in USA, it's not very democratic, it's the richest man showing that he has no difficulty to speak who wins.
Look bush and Kerry are spending billions of dollars to be elected. ( bush a little bit more than kerry )
There isn't any place for a 3rd person.

Quote:

It's all part of freedom of speech and living in a (somewhat) free society... How else can we find out information on each candidate without the media?

I didn't know how, and I was like you since summer.
But last summer, I've been in england and i was with people with many countries. I was thinking that my country was a good country in some ways, bad in others. Now I know that we are manipulated, and that govermnent does what he wants.

For example, I thought it was good that France send a lot of planes in Bosnia, but actually it is a disaster in this country and even people who were oppressed didn't want NATO to help them. A serbian told me that.
I learned many things by many people, on how we learn history at school is different. You can't trust what you learned at school. In USA and in Europe we learn that americans were heros, to save Europe, in Russia you would learn that Russians are heros and USA come only at the end to take honors.
@ahochaude

Quote:

same can be said for people who don't agree with your way.

Well it's typical american... Sorry but just look in other countries in the world. I won't Say France, because i live inthis country. But look in Spain, germany, even in england ( and you should know how we don't like england ), it's more democratic, because people are more equals and the way to vote is more democratic as I say at the top of my post.
You are like toys, ruled by TV, lobbies, and I am a toy too. I really know how it works in america.

@thetentken

Quote:

Woah woah woah...let's stick to the facts, shall we? Name-calling never really gets a debate anywhere...just alienates both sides...

Ok so, Bush or Kerry are going to be president.
Fighting with millions of dollars.
One keeps is idea, on one side what is good, on the other the bad things.
In uSA you have to learn to know the difference between politic and religions, we know how the problem is big in arabic countries.
For him terrorists AL Caida, ben Laden, all can be errase by attacking Irak. ( not for oil of course )
120 billion dollars for that planned in few years, but most of this money has already been spend...
It's true that he helps america to improve his economy, but how does he do it : He boycott other country, and if countries doesn't want to make what he says, he stopes helping this countries.
You are going to tell me.. What the problem ?
The problem is that what he does he's not democratic. He makes other country protec americans living in this country and force the other to do it, spying Europe is a good way to win contracts Airbus vs boeing. To win money he does everything he can. Richest are going to be more and more rich, and poorest more and more poor.
Boycott then, what is wrong ?
American don't give a shit of they kill environment and the earth. It's true that if they try to respect a little bit and sign the Kyoto ( contract ? ), they would loose some money. But ok, killing environment is better than losing money. Drive with your car spending 10 liters a mile to have more oil in the world.

I can't say Kerry is better than bush. But how can he be worse ? Look at what Clinton did for America, and compare to watch Bush did ?

I 'd like to be more argumentative, and what is say is bullshit, it's a speach of Moore, It's a french speak and so on... but try to mind, mind 5 minutes, days, or years, travel in the world to have another point of view and then maybe you'll keep you're idea that bush is a great man for maerica. That's ok, everyboy has his own idea, i have mine.

I'm sorry that my english is so bad, If only it could use the good words to say the good things...

Xavio, I wanna' ask you as I do not have any French folk that I know in my immediate vacinity: what do you think or what is your idea of your own government's (you live in France, yes?) apparent -- I'm being conservative here -- involvement in the oil-for-food situation?

The Man wrote:

Xavio, what do you think or what is your idea of your own government's (you live in France, yes?) apparent -- I'm being conservative here -- involvement in the oil-for-food situation?

I don't see the link with the election, but I think that what it is said ( oil for food is good ) we need oil, they need food, but what is not said like 10 years ago : Mirage ( french planes ) for sadam for oil is not good.
I don't know the truth... maybe in ten years we'll know more...

Xavio wrote:

I don't see the link with the election, but I think that what it is said ( oil for food is good ) we need oil, they need food, but what is not said like 10 years ago : Mirage ( french planes ) for sadam for oil is not good. I don't know the truth... maybe in ten years we'll know more...

Ten years? You realize the reports are coming out now, yes?

The Man wrote:

Ten years? You realize the reports are coming out now, yes?

Ok, but this is reports, this is not the truth...

The Man wrote:

Ten years? You realize the reports are coming out now, yes?

I don't think he understands what you're talking about? He doesn't realize that there's a scandal.

Edit:...or is unwilling to admit it...

Xavio wrote:

Ok, but this is reports, this is not the truth...

It can't be the truth... the French in cahoots with Sadam?!!

I think we need Michael Moore to do the research so we'll know what REALLY happened!

gregsan wrote:

It can't be the truth... the French in cahoots with Sadam?!! I think we need Michael Moore to do the research so we'll know what REALLY happened!

I don't see where you really want to go with you food for oil. Maybe there is a scandal whith it in your country, but USA is the scandal, by giving large amounts of money to their farmer, Africa can't sell their product to the world, because yours a more competitive.
Then you give them food, and you ask for oil...
This is the scandal


@gregsan, If you check in the past, you can see photos of Chirac ( who is now our president ) shaking hands with saddams, as your president did too.

We gave arm to sadam, you gave money to Ben Laden.

You don't know these facts ?

Another strange thing you don't know : there is a boycott against China, we can't sell arm to China, but we can sell to North Korea.

gregsan wrote:

It can't be the truth... the French in cahoots with Sadam?!! I think we need Michael Moore to do the research so we'll know what REALLY happened!

Just because I'm in a pissy mood today;

1) Moore's movie is a documentary, not a journalistic White Paper.

2) Moore makes no bones about his bias. He has a point of view, an opinion, and has always made that clear up front. He's not trying to tell two sides of the story. He's trying to make his point. And he does. Very well.

3) Most of the "debunking" that's going on of Moore's movie is spin, not debunking. And a good deal of what's "debunked" in the film... isn't actually in the film. There's a chance you might know that if you'd seen it.

4) If you haven't seen the film, and don't intend to see it (your right, 100%, if you don't want to see it, don't) and have announced that you haven't seen it... don't use it as the punch line of a snide remark. It makes you look sort of dumb.

Geezer wrote:

2) Moore makes no bones about his bias. He has a point of view, an opinion, and has always made that clear up front. He's not trying to tell two sides of the story. He's trying to make his point. And he does. Very well.

Ebert and Roeper said almost the exact same thing: It's completely partisan and it expresses his POV. And it's a very well-made film.

Geezer wrote:

Just because I'm in a pissy mood today; 1) Moore's movie is a documentary, not a journalistic White Paper. 2) Moore makes no bones about his bias. He has a point of view, an opinion, and has always made that clear up front. He's not trying to tell two sides of the story. He's trying to make his point. And he does. Very well. 3) Most of the "debunking" that's going on of Moore's movie is spin, not debunking. And a good deal of what's "debunked" in the film... isn't actually in the film. There's a chance you might know that if you'd seen it. 4) If you haven't seen the film, and don't intend to see it (your right, 100%, if you don't want to see it, don't) and have announced that you haven't seen it... don't use it as the punch line of a snide remark. It makes you look sort of dumb.

As i've said before, I have seen the big one...
I haven't seen 9/11 Farenheit , but I know what it is about, because I know everything what Moore says and i'm fed up with this. ( That's why i'm going to learn my lesson now for tomorrow )
You're right that this it can't be a documentary, he take his side. But you'll see that he didn't go to court, because what he said was true.

And what the problem my "making his point" when you say something true who can hurt people who prefer not to hear something.

I didn't say it, in france in vote for a party who is like bush party, but I wouldn't vote for him. ( reason ? i have said too many things for the moment )

Geezer wrote:

Just because I'm in a pissy mood today; 1) Moore's movie is a documentary, not a journalistic White Paper. 2) Moore makes no bones about his bias. He has a point of view, an opinion, and has always made that clear up front. He's not trying to tell two sides of the story. He's trying to make his point. And he does. Very well. 3) Most of the "debunking" that's going on of Moore's movie is spin, not debunking. And a good deal of what's "debunked" in the film... isn't actually in the film. There's a chance you might know that if you'd seen it. 4) If you haven't seen the film, and don't intend to see it (your right, 100%, if you don't want to see it, don't) and have announced that you haven't seen it... don't use it as the punch line of a snide remark. It makes you look sort of dumb.

Actually...I didn't say I didn't see it...I have in fact seen it. Where did you get that from? It makes you look dumb to accuse someone when you haven't got your facts straight. There were several poeple who stated they didn't see it and don't intend to. I am NOT one of those people.

Also...I don't know what the difference is between a "documentary" and a journalistic white paper...but his film does NOT fit the definition of a documentary.

According to the definition of a documentary (see definition 2):

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary

his film Fahrenheit 9/11 is NOT a documentary. It is, in fact, a PROPOGANDA film.

Xavio wrote:

I don't see where you really want to go with you food for oil. Maybe there is a scandal whith it in your country, but USA is the scandal, by giving large amounts of money to their farmer, Africa can't sell their product to the world, because yours a more competitive. Then you give them food, and you ask for oil... This is the scandal.

I assume from your comments that you are NOT aware of the UN scandal regarding oil-for-food. At least your responses imply such...

gregsan wrote:

Actually...I didn't say I didn't see it...I have in fact seen it. Where did you get that from? It makes you look dumb to accuse someone when you haven't got your facts straight. There were several poeple who stated they didn't see it and don't intend to. I am NOT one of those people. Also...I don't know what the difference is between a "documentary" and a journalistic white paper...but his film does NOT fit the definition of a documentary. According to the definition of a documentary (see definition 2): http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary his film Fahrenheit 9/11 is NOT a documentary. It is, in fact, a PROPOGANDA film.

Greg,

You are absolutely right, and I was in the wrong.

I had confused you with ahochaude, who, earlier on this thread, talked about never having seen the film, and never wanting to.

I apologise.

Re: the definition of "Documentary".

Websters Documentary: documentary presentation (as in film or novel)

documentary; contained or certified in writing. 2) relating to or employing domcumentation in literature or art.

Documentarian one who employes or advocates documentary presentation.

Does Moore have documentation to back up the things he said in Far. 9/11? Yes, he does. You might not agree with it, might not think it's factual, might think it's twisted. But he has the documentation.

As for F9/11 being PROPOGANDA film... no kidding.

OF COURSE IT'S A PROPOGANDA film. Moore has shouted from the roof tops (and more importantly, stated on film for the record) that it is indeed a propaganda film.

It is an accusation of utter incompetence, backed up with documentation.

The object of a White Paper, or any decent bit of journalism is to present both sides of a particular case, or issue, in a factual, well documented, objective manner. (The goal is rarely achieved, but it's worth a shot.)

Again, I apologise.

gregsan wrote:

It can't be the truth... the French in cahoots with Sadam?!!

The news I read also said that Duelfer's report says American companies and individuals were involved. Does that mean "America was in cahoots with Saddam"?

It even said the Vatican got some of Saddams oil vouchers.

It also said some vouchers were not used illegally.

It seems to me that as it currently stands, there are allegations against some individuals in a complex scheme. I think it is wrong to say a whole country is guilty of wrongdoing. Further investigation will be needed to find out the true story.

OK, I have a bit of time to look at the JDorama board. Ah, Mondays.

vibius wrote:

The news I read also said that Duelfer's report says American companies and individuals were involved. Does that mean "America was in cahoots with Saddam"?

To what extent?

All I keep hearing is evidence of French involvement with the "scheme" and in a way, it makes sense -- they were one of the staunchest opponents against, after all, going into Iraq.

Sidenotes:

-- Geezer, ah, it's Monday, don't let stuff get to you enough to make you, how you say it, "pi---y"?

-- yo, what's up, gregsan?!

Geezer wrote:

Greg, You are absolutely right, and I was in the wrong. I had confused you with ahochaude, who, earlier on this thread, talked about never having seen the film, and never wanting to. I apologise. Re: the definition of "Documentary". Websters Documentary: documentary presentation (as in film or novel) documentary; contained or certified in writing. 2) relating to or employing domcumentation in literature or art. Documentarian one who employes or advocates documentary presentation. Does Moore have documentation to back up the things he said in Far. 9/11? Yes, he does. You might not agree with it, might not think it's factual, might think it's twisted. But he has the documentation. As for F9/11 being PROPOGANDA film... no kidding. OF COURSE IT'S A PROPOGANDA film. Moore has shouted from the roof tops (and more importantly, stated on film for the record) that it is indeed a propaganda film. It is an accusation of utter incompetence, backed up with documentation. The object of a White Paper, or any decent bit of journalism is to present both sides of a particular case, or issue, in a factual, well documented, objective manner. (The goal is rarely achieved, but it's worth a shot.) Again, I apologise.

Apology accepted.

As far as the "documentary" component...definition 2 (from my above post) states:

"Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."

Additionally, you left off that for the definition from Webster's online dictionary:

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=documentary

Definition 2 also adds: "FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE"

And...in case we don't agree with either of those definitions...we have the American Heritage Dictionary as well:

http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/ahdsearch?search_type=enty&query=documentary&db=ahd

"1) documentary. The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. Inflected..."


Fahrenheit 9/11 is NEITHER objective NOR "without editorializing". Therefore it doesn't meet the definition of a documentary since it must clearly be UNBIASED and OBJECTIVE, which it is NOT!!!