Help me out - were any one F911's facts proven to be lies?

I had a long and puke-worthy discussion with a freeper at a gathering last night (as I always seem to do lately).

He insisted, with lots of others agreeing, that Farenheit 911 was all lies and that Michael Moore's lies have been long-proven.

I insist that not one thing in the movie has been proven to be false.

I know this has been discussed to death a few months ago, but I need some facts to go back to this asshole and prove to him that he is wrong.

Can anyone help a sister out?

for anyone who could prove anything in the movie was false. To date, nobody has collected.

And if anybody did find something, the right wing would be howling to high heaven.

comments. May I use it on my blog and boards?

All true. It's the old: can't prove a positive just a negative... and no one has proven a negative.

lied about.

Sounds to me that they are using the same tactics that Sean Hannity uses. He just sits there while a Liberal Democrat is talking and over talks them stating, "That's a lie . . . it's not true." However, he never backs it up with anything.

As far as I know, the movie pointed out the facts as they stood.

You should have asked them why they continue to believe a man and a party that tells them what happened, and pretty much what they want to hear, instead of believing what they see in front of their own eyes? These people have selective sight, memory, and hearing.

It's hard for them to realize that they might be the ones who are wrong.

family cartel, the idea that Bush knew, that Iraq was a great place before the US got there, etc. etc.

I was outnumbered about ten to one last night. I try but I just get so goddamned frustrated with people then I end up seething and don't feel like staying around.

I am alienating people all of the time and it makes me sad but I just can't help myself. It pushes my button.

Edit:

They seem to be just spewing out the Hannity/Rush mantra.
They have NOT seen the movie, nor will they.
They hate Michael Moore with a passion.

"Iraq was a great place before the US got there"

MM did not say Iraq was a "great place." He showed clips of Iraqis playing with their children in a park. He was (in my opinion) trying only to show that the Iraqis were humans, people who love their children and lead a normal life with wants and needs not so different from ours.

From what I'm reading, there are 100, 000 civilians dead, no infrastructure, looting, insurgents, cities demolished, people returning to find homes leveled. Prior to our attack (we didn't just "get there" - it was an invasion) they lived with a leader that many didn't like. But they were able to lead normal lives. Was this huge civilian destruction necessary to depose a leader?

They're more interested in "pushing your buttons" than they are in having a debate. They want to make you angry, because they are angry. Their retoric is hollow, and if they ever stripped away the emotionalism and dealt with the facts, they'd see the truth. And they wouldn't like it.

So remember - stay cool!

Tell them you're not prepared to waste your time debating under such ludicrous circumstances.

He and his wife love Bush. They stay willfully ignorant about everything. Don't read newspapers, tv news, nothing. But they'll ask me a question, I'll try to give a neutral or factual answer, and they tell me I'm wrong. I want to scream "IF YOU ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ASKING"?

It's enough to make a crazy man nuts.

... that's the term I've been using, and it just presses all my buttons at once.

If someone is ignorant, that's one thing, but if you refuse to learn from the evidence all around you, that's willfully ignorance.

It's a long term, tho, and it's hard for some people to understand. Stupid is shorter and easier.

They listen to Rush/Hannity - Point out they are NOT thinking for themselves and don't back down to their whiny protestations.

They have NOT seen the movie, nor will they - This is why "conservatives" are usually stupid people. You can point out the obvious idiocy, and don't back down when they scream how they are persecuted by commie-pinko-atheist-fag-intellectual-libruls. Keep the focus on THEIR hypocrisy, cowardice and cognitive dissonance.

They hate Michael Moore with a passion - Tell them to channel their hate into action on the battlefield in Iraq. Offer them free rides to the recruiter the next day. You might want to get them talking tough about killing ragheads, THEN tell 'em to put up or shut up. I especially enjoy doing this to cowardly conservatives. As war rages on, you can later BLAME THEM for not helping out our military, thus causing us to lose, more casualties, etc.

Remember, they work especially best as a group, so it will be hard for you to break through. Therefore, I recommend disengaging from political conversations with them (if they are friends you want to keep) or go full attack mode and rip them new assholes. For the latter, you must be prepared to stay on the offense the whole time, especially since you are outnumbered.

ganged up on. So it takes 10 of them to beat 1 of you down. Typical mob atmosphere. I bet there are others that believe the way you do, but are afraid to speak out against the mob.

I'm tired of their bullying attitudes.

Like on CSPAN this morning, Connie, the host for today, read an article that Dr. James Dobson had made statements regarding (I think) 12 senators. He threatened them that if they did ANYTHING to block any supreme court justices that Bush appointed that when the 2006 elections roll around, that the "Christians" would vote them out like Daschle was voted out.

I'm amazed by "Christians" these days. I always thought I was a "Christian"; however, I just never felt the need to shout it from the highest hills around. If they are what the "Christians" are about today, I guess I'm not a "Christian" because they are full of hate for anyone who disagrees with them, they threaten people, they think killing abortion doctors is "Justifiable homicide." Jerry Falwell stands behind his pulpit every Sunday and talks about how he would not give a Democrat a drink a teaspoon of water, even if they were dying of thirst. He calls NOW the National Organization of Witches. He calls upon his members to vote "Christian" not Republican or Democrat but Christian. Then he stands up there and says, "And if you do not understand what I mean, then you have a sack of rocks for brains." That is verbatim. I turn on his Old Time Gospel Hour every Sunday morning at 11 a.m. just to see if the man actually preaches. The majority of his time behind the pulpit is political. His politics should not be in his church and DEFINITELY not behind the pulpit. He uses God's name for his own agenda.

I do not understand why the Religious Right feel they won the election for Bush. I guess that is what Bush believes as well because he thinks he has a mandate. I believe statistics show that on average 12% of the voters are Evangelical Christians. There were 12% in 2000, 12% in 2004. So where is this mandate and why are these so-called Christians so puffed up that they think they can threaten people?

Sorry to rant but I cannot stand anyone who is suppose to be preaching the gospel of Christ stand up in a church and call people names, put down other people, blame other people for everything that is wrong, support a war of any kind. That is just to name a few.

I feel like I could explode sometimes just from their hypocrisy.

Some articles of interest.

<http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42161> -- So do we only help the Christians that were affected?

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/politics/01dobson.html> Dr. James Dobson's threats against senators.

when they claim "sorry, no money for your dem programs to help people".

undeniably a fact, from the gov itself. see bottom line

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/accessible/l5.htm

average family has 6O K in assets at retirement, {fact from aarp, ten years back... probably inflation ups that a bit, but bush attacks on the middle class probably lowered the cash just as much .. so now probably the same dollar figure }. Forty K in house value, only twenty in the bank.

Dont get off into peripheral facts.. Those in Faren movie are good facts, but not the really basic ones in the LW RW debate.... deal only with the most basic facts.

Like a tree, with leaves, the peripheral facts are millions.. but the basic roots are few. Peripheral fact arguments can go over millions of facts and take eternity.

US wealth is a basic fact, a good one to usse.

Most basic to dealing with freepers is "do you care if good people suffer"? If not, talk to someone else.. you will never convince an uncaring person of any pro-dem ideas.

Most freepers are a waste of your time. Deal only with fencesitters. You may convince some of them.. hardcore freepers,never. Freepers are freepers because they are "greed-sadist" personalities, as Freud put it. They love money and the sight of pain.

He's way to smart to lie, and certainly not going to walk into that trap. The burden of proof is not on you or MM, it's on the freepers who cry "LIE!"

Ask the freepers: With all the evidence right there on film clips, what is left to lie about? Ask them to actually name one lie in the film.

Better yet, ask them if they've even seen the movie...

Which lies were exposed? As soon as the movie came out Karl Rove sent his talking points out that it was all lies and propaganda. David Drier was on Bill Maher and said the movie was full of lies and someone asked him to name one and he couldn't. Then they asked him if he had seen the movie and he said no.

Yet he's always described as by the RW asshats as, Michael Moore, the disingenuous filmmaker who plays fast and loose with the truth.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

Everything he asserted in the movie is footnoted with the source there.

and bringing it over to the asshole today.

I think the neighborhood watch is going to be looking out for ME!

Declared false as a whole by MSM? Yes.

The book bush was reading is titled The Pet Goat, not My Pet Goat.

Other than that, he uses primary sources that his people checked out. As far as I know, there aren't any "lies" present in the film. Whenever you get into these arguments, I would suggest making sure they've seen the film, and ask them what they believed was infactual. I have a feeling that most freepers are in denial about some of these things.

that he "misrepresented" a newspaper headline regarding Gore winning FL. Gore did win FL, but the location of the headline might have been misleading.

What gets me is, since when are the republicans so concerned about facts and truth? Why don't they start fact-checking the administrations many claims, especially leading up to the Iraq war?

that's it. The article was in that paper, but not on the front page, which is how Moore depicted it in the movie.

The other 'lie' I heard about was the rally at the beginning of the movie - with Gore and his supporters - did NOT take place on election day.

Both of these are pretty minor. I don't find either one to be an out and out lie. I would think they are common practices in documentaries. I know I don't watch a documentary with the expectation that it is an EXACT representation of what occurrred. But then again, I am a lot smarter than most freepers.

And this has been my best argument when faced with the 'F9/11 is full of lies' accusation: "I take it you don't watch many documentaries. You don't seem too familiar with how documentaries are made."

That really does shut them freepers up.

items they can come up with in a 2 hour movie that details corruption & systematic lies & incompetence by Bush & his gang, they're in bad shape.

but these are the two that stand out in my memory. The others were along the same lines. Not really lies, but a misunderstanding of how a documentary is made.

As I recall, both the headline and the Gore rally w/ friends were part of a "fantasy sequence" of an alternate outcome, intended humorously, and therefor not represented as fact in any case.

Humor is lost on the trogs.

The freepers are not smart enough to see the humor.

nt

Make them START defending bush and his horible policies. Ask them the questions that are asked in the film.

DO NOT be put on the defensive. There is no need to defend this movie. When they say it's lies and propaganda, tell them that what comes out of the WH is lies and propaganda. The less you defend, the more you believe.

By making you defend, on some subtle level, they are making you question your beliefs instead of theirs.

George W. Bush and his admin are the ones that need their feet held to the fire. MM is a movie maker. W is supposed to be the leader of the free world. Big difference.

Moore and his movie are being attacked with the argument that it's unpatriotic to speak out against this president. We can't let them believe that.

So I tell them they need to be concerned about WHY Moore made his movie, that bush gave him all the material he needed, because to quote you "What comes out of the WH is lies and propaganda"

i am on the OFFENSIVE with ANYONE giving any quater to these CRIMMINALS even here on DU :bounce:

peace

They had it for a month, never watched it. When I questioned about it, I was told that it was full of lies and biased. Really? You haven't even watched it! They didn't need to watch it. Right wing MSM had told them everything they needed to know.

obligation to prove that "it's lies?" :shrug:

the Bin Laden family was first in line flown out of the USA to placate the Saudi royals. I think those family members may have tried to warn our gov't about something, so they rushed them to Saudi to keep them hushed up easier.

I remember it turned out that Richard Clark gave that order and not Bush.

would you say. Anyone? Anyone?

Even the parts where there is video of Bush or his friends doing or saying something enraging or stupid. It was all clever overdubs and hollywood magic. Don't believe your lying eyes.

...MICHAEL MOORE IS A BIG FAT STUPID WHITE MAN (or some such idiocy). He said the book insists that most of the news footage in FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is shown out of context.

I replied, "What's out of context about a dead Iraqi baby with its arms blown off? Surely, there's not a context in which the author of your book finds that acceptable?"

My co-worker, who hasn't seen the film, had no rebuttal. Go figure! :shrug:

side is saying about it.

They made a whole movie to refute it, but all they really could refute was a news headline. They couldn't refute anything major. On Michaels website is also proof to back up all his claims. Print them out and keep a pile in your car to hand out next time

They interview people like Zell Miller and Ann Coulter to refute Moore, as if they are trustworthy, unbiased, and objective sources.....

wargames, specifically Vigilant Warrior, that were under way on 9-11. Research them yourself beforehand. Then ask about Ptech, the Saudi software company with FAA and intell agency access, see in the archives at madcowprod.com by Daniel Hopsicker. These are undisputable FACTS that your freeper friend will have to explain away. Then read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert of FromTheWilderness.com

Looks like NORAD did a 'standdown' that day.

And remember, Bush hit the 'trifecta' on 9-11 ! His little joke, not mine.

To my mom(a lifelond liberal Democrat) and me(a very independant independant). http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/
I realy dont want to believe anything he says though. Can someone help me to debunk him?

When one fights a pig, one must remember that both of you will get dirty and only the pig will be happy about that.

Tell curtis to come over to DU and post. His lonely partisan blogging isn't worth a click. Here on DU he'll get an audience.

The only thing that is questionable in that movie is the video of the laughing/smiling Iraqi children pre-invasion. Moore should have just left it out but it is his movie.

I asked my dad, who did not vote for * but defends him as if he did, what he thinks of James A. Baker's law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia against the 9/11 families. The response I got was SILENCE. I bring it up in every debate and win on that point alone. Game over.

you want to check it out for yourself

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

but honestly if this clown can't cover his bases with fact, there's really no point in arguing with him. Unless both people bring more than talking points to the table, it's just a tastes great less filling nonsense, and your freeper friend seems to come up a little short.

to Randi Rhodes during his interview with her.

She stated that she hated the bashing of him and Hillary all of the time. The outright lying from the right. The cruelty of some of their lies and why they continue to keep bashing them.

Clinton said he looked at it this way (not verbatim but close), "When people are constantly attacking someone's character, calling them names, telling lies about them, and they are trying to convince others these things are true, because they cannot stand and have a civil debate on the issues and win. They know they are wrong and cannot back up their own statements with facts; however, they will not give credit where credit is do, so their only way to try to beat you is to defer everyone elses' attention against your short comings whether they are true or not."

They know that if they stood and had a fair debate they would lose, so this is why the Republicans are ALWAYS on the attack. Never about the issues that matter, but BS coming out of their mouths all of the time.

You know how Clinton can put things so eloquently. I hope I came across pretty clear with what he said.

There will never be another . . . UNTIL . . . 2008 when Hillary runs and kicks REPUBLICAN ASS out of the White House. But in 2006, we have to get this majority turned around. They are being a bunch of bullies and enough is enough. Of course, if we cannot get the voting system where it is working honestly, there will never be another Democrat elected President.