Wirehead Studios

Well this is my first post on thes forums.  This whole "Controversy Corner" rocks!!  Well here goes:

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/ (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/)

There you can get the trailer of the next Michael Moore film about the "grand" US of A

1) Have you guys heard of it?
2) How do you feel about the movie (info hopefully soon)?
3) Will you see it?
4) How do you feel about the articals i have read that the government is trying to STOP this movie from reaching the public?
5) Michael Moore: Idiot, Hero, Free Man, or Bluboring Imbicile
(Final questions at the bottom as well)

INFO ABOUT THE MOVIE:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php (http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php)

There is the Michael moore site.  This movie apparently attacks our governments decsions aroudn the time 9/11 took place.  Mostly as a result of terrorism Moore focuses on the governments poor handling of the situation.  

One explicit example is the Patriot Act.  (The following I believe is true from books but am not exactly certain)  Apparently Congress reviewed the Patriot act on day 1 and planned to decide its future (pass or decline) on day 2.  Overnight from day 1 to day 2 the WHOLE DOCUMENT was changed.  Appaerntly incoherrent in many parts.  Congress did not reivew the document on day 2 but passed it anyway.  

So another question:

6) What do you know about the Patriot Act and its mysterious benefits?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/takeaction/iss.../patriotact.php (http://www.michaelmoore.com/takeaction/issues/patriotact.php)


PS: I dont want this to turn into an anti-bush topic.  My regards about his presidency (notice its not capitalized) were set aside when I created this topic.

Hope this goes well and make a good conversation.  By the way:
7) You guys from America/Europe??? Yall speak fluent and advanced english.

Haven't seen it, probably wont.

I'm not much for politics either way

You obviously haven't been looking at gameskeeper's posts. ;)

I'm from the USA, but we have a LOT of euros here.

That was FAST!! Still updateing my post.

Yes this is political but i'm not to much of a political guy.  I just posted this cause I like movies and controversial movies are just a lot more fun!

Yes.
Quite annoyed, actually.
No.
I've not read them, so it is impossible to form an opinion at this time.
Option 1 and 4 seem to fit best.
I know it allows the FBI and CIA to wiretap and monitor suspected terrorists, among other things.  I also know it's a point of great contention in regards to civil liberties.  Some people see it as a huge danger to civil liberties, others as a useful tool to protect the people from harm.  I think a bit of both is true.
I am currently living in the USA.
Thank you kindly. :)

I'm from Europe. Portugal is my country!! :D

I'll be watching the movie, but solely because I think Moore's a liberal tool.

I see you noticed  ;)

Nice nice.
I agree that Moore is a liberal tool.  But if omsething good comes out of his work I may come around.


I will now condone Bush bashing with these qoutes:
THERE ARE NO MISSPELLS

-- Credit where it is Due--
-- Presidential (Mis)Speak "The Very Curious Language of George W. Bush"
-- www.bushcalendar.com
-- I'm reading these qoutes from the calander and posting the good ones!

"If you don't have any ambitions, the minimum wage job isn''t going to get you to where you want to get."  August 29, 2002 (Little Rock, Arkansas)

"We should not be satisfied with the current numbers of minorities on American's college campuses."  January 15, 2003 (speaking about affirmative action)

"We look forward to today that no child in this country is ever left behind."  January 8, 2003

"I've not made up our mind about military action."  March 6, 2003

"Jackson from Texas, you got anything of Texas questions?" (NO misspell here) Nov. 7, 2002

"If you're interested in being a part of feeding those who hunger, this is a great place to come to."  Dec. 19, 2002 (Wash. DC food bank)

"There is some statistics out today that showed our economy continues to grow."  July 31, 2002

"I understand politics and I know there's gonna be a lot of verbage." Jan. 2, 2003

"Do you have blacks, too?" Comment made to Brazilian Pres. Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

"I'm beginning to travel around the country to important states -- all states are important, of course..."  Jan 22, 2001 -- Burn!

There are so many more,  i lost some really funny ones.  Thanks to the bushcalendar creators!

No fair, you cheated! No spell checking allowed for you! :thumb:

Yes I've heard about the movie, the only thing I've heard about it though is that it bashes Bush, so so far I like it alot without even seeing it... ^_^

I plan to see it sometime, maybe I can even convince our teachers to show it at school.

I am SO looking forward to the day the headlines say: "New Bush space program: "Landing on the sun"" Especially if Bush decides to tag along... :thumb:

For the whole "Stop the movie" thing I wouldn't have suspected anything else, from what i hear Buena Vista (don't check the spelling on that) is refusing to release it. But I'm confident that you'll be able to get it if you want it :ownage:

Perhaps someone might explain this to me... and I know I'm going out on a limb with my wings clipped on this one... but what is it with all the Bush-bashing?  Besides the "conventional wisdom" (questionable at best) we hear from the Democrats, etc, I'd like to know why it is that nothing this man does is ever acceptable to some people.  Now don't assume for a minute I'm defending Bush, but I would like to know this.  Besides the war, the Patriot Act, his inability to speak flawlessly in public, what policies has he enacted that invite such fierce opposition?  Also, in hindsight, if any OTHER leader were in office at the time, would you expect them to have reacted differently?  If so, how?  If we're going to bash the decisions of this man, let's hear the alternatives or what SHOULD have been done instead, since hindsight is so clear and easy to apply.

Is this dislike rooted in any sort of logic that goes past "I hate the man" or "I hate the man's political party"?  Frankly I find this all a very disturbing trend, where decisions made as far as who will command the most powerful military in the world, and lead the most powerful nation in the world, are reduced to petty party politics and blind dislike and hatred.  If emotions are going to rule the election in November then all I can say is don't piss and moan if what you get instead fails to meet your expectations since clearly "anything is better than Bush" seems to be the order of the day.  I had hoped that people would have grown past hearkening to every Mark Anthony that comes along and instead would have learned to use their wits by now.

Its very simple phoenix is cultural warfare. George W Bush is from texas his western whitehouse is a ranch and hes speaks with a twang. Nothing could possibly be more offensive to a efette pretentious manhattan or sanfransisco liberal. If it were as simple as his inabiliy to speak perfectly in public then the democrats wouldnt have ever run grey davis for govenor of california who frankly cant get through a single sentence without making an ass of himself.

If all the Bush-bashing you see stems from personal hatred (as opposed to policy-based hatred), you have been seeing the world through filtered lenses.

Of course, the warmongering and the Patriot Act would be the main cause of hatred for him. That much is already obvious.

Other than the war... I'd say it's because of his crusader mentality, which extends to many domestic policies. Examples include his handling of stem-cell research, and packing the federal courts with extreme right-wingers. Simply put, he is an ideologue. Him and his administration put together.

That, and he completely botched the handling of the economy, leaving millions jobless and blah blah blah...

There is a plethora of reasons to especially hate Bush. Not just say, "he's an unelected monkey."

Oh, and I know Dennis Kucinich (Here I go again... ;) ), for one, would not have done any warmongering on Iraq in the first place, nor would he respond so belligerently (and unfocused) to terrorist attacks. But that's only because he's the polar opposite of Bush.
As for anyone else, notably Kerry, I'd say they wouldn't take as belligerent tactics as Bush.

P.S. - I do, indeed, want to see Farenheit 911, and Disney canning it makes me want to see it even more. Michael Moore can be pretty witty when he's not being completely blunt. See any of his movies, for example, Roger and Me.

I don't know if i'm logged on.  I assume i am.  *BogoJoker

OK, Great posts so far.
Rebuttle for Phoenix:

1) I think this reason is all too obvious.  Bush is not a POPULAR president because he didn't win the POPULAR VOTE.  Hahaha, haha,  ;)   That was just to funny to pass up.  But take that into account.

2) USA went from the largest surplus in history to the largest debt in history and I'm not seeing any improvement of our economy.

3) I was gonna mention stem cell research.  He limited its potentiel.  It offers the possibility of incrediable UNKNOWN things!!! Spooky.

4) What exactly is a "compassionate conservative?"  That question has been asked so many times that It made me HATE this so called "compassionate conservative" who we have to ask what he is!!  I'm not a political guy but I have heard this question countless times.

5) What else...  You notice that Bush has taken so much vacation time??  I rember reading that he has taken an unPRECIDENTED (almost un-presidented, teeheeehee I'm getting good at these) amount of time.  Espcially being that we are in a crisis.  Personally I thought we were in the middle of a WAR and my country's leader was taking a month off in Camp David.  Which leads me into another thing: Anyone watch the TV show 24?? David Palmer the president in that.  Great show!!!

Ahh good.  Finally getting some reasons out in the open.  Now let the debate ensue, if anyone wishes it.  I'll sit back and calmly observe.

Its easy to declare a budjet surplus when you instate the biggest tax increase in american history its not so easy to maintain one when you lower taxes.  This "budget surplus" the democrats keep talking about should never have been declared to begin with since the goverment was still trillions of dollars in debt. The "surplus" was only the result of over taxing not good budgeting.

True true.

Why does America countinue ignoreing its National Debt???
I would rather we pay-off our debt than spend COUNTLESS billions on the war in Iraq.

Overtaxing might help us out in the long run.

Not exactly taxing, but one good idea to overcharge for a benefit:
I agree with the idea to standardize gas prices at $3.00 a gallon and use the extra money to fund research programs to ween the world (well, in this case, America) off gas.  Hybrid cars, VEGTABLE OIL CARS, maybe even alcohol powered!!!  They are all possible and America is still ignoring this and making very small efforts in these fields.  Think how quickly money could be raised if all of America was paying 3 bucks for their gas.  Maybe i'm too young and naive but I feel this is a freaking brillent idea.

Pheonix: Keep commenting.  Reading your yellow text is always fun and riviting.  I admire your grammer and points.  I admire just about everyone's grammer on these forums!  -_-

:offtopic:
You admire the grammar? Looks like you've been hanging out with illiterates on fora too long ;]
I prefer proper grammar and spelling (like in grammar, and Phoenix)!
(sorry, just couldn't resist - too tempting - no way to control correction-urges :))
:offtopic:

Your politics sound so complicated!

(I'm living in England by the way)

It must be because theres so many people get to vote on the same thing.

Over here we only get white middle class males to vote for, all from the same area of the country. we have no equivilent to texas etc. :wall:

I suppose I should throw some facts on the table to balance this debate a bit.

There are two factors concerning the generation of tax money for the government.  The first is by tax rate, the second is tax revenue.  I'm sure everyone knows the old economics lesson of supply and demand?  Let's simplify this a moment.  Say you are selling popcorn.  If you price it too low, the demand will be high but you'll not make enough money because you can't keep up.  If you price it too high, demand will fall off and you'll not make enough money because you're not selling enough.  The same goes with taxes.  Lower taxes spur economic growth and increased revenue.  As more companies can retain more capital they can expand and increase their earnings, thereby increasing overal revenue.  High taxes choke economic growth because companies are left with less money to use to grow with, so net revenues will be lower.  There is a balance point in both of these situations, where the price or tax rate is at the point where both curves intersect, and you achieve the optimal rate of revenue.

The problem with the 1990's goes beyond high taxes.  I'm sure everyone's heard of Enron right now, as well as Tyco, among other things?  For those who would jump so quickly to say "BUSH'S FAULT!" on Enron I invite you to take a history lesson and do your homework before pointing fingers.  When was Enron making its money?  During the 1990's.  Same with Tyco.  In fact, it was the SEC under Bush's watch that caught a great number of large firms cooking their books and overstating their earnings.  The entire "Clinton Economy" was nothing but a corporate LIE.  They were ripping off the people by ripping off the government, and they got away with it until the SEC caught them red handed.  This had been going on for a decade, and is the fault of no president.  Nor, I might add, is the economy of the 1990's the credit of any president.  The Federal Reserve and SEC have more to do with economic success or failure, along with the legislature, than the President has.  If you want to credit Clinton with the "booming 1990's economy" then also "credit" him with turning a blind (or ignorant, whichever was the case) eye toward the criminal activities of Enron, Tyco, and the like under his watch.  Let's be fair here, and give the bad with the good.

As for the national debt, let's put some things in perspective.  Take the US national debt and compare it to the GDP of the entire country.  The rate is around 2%~3%.  Personal debt is much higher than that, somewhere between 15%~20% on average.  So if you want to compare debts the Federal Government is actually better off than the country's citizenship at controlling debt, and that's considering how wasteful the government is with spending, which, of course brings up the next point.

Spending.  This is where we can really start making cuts into the national debt if you want to get debt hawkish.  If 90 billion for Iraq is expensive, then let's take a look at a $400 billion Medicare prescription drug entitlement that nobody seems to want, but was in my opinion an attempt at placating Democrats and vote buying from the senior citizen crowd by Dubya.  Remember Medicare started out as being a $7 billion a year entitlement and now the cost of standard Medicare has skyrocketed faster than inflation ever thought to push regular prices of goods.  Now consider how much this prescription drug bill will cost in a decade when pharmaceutical costs keep spiraling upward!  If you want to cut the national debt I suggest start looking at these kinds of wasteful social programs and giving some the axe instead of wanting to raise taxes.  As for cutting military spending... wIth the world in constant turmoil I think it would be foolish to cut the military back at this point in time, especially when I'm hearing complaints about not even having enough .223 ammunition to handle the current operations.  My logic on this is simple:  You don't move into a bad neighborhood and sell your guns so you can buy Twinkies for the kids.

The problem is that the current political party system hinges on scare tactic rhetoric.  Anyone (from either party) who might want to cut spending on social programs runs into a stone wall.  If you're a Democrat you can't because it goes against the party line.  If you're a Republican you get shouted down BY the Democrats with lines such as "They want to take your Social Security!  They want to take your Medicare!  They want to take the food out of your children's mouths! (welfare)"  For those people who have become dependant on those social programs they are necessary to survive, so they'll always be opposed to them being cut back.  The problem is the way the laws are written you can't GET OFF those programs once you are on them.  I have friends on public assistance, and friends of those friends, and  anything they do to try to make it on their own they get punished for.  Social programs should be a safety net, not a fishing hook, and that's what they've become.  Instead of helping people get back on their own feet, they're strung up and hung out to dry.  There's only one reason I can see for this sort of legal entanglement - to keep the poor in their place, and dependant upon the government dole, so they can be an assured voting block for those who would use them to maintain control and power.  On the other hand, you have corporate interests who lobby on their own because they wield their own influence and power.  The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer and have to stay that way.  This has been the case for thousands of years, and it's no different today even if things are more complex than it was in the feudal days in Europe during the 13th century.  In the end it's always the common man who loses, no matter who is in power.

My point in all this is that it is extremely difficult under the current party system to maintain ANY fiscal sanity in the government for the simple fact that the system, as it exists now, only serves to perpetuate itself.  This constant class warfare and partyline warfare goes from one stalemate to another, with neither side maintaining absolute dominance, and if they ever do dominate, the people will ALWAYS be dissatisfied with the leadership, so the balance will pendulum back the other way.  In the end the only ones running the show are the economic powerhouses and mega-corporations since they're the source of the cash that keeps the entire mechanism at work, and as long as it works to their best interests all the finger pointing, blameshifting, and posturing isn't going to change a damned thing.

Whoa.

(speechless)