The *BETTER* Fahrenheit 9/11 thread.

[Betheny]

You guys thought you could avoid this subject, but alas, I am here to disrupt the harmony that is ignorance.

I saw this opening night, and found that while it is biased and an expression of an opinion, a lot of it made sense. And the entire thing was pretty eye-opening.

Discuss as you will.

Oh... and Artha, you didn't come and stalk me at the theater. :( I even wore a slinky shirt just for you... :howudoing:

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Maimara]

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Maimara]

[gcstader]

I went and saw it the other night also. Whether you agree with moore or not, I think everyone should check this film out.

~Greg

[Betheny]

Originally posted by gcstader
I went and saw it the other night also. Whether you agree with moore or not, I think everyone should check this film out.

~Greg

Three cheers for you.

I did see some of it and think, "That was taken out of context," but regardless of that, the majority of the film struck me as true.

[Artha]

Oh... and Artha, you didn't come and stalk me at the theater. I even wore a slinky shirt just for you...

You just didn't see me.

:smug:

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Artha

Oh... and Artha, you didn't come and stalk me at the theater. I even wore a slinky shirt just for you...

You just didn't see me.

:smug:

How could I miss you? All you have do do is spot the hair... it's probably not that hard to miss. :hump:

[Latrinsorm]

Did Bush's shirt/tie abruptly change colors? If no, then I'll give it a look.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Did Bush's shirt/tie abruptly change colors? If no, then I'll give it a look.

No... it didn't.

Did you know that when the second plane hit the WTC and the Pentagon, he just sat there? Didn't do anything.. just sat there? Looking like a complete idiot?

[Artha]

WTF do you want him to do, run over there and be all like "WTF d00d!?"

I'd say a lot of people looked like complete idiots when they heard.

[Back]

Its grossed more than "White Chicks" while playing in one third of the theatres. My hope for the American public improves.

Saw it Friday night. Everyone should see it and make up their own minds about it. There is some moving stuff in there. While it is anti-Bush regime, I dare anyone to say its not pro-America.

When Bush was running for 2000 I remember thinking how Dan Quayle-like he was. I had hoped he wasn't. I gave him a chance. My doubts have been realized. The man has absolutely no business being President of the United States.

Whats worse, if god forbid something happens to him, we'll be stuck with Cheney. Even if you don't like Kerry, that alone is reason enough to vote the Bush-regime out.

Everyone go out and register to vote.


[Cross posted because this thread is better]

[Betheny]

<Backlash's post>

:2beers:

You know it.

In response to Artha... I would expect when a secret service agent goes up to the President of the United States of America, and says, "Sir, the United States is under attack"... the President would take action instead of just sitting there with his thumb up his ass.

[Mistomeer]

I saw it Friday night. I didn't find it all that informative. Most of it, if you keep up with the News, isn't too revealing. I think everyone should see it, because the majority of America, apparently, doesn't know or doesn't care about the issues it addresses. Moore's use of footage of leaders before going on camera was just dumb. Every single person looks like an idiot before they go on TV. Also, Bush stated to the 9/11 commission, I believe it was, that the reason he didn't get up and leave the school immediately was because he didn't want to cause people to panic. Moore never mentioned that. It's a fairly typcial Moore piece of work, where he lies by omission to push his personal agenda.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Backlash

Everyone go out and register to vote.


Thanks, I did register and will be voting for Bush.

The liberal regime needs to stop telling me what movies to see.

[Betheny]

There's still inarguable facts presented in it that can't be ignored. I don't watch the news much, and I was young when 90% of Bush's affiliations with the Saudis were in play... so that was all news to me.

Having it put together in one piece of work is a pretty good thing. But I do agree with you, it's biased and opinionated. But... So is the media, so to me, it doesn't discredit the film any more than the local news.

[peam]

I think the per-screen average for the film was roughly $25,000, which is phenominal.

I went and saw it last night at the only theatre in a two hour radius with the balls to show it. Needless to say, it was quite an experience. I was lucky enough to get tickets to the 7:45 show, which I'm sure eventually sold out. It was the first movie I'd been to in forever where I actually had to wait in a long line both for tickets and to get into the theatre.

As for those touting the fact that the film carries an agenda... Well, no shit. And for those claiming that the film is nothing but lies, prove it. While it's easy to dismiss the film because of its obvious slanted viewpoint, I don't think it's possible to watch it and not come away with at least some thoughts similar to "Wow, our current president is an incompetant prick." in your head.

[imported_Kranar]

<< I saw this opening night, and found that while it is biased and an expression of an opinion, a lot of it made sense. And the entire thing was pretty eye-opening. >>

The fact that it is very biased and one-sided is, in my opinion, what makes it a very powerful and important documentary.

**ALL** good documentaries are INCREDIBLY biased and one sided. To make a documentary that doesn't have a solid, strong, thesis would be pointless, entirely pointless. Infact I don't think I've seen any documentary that didn't take a stance on an issue and support that stance for an hour or two in a persuasive manner.

The stronger the thesis, the stronger people can either agree or disagree with it. In the end, that's the most important thing a film can do; get people to agree and disagree, provoke discussion, get people to think.

And yeah, as was mentioned, this is an anti-Bush film, but it's a very poetic and patriotic film.

[Hulkein]

You already think that though peam, so does backlash, Maimara, and most of the people telling everyone to see it.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Hulkein
You already think that though peam, so does backlash, Maimara, and most of the people telling everyone to see it.

So if I tell you to stop sucking cock, does that mean you'll do it just to spite me?

[peam]

For serious, I don't think I've talked to a single critic of the film who has actually went to a screening.

Until you go see the documentary and can pose an argument other than the typical "MICHAEL MOORE IS A LIAR AND FAT!!!!!1" diatribe, kindly shut the trap.




.... now watch this drive.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by peam]

[Hulkein]

I was referring to the leaving the theatre thinking he is an incompetent prick part.

It's impossible to say that an unbiased person will leave the theatre thinking that, when you (peam), already thought that before seeing the movie.


The movie is an excellent rallying point for all liberals and vehement anti-Bush people to rally around. I give Moore credit for that.. It's ashame (for Moore and those who think like him) it won't effect the polls or the election much.

PS - Peam, I never called him fat nor did i say he lied in this movie once. He has lied and deceived in other 'documentaries' so I won't be paying to see another one of his. So why tell me to shut my trap?

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Hulkein]

[Betheny]

You know... I think this is a mistake on your part. Because the film is not meant to change people's opinions. Just like you said, people are going to think what they already think, love Bush or hate him.

I wouldn't call it a rallying point for Democrats. And to be honest, I don't think the film itself will affect polls or the election... I think Bush has dug his own grave. Movie or no movie.

[peam]

As for the "lies" in Bowling, most were debunked.

He took every point made on bowlingfortruth.com and countered it on his website. I'll see if I can find the link, when I'm not busy.

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Backlash

Everyone go out and register to vote.


Thanks, I did register and will be voting for Bush.

The liberal regime needs to stop telling me what movies to see.

An example of spin if I ever saw one. I tell everyone to go vote, then get blasted for it? The PC can be so amazingly bizzare sometimes...

[imported_Kranar]

<< .... now watch this drive. >>

Heh, I can see this quote catching on.

[Betheny]

Actually I prefer where he fucked up the quote at the very end of the movie. "Fool me once, shame on you..." I forget the rest. That was good.

[Valthissa]

"Until you go see the documentary and can pose an argument other than the typical "MICHAEL MOORE IS A LIAR AND FAT!!!!!1" diatribe, kindly shut the trap."


but Michael Moore is a rich fat liar. He's built a career on on it. he also makes great movies.

my opinion of him as person is based on personal experience. He was at a video software distribution convention in las Vegas that I attended in 1998. He signed autographs, a met with small groups to discuss the art of making a documentary.
He projected the image of a man who would rather be getting a root canal without anesthesia than talking to the people that actually sold his product.


oh, for one small lie. The story of Bush's 42% vacation time includes weekends (this was explained in the article in the WaPo that is the genesis of the statement) since 29 of all of our time is weekends....

..well you get the idea. Bush took too many vacations for my taste anyway ( I don't get 13% of my time for vacations) but Moore deliberately omitted relevant facts from the source material.

Moore still makes very entertaining movies.

one other thing, 'shut the trap' is not the most cordial way to invite people to discuss opinions different than your own. I assume your parents taught you better and you have just forgotten.

C/Valth

;)

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Valthissa]

[Hulkein]

Not to mention he is a friend (in an online sense) and told me to shut my trap over something I didn't even say over politics.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Not to mention he is a friend (in an online sense) and told me to shut my trap over something I didn't even say over politics.

Sob into your milk and sop up the tears with your snot rag.

Pussy.

Well, I wont say that I have seen the movie. I do not plan to give this diva money.

I do ask though that those pounding thier fists saying that this movie is full of facts, and hence can not be disputed to read this article.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
It may enlighten you on what bias can make you overlook.

If you question the motives of the man who wrote it, I suggest you look him up and see who he is. He belongs on the same side as Howard Dean.

[Hulkein]

Hahahaha..

Brush your teeth.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Hahahaha..

Brush your teeth.

BUT HE WAS MEAN TO YOU AND HE TOLD YOU TO SHUT UP THAT'S SO MUCH WORSE

[Hulkein]

Caps lock didn't make that any funnier.

My point was that a lot of people who are fans of Moore and anti-Bush claim that polarization is a big problem in America today.

I was just pointing out I was insulted over something I didn't even say, by someone who is a big fan.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Caps lock didn't make that any funnier.

My point was that a lot of people who are fans of Moore and anti-Bush claim that polarization is a big problem in America today.

I was just pointing out I was insulted over something I didn't even say, by someone who is a big fan.

:jerkit:

[Back]

Originally posted by The Edine
Well, I wont say that I have seen the movie. I do not plan to give this diva money.

I do ask though that those pounding thier fists saying that this movie is full of facts, and hence can not be disputed to read this article.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
It may enlighten you on what bias can make you overlook.

If you question the motives of the man who wrote it, I suggest you look him up and see who he is. He belongs on the same side as Howard Dean.

Christopher Hitchens diatribe is opaqued by the profundity of his intentional obscure terminology. I extrapolated it as a lament. To quote...


Originally posted by Christopher Hitchens at The Source (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723)...
To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious.

The pompisity of this statement is almost as laughable as the irony in it. Allow me to present you with a not so obscure word, Mr. Hitchens, its Democracy.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Backlash]

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Backlash]

Backlash did you read the entire article or just the preface where the Writer makes his vies on michael moore known in a less than elequent way?

[Back]

No, I didn't read the whole thing. Its tedious and stupid.

Spin and grasp at straws all you want. It won't change what everyone already knows even before this movie came out.

Sometimes it may be better to open your horizons and see both sides to a story. I am interested in the movie, but do not wish to give money to Mr. Moore. I will see the movie one day when I can rent it for free along with a new release at Blockbuster.

[Betheny]

OK, I don't get where you're coming from, Edine. You say that we should open our minds to the 'other side' of the story, right? But isn't that side of the story what we've had force-fed to us since 9/11, or even earlier than that? :shrug:

I believe from what I have taken of the movie that Moore is quick to accuse President Bush for getting the Bin Laden family out of the US shortly after the attacks.

You have previously touted Clarke as a honest fish among sharks. Why then did Mr. Moore not present the fact that Clarke has stated that he is the only one who allowed them to leave the country, And I quote.

Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx
That is the site I took off of the article if you wish to fact check the quote.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by peam
As for the "lies" in Bowling, most were debunked.

He took every point made on bowlingfortruth.com and countered it on his website. I'll see if I can find the link, when I'm not busy. From what I heard, he ignored the most important parts of the people criticizing him. You're talking about the Wacko Attackos thing?
Originally posted by Kranar
To make a documentary that doesn't have a solid, strong, thesis would be pointlessSo... you're anti-Moore, right?

I'm on Edine's side here. I'll see it when it's free. Same goes for Bowling for Columbine, actually, and I should probably be checking my video store a little more often.

[Betheny]

I just can't wait to hear what Maddox has to say about it.

[Back]

Originally posted by The Edine
I believe from what I have taken of the movie...

See it then I'll finish reading your posts about it.

Originally posted by Maimara
OK, I don't get where you're coming from, Edine. You say that we should open our minds to the 'other side' of the story, right? But isn't that side of the story what we've had force-fed to us since 9/11, or even earlier than that? :shrug:

I have been reading up on both views, In an attempt to understand what is going on better. Although I agree with what President Bush is doing now, and my actions have proven that, I find many things that he as done on his social agenda against my views. They mostly do not come up here in debate, due to the fact that most of them at one time were considered Democratic issues, which have now been pushed through by President Bush.

If I could pick up the movie for free I would gladly watch it today, but at this point in time it is not possible for me to do so. I only am left to read up on reviews of the movie, which this was one that I found very interesting, considering the source of who wrote it.

[GSTamral]

Well, I think the movie did open up some eyebrows. Mine personally were opened, but perhaps not as the director intended. I found out quite clearly that there is an extremist liberal for every extremist conservative. The creator of this movie uses half-truths and innuendo constantly in an effort to portray conservatives as evil self serving people. Not just the Bush white house, but conservatives in general.

When Michael Moore gives away the money he made from the film to the causes, as opposed to merely profiteering from them, then perhaps I will elevate him to the same level of GSTamralry and shitheadedness that I put Rush Limbaugh. Until then, he is at a level far lower than Rush could ever sink to, and everything his movie stands for is supported by a foundation of bullshit.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by GSTamral]

[Edited on 8-20-2004 by Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by The Edine
I believe from what I have taken of the movie...

See it then I'll finish reading your posts about it.

So you deny that that is one of the major issues he brings up Backlash?

[Back]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Well, I think the movie did open up some eyebrows. Mine personally were opened, but perhaps not as the director intended. I found out quite clearly that there is an extremist liberal for every extremist conservative. The creator of this movie uses half-truths and innuendo constantly in an effort to portray conservatives as evil self serving people. Not just the Bush white house, but conservatives in general.

When Michael Moore gives away the money he made from the film to the causes, as opposed to merely profiteering from them, then perhaps I will elevate him to the same level of GSTamralry and shitheadedness that I put Rush Limbaugh. Until then, he is at a level far lower than Rush could ever sink to, and everything his movie stands for is supported by a foundation of bullshit.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by GSTamral]
That foundation, you would realize if you had seen the movie, is the rest of the 98% tax bracket of the people who pay a higher percentage AND have died to make America what it is.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Backlash]

[Edited on 8-20-2004 by Tsa`ah]

Backlash, did you have an answer to my previous post?

[Hulkein]

Backlash, did you get a tax break this year or no?

kthxnore

[Betheny]

Originally posted by The Edine
Backlash, did you have an answer to my previous post?

It was kind of incoherent... and a statement, no real question. What's there to answer?

Hmm, It is obvious to me, but perhaps that is because I asked it. I did not know you were backlash though Maimara.

I will restate it for your benefit.

Backlash avoided my comment on an obvious flaw in the logic of the movie. That flaw being that Moore makes it out to appear as if Bush is the one who allowed the Bin Laden family and all the others to leave the country. When In reality it was one of the current Democratic heroes, that being Mr. Clarke of counter-terroism, his book deal, and 9\11 commission fame. His own words say that It was he, Mr. Clarke, that authorized the quick exodus of the Bin Laden family members that were in this country.

Backlash then responded that I have not seen the movie so I do not know what I am talking about to paraphrase.
So I am asking him, as a person who has seen the movie, if Mr. Moore did in fact attempt to make it seem that Bush was the one who gave the okay for the bin laden family to leave America as soon as airspace was open to flights again.

[Gan]

Moore will not get my money to see his lame attempt at pushing his own liberal and over-emotional political agenda. I am a registered voter, I am a tax payer, and I am current in political events both local and national, additionally; I also consider my self an informed citizen. I just simply refuse to contribute my hard earned money to someone like that who makes blatant attempts to sway public opinion without allowing for both sides of the issue to be portrayed.

The freedoms that we hold so dear allow extremists like Moore to speak his mind about almost anything he wishes... and like Rush Limbaugh, there is a balance necessary to maintain perspective on both sides of the political spectrum. However, to simply watch his movie then yell from the rooftops all of the opinions Moore was pushing is the main reason why we still have an electorial college.

The more instances of extreme right and left side politics that emerge this election year, the more you will see the leading candidates trek towards the middle where their platforms become bland regurgitations of moderate America.

I guess the real question I have is what will be the response if a conservative extremist put forth the resources and made a one sided documentary about the next Democratic president, or God forbid Clinton?... not that he needs a movie made with his new book on the shelves. Will I go see it? Probably not if it is of the same educational caliber of the fecis (feces/thesis) that we're seeing pushed today.

What would I say to Moore? Give me both sides of the story and then give me enough credit to come up with my own conclusion, don't treat me like an idiot and tell me what I should think and expect me to accept it without a little research and knowledge on my own. Enjoy your 15 minutes, because I think you're not all that.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by The Edine
Hmm, It is obvious to me, but perhaps that is because I asked it. I did not know you were backlash though Maimara.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize this was a private conversation in a thread I started and that I wasn't welcome to discuss it.

Also, could I please be put on the mailing list that updates us as to who dies and who is made king? Thanks.

[Ilvane]

If you even went out and saw the movie, it's not an extremist view, it's actually quite eye opening.

I wasn't voting for Bush before, and I certainly still am not.:)

It's worth it to see the movie, and make up your own mind.

-A

Do you understand the question now though Maimara?

[Betheny]

Originally posted by The Edine
Do you understand the question now though Maimara?

No, I'm actually too pissed off at you to even think about having a civilized discussion with you.

Ilavine I posted a article about the movie earlier, since you've seen it why not read the article so you can see the other side...

Originally posted by Maimara

Originally posted by The Edine
Do you understand the question now though Maimara?

No, I'm actually too pissed off at you to even think about having a civilized discussion with you.

Well, considering the question was completely in context of the discussion Backlash and I were having, and simply having read the posts preceding it would have answered your question instead of requiring you to say that it was incoherent, I don't see why my response was any more\less combative than yours.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by The Edine]

[Back]

Moore is on 60 Minutes tonight. Don't even think they won't ask the tough questions.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by The Edine

Originally posted by Maimara

Originally posted by The Edine
Do you understand the question now though Maimara?

No, I'm actually too pissed off at you to even think about having a civilized discussion with you.

Well, considering the question was completely in context of the discussion Backlash and I were having, and simply having read the posts preceding it would have answered your question instead of requiring you to say that it was incoherent, I don't see why my response was any moreless combative than yours.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by The Edine]

I liked you better when you accepted that you were an idiot.

I bet you have really strong legs from riding that high horse though.

Why do you avoid the question Backlash?
Please if your going to insinuate that I am completely ignorant to what is in the movie at least give a honest answer.

When did I accept that I was a idiot? I'm afraid I also do not see how I am riding a high horse here. You are the one who was combative, and I responded, which would make us both at fault would it not?

[Betheny]

You make no sense whatsoever. Honey, using big words doesn't mean they make sense. This has nothing to do with who started using combative words. It's about you coming in here and telling us to read an article because you think it represents the other side of a story, and then you going off about how you won't go see the movie. So... if you won't do any research on it (I'm sorry, movie reviews don't count, they're not the end product, they're a biased opinion of it), then how can you expect me to take anything you say seriously on the subject? Come on.

[Back]

Originally posted by The Edine
Why do you avoid the question Backlash?
Please if your going to insinuate that I am completely ignorant to what is in the movie at least give a honest answer.

Partly because I have no idea what your question is, and mostly because you haven't seen it.

[Scott]

I'll never see this movie. I can't listen to someone who is SO far on one side, they refuse to believe anything on the other. They distort facts to make a point, knowingly omitting certain points so their point will make sense. Edine is a republican Michael Moore, which is why I try to ignore both of them.

[GSTamral]

Going towards the statements of a more moderate president, I think thats a bit of a false statement.

The general moving bias of the country has been towards fiscal conservativism but a more socially liberal culture.

I am a proponent of both, although while I am strongly fiscally conservative, I am only somewhat more moderate on social views than many others.

Whereas Rush Limbaugh is a conservative freak, Michael Moore is a borderline psycho in his views. That he would have access to all the facts and all the viewpoints of a federal investigation is absolutely ludicrous. That he would attempt to present it in the style of a documentary is even worse, especially without any other viewpoints than his own. I'm fucking sorry, but Michael Moore does not know what really happened. In fact, outside of a very small group of people in the White House, NOBODY does.

Michael Moore is today's equivalent of Goebels. He is nothing more. Those who fall under his lies and agenda are just as stupid and unwise as those who worship Rush. It's like a modern day liberal or conservative religion, each abundant with stupid fuck fanatics that employ whatever lies necessary to convince people that they are the way.

And we complain about extremist Muslims and Nazis. Maybe some of you should step back and realize how stupid some of the vantages truly are.

I'm not one to agree with Bush in his war on terror or Iraq. But to brainwash myself with this pile of horseshit is even worse.

[GSTamral]

<<<
You make no sense whatsoever. Honey, using big words doesn't mean they make sense. This has nothing to do with who started using combative words.
>>>

Beth, its extremely hard to take anything Edine says at face value. According to him, being an eye-doctors cashier/secretary at a walmart qualified him as part of the medical profession.

Personally, I would just consider him to be the type of person most conservatives really don't appreciate, simply because they quote articles and pieces that are just as biased as the ones they criticize.

It's like trying to reason with an eggplant.

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by The Edine
Why do you avoid the question Backlash?
Please if your going to insinuate that I am completely ignorant to what is in the movie at least give a honest answer.

Partly because I have no idea what your question is
Did Michael Moore make it seem as if PRESIDENT BUSH was the one who made the decision to allow the Bin Laden Family to lave the country so soon after the attacks on 9\11?

I hope the above is clear enough for you, it being the third time I have asked it.



and mostly because you haven't seen it.
Which is why I asked you.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by GSTamral
<<<
You make no sense whatsoever. Honey, using big words doesn't mean they make sense. This has nothing to do with who started using combative words.
>>>

Beth, its extremely hard to take anything Edine says at face value. According to him, being an eye-doctors cashier/secretary at a walmart qualified him as part of the medical profession.

Personally, I would just consider him to be the type of person most conservatives really don't appreciate, simply because they quote articles and pieces that are just as biased as the ones they criticize.

It's like trying to reason with an eggplant.

<33333333333333333333333!!!!!!!!!!

Instead of attacking me with your misconstrued ideas of the profession I currently hold why not take issue with what I put forward in relation to the topic?

[imported_Kranar]

<< Instead of attacking me with your misconstrued ideas of the profession I currently hold why not take issue with what I put forward in relation to the topic? >>

I suppose the reason is that you rarely put forth anything.

Debating with you is nothing more than Googling different articles and posting them going "Prove me (or more correctly, my article which I Googled) wrong."

Come up with some ideas and reflections of your own instead of always quoting someone elses ideas, and then you may notice a huge difference in the respect your opinion receives.

We're here, afterall, to discuss amongst one another, not to see who can find the best article on the internet and pass it off as our own opinion.

I asked people to read the article and then share their views. Instead I was attacked, so I don’t see what your point is Karnar.

As to googling, I read the article because I was interested in it, not because I typed anything into a web browser and had it pop up. You may or may not be surprised that I, in my free time tend to read up on political issues. That might be why I tend to have a formed opinion already on many issues.

www.Slate.msn.com happens to be a online magazine that addresses a lot of political issues as well as other things. Having read columns by Christopher Hitchens before and knowing his views on a lot of things I was amazed to see his name under the title of the article. After reading it and agreeing with it due to my already admittedly preconceived notions about Michael Moore and his agenda I decided to post it and suggest that others read it.

Does that explain well enough where why and how I found this specific article?

I also believe that often with people like Tamral for example, who somehow come up with numbers to make their points yet do not have any source to back it up is far worse than presenting a argument with a example or a source to back up your views. But that is how I look at things.


[Edited on 6-28-2004 by The Edine]

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I agree with Kranar. Someone needs burn cream.

On a related note.

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/05/googling_by_the.html

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Kranar


Come up with some ideas and reflections of your own instead of always quoting someone elses ideas, and then you may notice a huge difference in the respect your opinion receives.

We're here, afterall, to discuss amongst one another, not to see who can find the best article on the internet and pass it off as our own opinion.


While Edine can't put forth a coherent argument, doing what you suggest (and while you state what should be obvious it does bear repeating) seems to lead to the end of a thread.

My interpretation is that people tend enjoy watching car wrecks and food fights while on the internet, not reasoned discourse.

C/Valth

[GSTamral]

Because you never saw the movie Edine. You are posting with the perspective of articles written without ever having experienced it yourself.

What you are doing is akin to talking about how brutal the beaches of normandy were in WW2 because you saw "Saving Private Ryan". Or as stupid as creating a documentary about everything the Bush administration did during a crisis without having firsthand knowledge of anything.

Michael Moore is entirely full of shit in his portrayals and agendas. His film is nothing more than uncorroborated fictions. You are much the same way. As for my misconstrued ideas of your profession, perhaps you can clarify. You are no optometrist. In an eye doctors office, there are optometrists, and then there are non medical personel. They usually come in the form of cashiers, secretaries, and people who fit the glasses for people.

Unless you are a doctor, registered nurse, or legitimate SKILLED (means you have post-graduate skills) positions that are recognized by the AMA, you are not a member of the medical profession. That perspective is as stupid as saying because I receive stock and stock options every year, that I am a voting member of the board, and thus also qualified to make accounting decisions for other people.

You try to sound educated, and you truly do enjoy using large, cumbersome wording. But just because you can use more bigger words, does not make you acquiescent to a more erudited state of mind. If that's all you have to offer, then you are nothing more than Michael Moore from the other side. Either way, it leaves you being a jackass.

You are to politics what Xcalibur is to maturity.

[Edaarin]

Arguing with Edine => :banghead:

[Latrinsorm]

Taking potshots at Xcalibur is so 2 weeks ago. :nono:

[Numbers]

I don't really have any opinions on the movie, as I haven't seen it yet, and probably won't see it in the theaters. I'd rather not put more money into the guys pockets... if I do see it, I'll download it off of IRC, like a good American.

I have seen Bowling for Columbine, though, and while I feel that he had an important point to make, he didn't have to be so anti-American to do it.

That's the thing, though. His movies tend to be anti-American, but in what other country could you make a movie that lambasts your home country, get it published in that country, and make millions off of it?

In any case, I read this article about a film student who's trying to do the exact opposite of what Moore's trying to do... make a movie that shows why America is a great country, and to try to explain why Moore feels the way he does. The funny part? This film student does exactly what Moore does to his interview subjects (such as Heston and congressmen) to Moore himself... ambush him out of no where, unexpectedly, with loaded interview questions.

Moore barely acknowledged the guy, and started saying that it was all slander and libel.

Of course, the name of the kids movie is "Michael Moore Hates America."

As an amusing side-note: http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1970759&nav=168XODtA

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by 3704558]

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by The Edine

Did Michael Moore make it seem as if PRESIDENT BUSH was the one who made the decision to allow the Bin Laden Family to lave the country so soon after the attacks on 911?


My take on it, from having seen the movie, was that the Bush administration allowed the Bin Laden Family to leave the country after 9/11.

If you want to try and argue it, you're more than welcome to. If Bush didn't know, he's incompetent. Congratulations, you lose. If Bush wasn't the one that gave the orders, and thus he still didn't know, he's still incompetent. Also, he's the President, he could have just rejected it and had them picked up as material witnesses. If it wasn't someone from the Bush administration that got them out of the country, someone in the Bush administration had to know that they were leaving as all planes were grounded. So the administration at some point knew and let it slide. Bush let it happen. Moore didn't say he flew them all himself, but he's the boss and it happened on his watch.

My personal feeling is that the movie is typical of Michael Moore's style of lying by omission and presenting it as fact. It's just disappointing that Moore spent so much time depicting Bush as a corporate whore without spending much time drawing the same comparisons to Democrats, as they're just as bad.

[peam]

I don't think Michael Moore is anti-America at all. I'm pretty sure the man loves his country but doesn't agree with the current administration and some policies.

I'm the same way. I'd sacrifice anything, should my country's security actually be in danger, but I'm not about to rally behind an administration just because they're the ones leading America.

Loving your country is not equivelent to agreeing with and fully supporting its leaders.

[Scott]

Originally posted by peam

Loving your country is not equivelent to agreeing with and fully supporting its leaders.

No it's not. Everyone doesn't have to agree with the administration.

However the problem is that Michael Moore is willing to lie, omit the truth, and basically twist everything into his own viewpoint even though it's not what actually happened. That's a great way to show the current administration is nothing more then liars and cheats, when you are just as bad as them.

Michael Moore is no better then the liars in congress, and in the cabinet. He does the same damn thing to make his point look like the right one. He's lying scum himself.

[Back]

Sorry Edine, missed the first post you asked in.

No, I don't think it came out and said, or made it seem like Bush Jr. made the order personally.

Saying Moore hates America is so opposite of the truth its absurd. Saying his movie is all lies disrespects the good people he gives voice to. Yeah, real everyday people who sacrifice so much then get shit on for it.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
Saying his movie is all lies disrespects the good people he gives voice to. I'd be careful with your assessment of the people he gives voice to. I've heard claims (fairly substantiated ones, too) that he uses actors to portray "everyday folks" sometimes.

No matter who he's giving voice to, however, he's a liar. If that could be flashed on the screen before every presentation of a Michael Moore film, I would be happier.

[Numbers]

Originally posted by peam
I don't think Michael Moore is anti-America at all. I'm pretty sure the man loves his country but doesn't agree with the current administration and some policies.

One of the messages that I got from Bowling for Columbine is that Americans are murdering death-mongers who proudly carry handguns in their belts. There's parts in the movie where he's comparing the murder rates in America to other countries such as Japan, England, and Canada, stressing the fact that America's is several times higher. In fact, at one certain point, he was talking about a murder that occured in Canada, across the river from Detroit, and how murders in that part of Canada are so rare, and that the person who committed the crime was actually from Detroit.

There were other important messages in Bowling, definitely, such as responsible gun control and parenting and so on and so forth. But that message could have easily been put across without making America seem like a constant civil war zone.

As for not agreeing with the current administration and their policies, when has ANY administration had 100% support. I'm sure even the greatest presidents that have served had people who vehemently disagreed with their policies. True, I think that Bush Jr. is probably the worst president we've had in my generation, and I hope that Fahrenheit will do something to get him out of office.

In any case, I haven't seen Fahrenheit yet, so I don't know what type of image he's trying to splay upon America and Americans. I've read reviews and articles about the movie, though, and one thing that struck me as being repeated over and over is that in Moore's version of Iraq, there was nobody being tortured to death or being maimed for life or hanging from meat hooks in Hussein's jails, and that it was a peaceful, loveable place until America showed up and blew them all away. That's certainly not promising.

There's also the fact that Moore has called his documentaries entertainment and not truth.

I just don't put much faith in the guy, and I think it's a shame that people are going into this movie being ignorant of most of the stuff going around them, and then walk out of the movie preaching that what Moore said is factual gospel that we should all live our lives by. I know most of us aren't that stupid, but many people are.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by 3704558
There's also the fact that Moore has called his documentaries entertainment and not truth.


That's certianly not the word he used to describe his work in his Oscar speech. I think he used the word "nonfiction" several times, which is a bit different than "entertainment and not truth."

The guy is a liar, plain and simple. I'm not voting Bush, and I'm certianly not a Republican, but to try and claim he's anything but a liar is just silly. Lying by omission, misrepesenting the facts, taking quotes out of context, etc. is all lying. He lies in order to push his agenda. It's really that simple. The sad part is, he could just use facts and do his homework to get his point across.

[Kefka]

I doubt the intention of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to change the minds of who republicans vote for this coming election. It was to get the attention of the undecideds and many of those swing states, which it seems to be doing quite well. It's also getting many democrats to raise their voices and get out and vote, register to vote and become active in the future of this country.

I don't see where any of what he said were lies at all. Alot of the movie tells what most who kept up with politics already know, tho there were a few things I didn't know about.... I don't know what the hell Bush was thinking about in that classroom. Everything in his film were already deemed irrefutable facts. The only problem was the way he seems to drive the point on. Doesn't make them false even if it's over the top.

Moore slams both republicans and democrats in this movie. He slammed on the dems in the senate for not stepping up when 10 representatives challenged Bush's presidency. He slams Daschle for not being a strong enough leader among dems in the Senate. He also puts the spotlight on the Carlyle Group with both dems and republicans on it's board.

Having a voice is not being un-American. We're not cattle. He raised his voice because he loves America. With this film, I have alot more respect for him than I do for those who's really suppose to represent us in our government.

[imported_Kranar]

You know 3704558 , whatever that number may signify, your post is quite possibly the most honest and sincere criticism of Michael Moore I've read.

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Kranar]

[Chadj]

There's also the fact that Moore has called his documentaries entertainment and not truth.

He refuses to call it truth, because it is his opinion. He believes his opinion to be true, but it is still just his opinion, and therefore not truth. But he claims the facts in his movies are just that: Facts.

[imported_Kranar]

<< That's certianly not the word he used to describe his work in his Oscar speech. I think he used the word "nonfiction" several times, which is a bit different than "entertainment and not truth." >>

Michael Moore has said REPEATEDLY, infact, he said it in the interview with 60 Minutes tonight, that his films are meant to be both entertaining, and an expression of his and only his opinion.

[Numbers]

Originally posted by Kranar
You know 3704558 , whatever that number may signify, your post is quite possibly the most honest and sincere criticism of Michael Moore I've read.

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Kranar]

Thanks. :yes:

As for my forum name, punch it into a handheld digital calculator, flip it upside down, and cover the bottom line of the 8 with your finger.

That's what I spent junior high math doing. I'd gotten bored with 8008.

As for the whole truth vs. entertainment debate, he's stated it both ways. The guy changes colors more than a chameleon.

Look at it this way, though... if it was truth, it would be classified as a documentary, yes? Is Fahrenheit 9/11 considered a documentary? If so, how many other documentaries, many of which are far more scathing and far more damning than Fahrenheit, believe it or not, are released nation wide in theaters with a multi-million dollar distribution deal behind it?

One of the most brilliant things Moore did for this movie was originally sign the distribution deal with Disney. He knew damn well that they would never ever go along with it all along. Not only was that free publicity, but it guaranteed that another publishing would gobble up the rights simply because of the controversy that whole debacle caused, whether the movie was good or not, because they knew it would make a lot of money.

And that's what it all comes down to in the end, isn't it? Moore's in this for the money... if he was so concerned about spreading the "truth," he would donate every single red cent he made from Fahrenheit to the causes he preaches. How much you wanna bet that none of the money he makes will go to support the Red Cross in Iraq? Or in the pockets of the thousands of families broken apart by the 9/11 attacks? Or to campaigns that urge people to vote? Or to third-world countries who, in Moore's views, are probably so poverty ridden and starving simply because Americans are gluttons?

The guy is laughing his way to the bank.



[Edited on 6-28-2004 by 3704558]

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by 3704558]

[ThisOtherKingdom]

I think Michael Moore's films are important because, while they are solely his opinion, we need prominence of both extreme opinions in this country. There are too many people who believe everything the current administration say without a doubt, as well as there are people who think everything Moore says is the truth.

People fail to take the film for what it is worth. Too quick are those to brand Moore as a "fat liar" who has nothing important to say. I have yet to see the film, but when I do, I think I can manage to view it without assuming everything I see as fact.

This makes me think... what if Bill Clinton was republican, and Michael Moore made a movie exposing his affairs. Would anyone care? Would he still big a big, fat liar?

We need extreme views in this country to counter the other side. Hopefully people take in both sides and make up their own minds. But that is hardly the norm.

[Kefka]

"Fahrenheit 9/11" went a long way toward recouping its expenses this weekend, and with a wide expansion of runs in the works over the next 10 days, an eventual domestic cume approaching $100 million is not out of the question.

"We were already getting calls from theaters begging for prints,." Lions Gate prexyprexy Tom Ortenberg said Friday. IFC prexy Jonathan SehringJonathan Sehring said, "Harvey said he thought we could be on more than 2,000 within a week or two."

Moore will likely eventually see a profit, too.

"I've never seen a dime of what's called the backend," Moore said Sunday. "Maybe I'll get lucky this time." He pledged to use his share of the profits to "make more films like this one" as well as to donate some portion to civil liberties groups and charities.

[imported_Kranar]

<< "I've never seen a dime of what's called the backend," Moore said Sunday. "Maybe I'll get lucky this time." He pledged to use his share of the profits to "make more films like this one" as well as to donate some portion to civil liberties groups and charities. >>

Directors don't normally make any percentage of the profit from their movies. Although Michael Moore did produce this film, so there may have been something in his contract that allows him to get a portion of the money the movie makes.

[Chadj]

PS: My Fahrenheit 9/11 thread = better than this one.

I can't wait till I see it.. I'm going tomorrow. One of the only non-sold out shows.

[Chadj]

By the way.. Another reason that Michael Moore's films 'are released nation wide in theaters with a multi-million dollar distribution deal behind it', is because.. get this.. they are good? It's not pure luck and chance and playing political cards right by being with big names. You gotta have skill and such to get with the big names. Also, to win an emmy, I would assume a film would need to be good.

As for the comment of "every penny" to cherity.. umm.. this IS how he makes a living. He needs to make money some how. Also, I read his site sometime last week, and i think it had somewhere listed the charities he gives to.. but it's 5:00AM right now, I can't find it, and it's quite possible I'm dreaming that part up lol.

EDITED: Cause I messed up a word lol

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Chadj]

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Chadj]

[Delirium]

For all you people saying "If you havent seen it you cant comment on how biased it is". My question is this: If Rush Limbaugh made an anti-democrat movie would you have to see it to know its garbage? Would you want to hand Rush your $$$ to be sure its garbage? I admit ill probably see this movie but not until it comes to video(wonder if he will make it come out on video a few weeks before the election?) and ill laugh.


Farenheit is propaganda and should be taken as that. Altho there is nothing wrong with being entertained by it so have fun.

[Delirium]

My take on it, from having seen the movie, was that the Bush administration allowed the Bin Laden Family to leave the country after 9/11.


My one other question is why do you think it was a mistake to let the family of Bin Laden leave after 9/11? If one person in a family is a criminal they all must be? I think it was a smart move as they could have been lynched and they arnt the terrorists. They interviewed the ones they wanted to and then let them go i dont see it as a big deal. Just because you are related doesnt mean you're the same type of person. Is there evidence the whole Bin Laden family is a pack of terrorists?

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine
Ilavine I posted a article about the movie earlier, since you've seen it why not read the article so you can see the other side...

That's all you got.

Posting what someone else thinks.

We should read your article, because you haven't seen the movie... and even better, refuse to.

Nice.

I read the article. This guy debated Moore on stage. He gets fame and publicity by combating Moore through print, debates and whatever other media.

So he writes about Moore to get an article published. Big deal. It's no more gospel than Moore's movie, which is just an expression of opinion.

You're sad Edine.

Everytime you post, you get destroyed like a retarded kid playing dodgeball.

Even other conservatives here, whose views are respected, think you're an idiot.

All you can do is say,

"Why did you dodgeth the question?"

"Did thou read my article?

Weak.

Fucking weak.

You got any other shit you googled that we can read?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Maimara
OK, I don't get where you're coming from, Edine. You say that we should open our minds to the 'other side' of the story, right? But isn't that side of the story what we've had force-fed to us since 9/11, or even earlier than that? :shrug:

If you've been force fed, then it's your own fault. At no time since 9-11 has the US been under any state imposed censorship.

And like Edine, I will not be paying to see this movie. I'll wait until it's available for 'free' on NetFlix.com. I think everyone should see Spiderman II, which opens this Wednesday. Much more entertaining.. and I imagine.. has more facts in it that haven't been spun around.

I was looking for an answer Longshot, and after I pressed the Issue I got that answer from Backlash.
I don't refuse to see the movie. I do refuse to pay for it due to a philosophical difference between my views and Moores, as well as the fact that I harbor a great dislike for the man, and do not wish him to profit off of my dollars. (find me somewhere I can get it for free today, and I will not hesitate to watch it. I cannot find anywhere so I am left to wait until a later date to watch it.)

By the same factor Moore gets fame by attacking the administration. You were the first read the article, or at least admit to it, it was nice to see that you were able to respond. If you could scroll up and read my response to Kranar it may explain about googling for you. Aside from this guy not liking moore, did you by chance try to notice any of the falsehoods that were pointed out?

I'm curious though did Senator Tim Johnson appear in the movie?
I hear a lot about Moore going around and asking congressmen if they will let their children fight in the war. Senator Johnson did just that (his son is over there fighting right now with the 101 airborne), as well as voting for the bill that sent Americans over there, and the all of the subsequent bills that followed related to the occupation.
But I get the feeling things like that were left out of the movie.

[Back]

Originally posted by The Edine
I was looking for an answer Longshot, and after I pressed the Issue I got that answer from Backlash.
I don't refuse to see the movie. I do refuse to pay for it due to a philosophical difference between my views and Moores, as well as the fact that I harbor a great dislike for the man, and do not wish him to profit off of my dollars. (find me somewhere I can get it for free today, and I will not hesitate to watch it. I cannot find anywhere so I am left to wait until a later date to watch it.)

By the same factor Moore gets fame by attacking the administration. You were the first read the article, or at least admit to it, it was nice to see that you were able to respond. If you could scroll up and read my response to Kranar it may explain about googling for you. Aside from this guy not liking moore, did you by chance try to notice any of the falsehoods that were pointed out?

I'm curious though did Senator Tim Johnson appear in the movie?
I hear a lot about Moore going around and asking congressmen if they will let their children fight in the war. Senator Johnson did just that (his son is over there fighting right now with the 101 airborne), as well as voting for the bill that sent Americans over there, and the all of the subsequent bills that followed related to the occupation.
But I get the feeling things like that were left out of the movie.

I don't think he was in the movie, but it was said that only 1 member of both the House and Senate had a son over in Iraq. Its an old critique of government really. Nothing new. They sit up on the Hill while the masses sweat, fight, and die etc.

About the whole Google thing, I frequently Google when I want to know more about something. I think there is nothing wrong with it, and would encourage people to expand their knowlege. The Internet is being used more and more everyday by research groups.

[CrystalTears]

There is nothing wrong with using the internet for news articles. The problem people have is when they're having a debate with personal views and someone continually answers with article websites.

We all can google and read news articles. We're not all that lazy and stupid as some people must think. It's just that some would rather debate using their OWN words and beliefs rather than using someone else's words.

Edine sometimes you remind me of Val on the official boards who does nothing but use websites and news articles to speak for her, sometimes plagerizing them to her benefit. People can't stand her there either. She also had a tendency to trash political films and books based on such articles without having seen or read them herself. It makes for a boring argument. I like to debate with people I am speaking with, not the people they quote.

[Edited on 6/28/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

<I don't think he was in the movie, but it was said that only 1 member of both the House and Senate had a son over in Iraq. Its an old critique of government really. Nothing new. They sit up on the Hill while the masses sweat, fight, and die etc. > Backlash

So you think that the leaders of the country should be out in the field? Granted I think our bureaucracy is flawed, but I don't think the leaders of our nation should be slinging hash while trying to pass laws and govern the country. Exactly what are you saying here?

[Betheny]

That there's a heirarchy. What's good enough for low-income working Americans is not good enough for the political 'elite' so to speak.

I used to give my own views CT, and I was called an Idiot for them, told that they are made up, and have no real basis. People need to decide which way they want it.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< That's certianly not the word he used to describe his work in his Oscar speech. I think he used the word "nonfiction" several times, which is a bit different than "entertainment and not truth." >>

Michael Moore has said REPEATEDLY, infact, he said it in the interview with 60 Minutes tonight, that his films are meant to be both entertaining, and an expression of his and only his opinion.

"I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to - they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction.

We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times."

So what is he referring to if he's not referring to liking to make movies that are nonfiction?

Here's the problem. He presents the movies, in the theaters, as truth. He doesn't have a disclaimer that says, "Hey, this isn't actually the whole truth. In fact, much of this work is filled with lies. It's just for fun." There's alot of idiots out there, that will go see his works, then see his Oscar speech, and keep on thinking that everything he says is true.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Delirium

My take on it, from having seen the movie, was that the Bush administration allowed the Bin Laden Family to leave the country after 9/11.


My one other question is why do you think it was a mistake to let the family of Bin Laden leave after 9/11? If one person in a family is a criminal they all must be? I think it was a smart move as they could have been lynched and they arnt the terrorists. They interviewed the ones they wanted to and then let them go i dont see it as a big deal. Just because you are related doesnt mean you're the same type of person. Is there evidence the whole Bin Laden family is a pack of terrorists?

I could care less if they left. I have problems with making special arrangements for the family of a man that was just responsible for 3,000 deaths. It's like this, "Oh, your brother/cousin/whatever is responsible for recent actions that killed several thousand of our citizens. You're not even US citizens, but I'm going to go ahead and let you fly out of here, because your relative just killed a bunch of people. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Americans that are stranded away from their homes because their flights are grounded are just shit out of luck because they're not related to a mass-murdering fuckhead whose family just happens to have alot invested in the current Administration's business interests."

Originally posted by Maimara
That there's a heirarchy. What's good enough for low-income working Americans is not good enough for the political 'elite' so to speak.

This argument really needs to be put in perspective.

We Americans VOLUNTEER for service in our military.
2002 enlistment numbers as taken out of the Soldiers almanac.
16% of those that signed up were African American
They make up 13%(?) of the population that are able to join

11% of those that signed up in 2002 were Hispanic Americans
They make up 15%(?) of the population that are able to join

22% of the military as a whole is African American DUE to the fact that they tend to reenlist at a far higher rate than others.
They were not forced into joining, in fact the current numbers show that there really is not a huge difference between the numbers of Americans of different ethnic backgrounds that join up, as I stated above.


People join because they WANT to, be it for what they get from the Government in benefits, or because of what they wish to give back to this country. But WE make that choice. We decide to sign our names and take an oath. WE decide to join. So to discredit our ability to make that choice because YOU think that only the "disadvantaged" are in the military is an insult to those men and women who wish to fight for this country.
Did perhaps you ever consider that they WANT to fight for what they believe in more so than those that are rich. Did you ever consider that they choose to fight because they care about this country and because they are patriotic enough and brave enough to put their lives on the line for your freedom. So please don't insult those who have made a choice and don't insult those that care enough about this country fight for it by saying they are only doing so because they are are not rich.

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by The Edine]

Originally posted by Mistomeer

Originally posted by Delirium

My take on it, from having seen the movie, was that the Bush administration allowed the Bin Laden Family to leave the country after 9/11.


My one other question is why do you think it was a mistake to let the family of Bin Laden leave after 9/11? If one person in a family is a criminal they all must be? I think it was a smart move as they could have been lynched and they arnt the terrorists. They interviewed the ones they wanted to and then let them go i dont see it as a big deal. Just because you are related doesnt mean you're the same type of person. Is there evidence the whole Bin Laden family is a pack of terrorists?

I could care less if they left. I have problems with making special arrangements for the family of a man that was just responsible for 3,000 deaths. It's like this, "Oh, your brother/cousin/whatever is responsible for recent actions that killed several thousand of our citizens. You're not even US citizens, but I'm going to go ahead and let you fly out of here, because your relative just killed a bunch of people. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Americans that are stranded away from their homes because their flights are grounded are just shit out of luck because they're not related to a mass-murdering fuckhead whose family just happens to have alot invested in the current Administration's business interests."

I note that Dick Clarke is the sole man responsable for making the arangments and allowing them out of the country.
Bush did not have anything to do with it whatsoever.
He being touted as a honest man by the left should accept his words, instead of just going for the things that he bashes bush on.

[Betheny]

This isn't about joining.

And you know, I'm proud of you for joining, but just because you did doesn't make you a better person than the rest of us Joe Schmoes, so fuck off.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Chadj
Also, to win an emmy, I would assume a film would need to be good.

As for the comment of "every penny" to cherity.. umm.. this IS how he makes a living. He needs to make money some how. Also, I read his site sometime last week, and i think it had somewhere listed the charities he gives to.. but it's 5:00AM right now, I can't find it, and it's quite possible I'm dreaming that part up lol.

EDITED: Cause I messed up a word lol

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Chadj]

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Chadj]

He won an Oscar. And assuming the movie has to be good to get an Oscar is quite wrong. Remember when Hoop Dreams got screwed? There are plenty of movies that have gotten screwed out of Oscars and many of those are in the Documentary category.

[Back]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
<I don't think he was in the movie, but it was said that only 1 member of both the House and Senate had a son over in Iraq. Its an old critique of government really. Nothing new. They sit up on the Hill while the masses sweat, fight, and die etc. > Backlash

So you think that the leaders of the country should be out in the field? Granted I think our bureaucracy is flawed, but I don't think the leaders of our nation should be slinging hash while trying to pass laws and govern the country. Exactly what are you saying here?

Just saying its an old argument. Probably as old as governement itself. Its not any kind of Earth shattering revelation.

In regards to the movie, there is little said that hasen't already been if you keep up with current events or politics in general.

The only thing I did not know about proir to seeing the movie, for the most part, are about the ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Government/family.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by The Edine
I note that Dick Clarke is the sole man responsable for making the arangments and allowing them out of the country.
Bush did not have anything to do with it whatsoever.
He being touted as a honest man by the left should accept his words, instead of just going for the things that he bashes bush on.

And who did Clarke answer to? It was allowed by the Administration. Clarke, being a member of that Administration, and answering to the President, arranged it. So again, it was allowed by the Bush administration. That's exactly what the film says.

Originally posted by Maimara
This isn't about joining.

And you know, I'm proud of you for joining, but just because you did doesn't make you a better person than the rest of us Joe Schmoes, so fuck off.


I never said that I'm better than others here.

I did say that those that are in the military JOINED. They made the choice and they fight for the country. Those that do not join, those that are the "Political Elite"Those that just don't wish to, do so for their own reasons, saying that the military is only for those that are not of the elite is an insult to every man and women who made that choice, and that includes me.

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine
I used to give my own views CT, and I was called an Idiot for them, told that they are made up, and have no real basis. People need to decide which way they want it.

Because... they don't have a basis.

Rather than think it's our fault, and ask, "Which way we want it", why don't you take a look inward, and ask,

"What the hell am I doing that I make even people with similar beliefs as me call me an idiot everytime I open my mouth?"


Originally posted by The Edine
Aside from this guy not liking moore, did you by chance try to notice any of the falsehoods that were pointed out?

The article was not a news piece. It was an editorial. Falsehoods would be talking about a factual wrong. In this case, Moore would be sued for libel and slander. Again, it's a politcal piece, much like the article you brilliantly linked to in absence of your own thoughts.


Originally posted by The Edine
I'm curious though did Senator Tim Johnson appear in the movie?
I hear a lot about Moore going around and asking congressmen if they will let their children fight in the war. Senator Johnson did just that (his son is over there fighting right now with the 101 airborne), as well as voting for the bill that sent Americans over there, and the all of the subsequent bills that followed related to the occupation.
But I get the feeling things like that were left out of the movie.

A documentary is supposed to have a slanted view. Even if he was filmed, he probably would be omitted.

Even so, a single senator or congress person with a son serving is in no way representative of the majority or the norm.

This is one of those logical issues that seems to trip you up. You sight one obscure case that you would have justify your argument, like you did here.

I'm done.

You're hopeless.

This isn't a left an right issue.

It's a you are coming to a battle of smarts unarmed. Everytime.

Everyday is the 4th of July when you post.
You can always smell barbeque.

Originally posted by Mistomeer

Originally posted by The Edine
I note that Dick Clarke is the sole man responsable for making the arangments and allowing them out of the country.
Bush did not have anything to do with it whatsoever.
He being touted as a honest man by the left should accept his words, instead of just going for the things that he bashes bush on.

And who did Clarke answer to? It was allowed by the Administration. Clarke, being a member of that Administration, and answering to the President, arranged it. So again, it was allowed by the Bush administration. That's exactly what the film says.
Yes it does, but why does it not say Dick Clarke allowed the Bin Laden family to leave the country? By only saying the Bush administration, and the because movie makes out this conspiracy between the family of President Bush, and the Saudis and Bin Laden family, it leaves one to make their own conclusions. That more likely than not would be that Bush was the one who gave the okay for them to go, because all of the facts were not presented.

Longshot, I give you the definition of the word Documentary unedited and in its complete form.

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

When did the definition change to benefit your argument?

I do not see where it says it should be one sided, and leave facts out.
But then again i may be blind.

[Wezas]

I personally think Dick Clarke should have just stuck with his New Years Rockin' Eve and not gotten into this whole mess.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by The Edine

Originally posted by Mistomeer

Originally posted by The Edine
I note that Dick Clarke is the sole man responsable for making the arangments and allowing them out of the country.
Bush did not have anything to do with it whatsoever.
He being touted as a honest man by the left should accept his words, instead of just going for the things that he bashes bush on.

And who did Clarke answer to? It was allowed by the Administration. Clarke, being a member of that Administration, and answering to the President, arranged it. So again, it was allowed by the Bush administration. That's exactly what the film says.
Yes it does, but why does it not say Dick Clarke allowed the Bin Laden family to leave the country? By only saying the Bush administration, and the because movie makes out this conspiracy between the family of President Bush, and the Saudis and Bin Laden family, it leaves one to make their own conclusions. That more likely than not would be that Bush was the one who gave the okay for them to go, because all of the facts were not presented.

Why does it matter? Clarke had enough power in the Administration to arrange all that without question? I don't think so. It was nice of him to take the blame before the 9/11 commission, but others certianly knew. According to Clarke himself, he couldn't even get meetings with the high ranking officials in the Administration, but suddenly, he has the power to arrange flights to Saudi for the Bin Laden family without anyone ever questioning it? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There's really only two ways of looking at that. Either others in the Administration knew of it and approved or the Administration was so incompetent that Clarke was able to arrange, all by himself, for the Bin Laden family to fly home to Saudi when all flights were grounded. Either way, as a member of the Administration, he allowed it.

As far as the conspiracy goes, I don't know that I believe that there's a deep rooted conspiracy. I know this much, 2/3 of the 9/11 hijackers had Saudi passports, yet the country was never named as a member of the Axis of Evil. They have fuckin fundraisers for Al Qaeda yet the Bush Administration never publicly criticizes them. I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but even I can see that the Administration has given Saudi government preferential treatment.

And that's the problem with Michael Moore. He could have mentioned those things, which are true, and gotten his point across but instead he had to focus much of his effort on deception and misrepresentation.

[Back]

I'm really curious to hear what exactly people think are outright lies in this movie. How convenient for people who have no intention of seeing the movie claim it is entirely false.

Point out one lie. Just one single lie that was intentionally presented in this film. I'm not talking about whats NOT in the movie.

[Parkbandit]

The Saudi government has been gettingf preferential treatment WELL before the current Bush administration. To pin this all on Bush is extremely shortsighted.

As I understand it, the Bush Administration believed that these Saudi citizens were in danger and removed them from our soil. Personally, I believe it was a smart move...

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
I'm really curious to hear what exactly people think are outright lies in this movie. How convenient for people who have no intention of seeing the movie claim it is entirely false.

Point out one lie. Just one single lie that was intentionally presented in this film. I'm not talking about whats NOT in the movie.

By ommiting facts, the entire truth is not presented.. and thus is considered a lie.

Unless you claim you were ignorant about the other facts... then you are just that.. ignorant.

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine
Longshot, I give you the definition of the word Documentary unedited and in its complete form.

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

When did the definition change to benefit your argument?

Reason number 81,234 why you're an idiot.

It's been said numberous times, but you have an incredibly thick skull, so I'll say it again.

Focusing on one line of a post that you disagree with and or find fault with, while at the same time dodging the entire rest of what someone said is FUCKING LAME.

Maybe you can pull that shit on the slack jawed yokels that show up at boot camp with pappy's shotgun.

It doesn't fly here though.

Thanks for playing.

Way to shit all over another thread.

When do you leave again?

[Parkbandit]

I don't know.. he took your "A documentary is supposed to have a slanted view" and completely debunked it.

To me, a documentary is more like things I see on the Discovery Channel and History Channel... presenting facts in a factual way without slant.

Michael Moore's work, in my opinion, is certainly not a documentary.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
The Saudi government has been gettingf preferential treatment WELL before the current Bush administration. To pin this all on Bush is extremely shortsighted.

As I understand it, the Bush Administration believed that these Saudi citizens were in danger and removed them from our soil. Personally, I believe it was a smart move...

To a certian extent, you're correct. However, before Bush there was never anything as bad as 9/11 which the Saudis played a key role in. Also, keep in mind that Bush is one of the few Presidents I know of that created something like the Axis of evil on his own and put countries into it. He left out the Saudis on all his lists that I can remember that supported terrorism. He has this great big "War on Terror" and omits probably the key supporter of global terror. The preferential treatment Bush has given them far exceeds that of any other previous administration.

If they were in danger, they could have protected them. I sorta doubt that the Bin Ladens are without private security within the country anyway. If you're fine with them being escorted out, that's cool, and it's not so much a matter of fact as it is a matter of personal opinion. I just don't think that we, as a country, owe the Bin Laden family any favors.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I don't know.. he took your "A documentary is supposed to have a slanted view" and completely debunked it.

To me, a documentary is more like things I see on the Discovery Channel and History Channel... presenting facts in a factual way without slant.

Michael Moore's work, in my opinion, is certainly not a documentary.

I agree. Moore can't have it both ways. He can't have it a documentary on one hand, and "entertainment" on the other. It's either a work of nonfiction, or it's a fictitious work made for the purpose of entertainment.

[longshot]

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

You're arguing that this film didn't do that through omission of counter arguments.

Most documentaries do this though. They are there to prove a point... they show counter arguments as weak to prove a point.

Do to time constraints and editing, there is no "objectivity" in film.

If he went through and edited lighting on cells to make people darker and evil looking, this would be editorializing. Selecting clips and interviews is not, in my opinion.

So, we have issue if Moore's film qualifies as a "documentary" or not...

We can agree to disagree.

All of the America Undercover series on HBO. They all have angles. They all have points to prove. They are different from things on the history channel.

"Blue Vinyl", "Supersize-me", "The Heidi Fleiss Story"... all have points to prove. All are documentaries.

The point of my post was, there was a lot more said that was sidestepped by Edine.

[DeV]

I'm going to watch the movie this week thanks to all the controversy. I am very interested now.

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
I'm really curious to hear what exactly people think are outright lies in this movie. How convenient for people who have no intention of seeing the movie claim it is entirely false.

Point out one lie. Just one single lie that was intentionally presented in this film. I'm not talking about whats NOT in the movie.

By ommiting facts, the entire truth is not presented.. and thus is considered a lie.

Unless you claim you were ignorant about the other facts... then you are just that.. ignorant.

Nice sidestepping, weak insult. Still waiting for a real answer.

[Parkbandit]

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

You're arguing that this film didn't do that through omission of counter arguments.

Most documentaries do this though. They are there to prove a point... they show counter arguments as weak to prove a point.

Do to time constraints and editing, there is no "objectivity" in film.

If he went through and edited lighting on cells to make people darker and evil looking, this would be editorializing. Selecting clips and interviews is not, in my opinion.

So, we have issue if Moore's film qualifies as a "documentary" or not...

We can agree to disagree.

All of the America Undercover series on HBO. They all have angles. They all have points to prove. They are different from things on the history channel.

"Blue Vinyl", "Supersize-me", "The Heidi Fleiss Story"... all have points to prove. All are documentaries.

The point of my post was, there was a lot more said that was sidestepped by Edine.

Actually.. I was arguing over the definition of documentary. Since I have not watched the film in question.. I would not be qualified to argue it's merits or lack of.

By the way, Spiderman II comes out on Wednesday. Now THERE is a movie I would be willing to pay to see.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
I'm really curious to hear what exactly people think are outright lies in this movie. How convenient for people who have no intention of seeing the movie claim it is entirely false.

Point out one lie. Just one single lie that was intentionally presented in this film. I'm not talking about whats NOT in the movie.

By ommiting facts, the entire truth is not presented.. and thus is considered a lie.

Unless you claim you were ignorant about the other facts... then you are just that.. ignorant.

Nice sidestepping, weak insult. Still waiting for a real answer.

I did not side step.. but anyone knows that if you do not tell the WHOLE truth, then it simply isn't truthful. If you need an example for that, I can supply it for you. However, I cannot give you the exact information you desire though as I have not watched the film.

[Back]

Finally! An answer.

Not presenting all the facts is a half-truth, not an outright lie. IE. You tell your girl you went with your friends to a bar. You neglect to mention the waitress also did lap dances. Half truth. You tell your girl you went to the baseball game when you really went to the strip club. Lie.

By your argument, there can be no such thing as complete truth since there is no way for us to know all the absolute facts about anything. I agree to a point. My own view on truth is that it is not concrete, but fluid as it relates to time lines. IE. Saying it is daylight out is true, until the sun goes down.

Compare anything you might think is a lie or even a half truth in the movie then stack that up against what we know the administration has screwed up on as "facts", and compare the two.

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Backlash]

[Delirium]

I could care less if they left. I have problems with making special arrangements for the family of a man that was just responsible for 3,000 deaths. It's like this, "Oh, your brother/cousin/whatever is responsible for recent actions that killed several thousand of our citizens. You're not even US citizens, but I'm going to go ahead and let you fly out of here, because your relative just killed a bunch of people. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Americans that are stranded away from their homes because their flights are grounded are just shit out of luck because they're not related to a mass-murdering fuckhead whose family just happens to have alot invested in the current Administration's business interests."

The difference is the US citizens who were stranded wernt likely to be lynched by a mob of angry people either. Plus how many people were stranded? Quite a bit i assume so it would be impossible to make an exception for that many. Remember all the hate that was around for people of arab decent right after 9/11? Now imagine that hate ten fold cause your last name is bin Laden,even if they dont agree with him.

[Delirium]

I don't think he was in the movie, but it was said that only 1 member of both the House and Senate had a son over in Iraq. Its an old critique of government really. Nothing new. They sit up on the Hill while the masses sweat, fight, and die etc.

How many congressmen have sons or daughters in the age range of 18-24 i wonder? That would be the ones that would most likely join. I somehow doubt there are many as it seems most of congress is a bunch of old men whose children are grown.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Backlash
I'm really curious to hear what exactly people think are outright lies in this movie. How convenient for people who have no intention of seeing the movie claim it is entirely false.

Point out one lie. Just one single lie that was intentionally presented in this film. I'm not talking about whats NOT in the movie.

No one said he leaves blatant lies in the film. The reason so many people hate Moore is because he purposely omits and deceives to get people to follow his point of view.

Lying by omission is lying, hate to break it to you. It's also a characteristic of a snake or a weasel.

[Betheny]

Sneaky.

The way I figure it is this. Omitting the opposition's arguement isn't lying. Lying is saying their arguement is something other than it actually is.

Saying you went out with friends when you really went out with friends to a strip club = better than saying you went to church or wherever instead.

Until we start reading minds, there won't be a complete truth. But to say that this film needs to include the 'opposition's' arguement to validate it is bullshit.

Look at any campaign ad, any piece of propaganda, and you will see only slander and mud flinging. That's how the world works.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Maimara


Look at any campaign ad, any piece of propaganda, and you will see only slander and mud flinging. That's how the world works.

As long as people understand that they should equate this film to that.. and not a real documentary on the life of the northern atlantic hump back whale.

[Betheny]

LOL -- Anything you see on TV, in a magazine, anywhere. ANYWHERE. Is slanted. All you can do is partake in it, think about it, and decide how it affects you.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Maimara
LOL -- Anything you see on TV, in a magazine, anywhere. ANYWHERE. Is slanted. All you can do is partake in it, think about it, and decide how it affects you.

This would be completely incorrect. Let's play the debunk game.. it's fun!:

1) I saw a cooking show where he was smoking pork butt. (Did you know it's not really the pigs butt?)

2) Today I read a whole article about Humpback whales and all sorts of information regarding it. (Their scientific name is Megaptera novaeangliae)

3) I loved the 7th game of the Stanley Cup... GO BOLTS.

4) The owners manual for my new Samsung i500 claims I can download all sorts of things into it!

5) I never realized that fireworks were that huge of a business in Florida until I read this article about it.

6) The Hurricane season goes from June until November.

[Faent]

>>Until you go see the documentary and can pose an argument other than the typical "MICHAEL MOORE IS A LIAR AND FAT!!!!!1" diatribe, kindly shut the trap. -Peam

Pace Peam, Michael Moore is a fat, big fat liar.

The lack of self-control he evidences w.r.t. the uncontrolled eating habits that, in conjunction with his inactive lifestyle, have rendered his face piggish and his figure porky, may not be taken as evidence against his possession of dizzying intellectual capabilities. Nor should a charitable interpretation of any particular instance of the alleged diatribe Peam purportedly refers to assume as much. Rather, "fat" is used as an adjectival perjorative to further debase a supposed "journalist" who is far out of control of any journalistic ability he might have ever possessed before he let his brain rot like his physique. At least, that's how I used "fat" above.

Kthx.

-Scott

[Sean]

You can change the meaning of any sentence by moving the words around...

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tijay
You can change the meaning of any sentence by moving the words around...

By moving the words around, you can change the meaning of any sentence...

The words of any sentence can change the meaning by you moving around...

By moving around, you can change the words of any sentence meaning. The...

The meaning of any sentence can change by you moving around the words...

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Maimara
Sneaky.

The way I figure it is this. Omitting the opposition's arguement isn't lying. Lying is saying their arguement is something other than it actually is.

Saying you went out with friends when you really went out with friends to a strip club = better than saying you went to church or wherever instead.

Until we start reading minds, there won't be a complete truth. But to say that this film needs to include the 'opposition's' arguement to validate it is bullshit.

Look at any campaign ad, any piece of propaganda, and you will see only slander and mud flinging. That's how the world works.

That's not exactly right. Lying by omission is still lying because you're not telling the truth, or only telling half of the truth with the same purpose as blatently lying. You can try and justify it anyway you want, but the fact of the matter is that lying by omission has the same consequences as outright lying in almost all circumstances - with friends, family, work, police investigations, court, journalism, etc. Lying by omission is like a murder 2 charge. The result is the same, and the intent is the same, just not quite as bad.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Delirium
The difference is the US citizens who were stranded wernt likely to be lynched by a mob of angry people either. Plus how many people were stranded? Quite a bit i assume so it would be impossible to make an exception for that many. Remember all the hate that was around for people of arab decent right after 9/11? Now imagine that hate ten fold cause your last name is bin Laden,even if they dont agree with him.

I vaguely remember the hate, but I don't remember many instances of Islamic folks getting their asses kicked. What I'm fairly certian of is that the members of a billionaire family weren't really in danger. If they were so worried about their safety, there's other ways to protect them other than flying them out of the country. Like I said though, I don't think it was the right thing to do, but it's really just a matter of opinion.

[Betheny]

I guess the real question is, where is the line drawn?

[Latrinsorm]

I don't mind him not putting in the opposition argument.

I mind (a hell of a lot) when he does something like what he did to Heston in Bowling for Columbine. Do I know he's going to do something like that in Fahrenheit? No. But I don't have $12 worth of trust for him in me.

[Artha]

Question: Do you all consider this (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/8838660.htm) lying?

[Betheny]

haha I'm from that state.

that's not funny.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Artha
Question: Do you all consider this (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/8838660.htm) lying?

Yes, because you're lying by omission. Many consider the 3 forms of lying to be telling half-truths, lying by omission, and flat out lying. Ever notice that in a courtroom people swear to tell, "the whole truth?"

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Artha
Question: Do you all consider this (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/8838660.htm) lying?

Yes, of course its lying as it gives the impression in the movie that he was one of the many who have no relatives in the armed forces when obviously he knew he did.

I still think there is much to see in the movie....I just am also not going in expecting cold hard facts.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Mistomeer

Originally posted by Artha
Question: Do you all consider this (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/8838660.htm) lying?

Yes, because you're lying by omission. Many consider the 3 forms of lying to be telling half-truths, lying by omission, and flat out lying. Ever notice that in a courtroom people swear to tell, "the whole truth?"

And I guess we'll never get the whole truth since Bush isn't going to testify under oath, allow any recording devices, or talk without his blankey (Cheney). No offense on the blankey comment, Bob.

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha
Question: Do you all consider this (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/8838660.htm) lying?

If you want to get technical and nit-picky, no, its not, because the senator dosen't have a son or daughter going. Read the transcript provided by the film's producers.

About the whole half truth thing... its not a courtroom, its a documentary. How possible do you think it is to cram every fact about every facet of everything he is trying to cover into a two hour movie would be? Especially considering how much the Bush Regime has stonewalled and/or changed stories and/or flat out refused to level with the American people on just about everything.

If it were all lies, people would laugh at it, not try to tamper with our Constitution's First Amendment or harass people into not seeing it. Like the clown that showed up to one of the 9/11 commission hearings claiming it was a huge farce because the bipartisan members were getting kickbacks from their parties.

You know, I'd buy a few of you tickets if it weren't problematic. Seriously.

Now I'm getting sick of seeing myself seeming like I'm posting in defense of Moore. I like him and his movies and the fact he has the balls to confront issues people want swept under the carpet. But my own opinions are my own, and honestly, my sole motivation is wanting to improve the direction this country is going in.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
How possible do you think it is to cram every fact about every facet of everything he is trying to cover into a two hour movie would be?If it gets to the point that he's lying, he should shrink his thesis. I learned that Freshman year of high school: it's hard to defend a large object.

[Artha]

I saw him on TDS, and was surprised to find I agreed with some of what he said. I can't remember specific examples, just that I was extremely surprised.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
About the whole half truth thing... its not a courtroom, its a documentary. How possible do you think it is to cram every fact about every facet of everything he is trying to cover into a two hour movie would be?

LOL... the fact that you admit that it's full of half truths and still consider it a documentary makes me laugh at you like this:

:lol:

[Skirmisher]

I do not like our current president. I will be voting against him in the coming election, I voted against him in the last election.

Now, with those items said, I don't think its such a big deal to take issue with how Moore makes his movies.

Hey, I agree with the direction he is coming from politicaly, I just disagree with some of the methods he employs getting there.

I think there are plenty of quite valid points that he makes and wish he would not sully those with the silly gussied up for the big screen things that then opens him and the concept behind the movie in general to attack.

To me it just seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
About the whole half truth thing... its not a courtroom, its a documentary. How possible do you think it is to cram every fact about every facet of everything he is trying to cover into a two hour movie would be?

LOL... the fact that you admit that it's full of half truths and still consider it a documentary makes me laugh at you like this:

:lol:

Glad to at least entertain you. I agree with Latrinstorm that the thesis could have been carved down to allow for more detail on one particular aspect. This article is a good example. (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html)

[Xcalibur]

I did not like the review of my cinema about that film, so I'd want one of you guys.

In short, that movie, is just a documentary about Bush? We see him from day 1 of his political career to whenever the movie stop?

That's about it?

[Kefka]

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1088621950158920.xml

"What we're trying to do here is to tell the administration ... not only see it but then come out ... and explain why this happened, why we went to Iraq and why 9/11 happened," said Ivan Medina, a former Marine from Middletown, N.Y., who served in Iraq and whose twin brother Irving was killed there.


Call it a half truth if you want. If the administration addressed these issues from the beginning, they'd have no need to defend themselves now.

[Chadj]

I saw it yesterday (saw spiderman a few hours afterwards). I personally think it was an excellent, well done movie (Fahrenheit, not spiderman)

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
I did not like the review of my cinema about that film, so I'd want one of you guys.

In short, that movie, is just a documentary about Bush? We see him from day 1 of his political career to whenever the movie stop?

That's about it?

Here's a better review by Roger Ebert:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-moore24f.html

"Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is less an expose of George W. Bush than a dramatization of what Moore sees as a failed and dangerous presidency. The charges in the film will not come as news to those who pay attention to politics, but Moore illustrates them with dramatic images and a relentless commentary track that essentially concludes Bush is incompetent, dishonest, failing in the war on terrorism, and has bad taste in friends."

[Back]

Republicans Love Michael Moore's Satirical Comedy Fahrenheit 9/11! (http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i5206)

"Michael Moore wouldn't comment on his change of heart, but insiders say he is looking forward to being rich enough to vote for Mr. Bush in November."

[Betheny]

Dude, I'm almost in favor of outlawing freedom of speech, just so I don't have to hear people bitch and whine about how they think their opinion is so important that everyone should give a fuck.

...Whoops, sorry, moment of honesty there... Arrest me.

[Kefka]

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i5212

In response to the wildly popular Michael Moore documentary, Farenheit 9/11, President George Bush today proposed a new law which would make it a felony offense to hate him.

[Back]

http://www.thespoof.com/picstore/GeorgeBush/bush_turkey_a.jpg


"America believes that as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union," - President Bush

[imported_Kranar]

<< In short, that movie, is just a documentary about Bush? We see him from day 1 of his political career to whenever the movie stop? >>

Interestingly enough, the thesis of the documentary comes at the very end. Michael Moore uses President Bush only as an example to support his main thesis, well, President Bush is used as the primary and strongest example of the thesis. That thesis being about the nature of a hierarchical society where those at the top feed off of the continuous fear of those at the bottom.

Michael Moore shows how those in power, President Bush and his administration, have fed off of the fear of terrorism to continue to gain power at the cost of the young and the poor who are made to fight what Michael Moore believes is not a war based on an actual threat, but a war meant to maintain the ranks of the hierarchy that exists amongst the President, the Saudi's who have a trillion dollars invested in the U.S., and as President Bush puts it, the hierarchy amongst "... the haves, and the have mores."

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

"America believes that as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union," - President Bush

I don't get the reason for your posting of this quote.. did you not understand it?

Do your homework and it should become quite obvious to you.

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash

"America believes that as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union," - President Bush

I don't get the reason for your posting of this quote.. did you not understand it?

Do your homework and it should become quite obvious to you.

Maybe you can't see the picture I posted. The only other explaination is that you have no sense of humor.

I understood perfectly what it means and what I did with it. But explain it to me anyway.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< In short, that movie, is just a documentary about Bush? We see him from day 1 of his political career to whenever the movie stop? >>

Interestingly enough, the thesis of the documentary comes at the very end. Michael Moore uses President Bush only as an example to support his main thesis, well, President Bush is used as the primary and strongest example of the thesis. That thesis being about the nature of a hierarchical society where those at the top feed off of the continuous fear of those at the bottom.

Michael Moore shows how those in power, President Bush and his administration, have fed off of the fear of terrorism to continue to gain power at the cost of the young and the poor who are made to fight what Michael Moore believes is not a war based on an actual threat, but a war meant to maintain the ranks of the hierarchy that exists amongst the President, the Saudi's who have a trillion dollars invested in the U.S., and as President Bush puts it, the hierarchy amongst "... the haves, and the have mores."

Now I seriously want to see this movie. Thank you Kranar.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash

"America believes that as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union," - President Bush

I don't get the reason for your posting of this quote.. did you not understand it?

Do your homework and it should become quite obvious to you.

Maybe you can't see the picture I posted. The only other explaination is that you have no sense of humor.

I understood perfectly what it means and what I did with it. But explain it to me anyway.

I saw the picture.. which I do admit is quite funny.. but the quote didn't match up with it.. which is why I asked if you didn't understand it.

[Back]

Wow. There is a third reason why you might not have gotten it.

It was just my attempt at using an out-of-context quote with a picture for political satire. As if to say, Bush thought actual turkeys should be admitted to the EU...

Does that clear it up any?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Wow. There is a third reason why you might not have gotten it.

It was just my attempt at using an out-of-context quote with a picture for political satire. As if to say, Bush thought actual turkeys should be admitted to the EU...

Does that clear it up any?

Yes it does. It solidifies my first instinct in that you believed Bush misquoted or said something wrong.

Do some research on the European Union and Turkey.. thanks.

[Chadj]

There's a turkey on South Park.

They call him gobbles.

Bush is like Timmie.

Go timmie go.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Chadj
There's a turkey on South Park.

They call him gobbles.

Bush is like Timmie.

Go timmie go. :clap:

I'm still voting for Bush, though.

[Wezas]

http://members.cox.net/legendwezas/gobbles.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Ok.. after a 'You are an idiot' U2U.. and some thinking on my part...

I finally get the quote with Turkey and the picture with the turkey.

Let the hate begin.

Me > :blackcloud: < Mean PC Haters

[Chadj]

Touché, Wezas

[Artha]

So, who's going to see the other (www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com) documentary coming out this summer?

[Chadj]

I will definately be seeing that. I watched some previews for it a month or so ago. Looks like it may be pretty good :).

[Back]

Here is something all republicans are sure to be proud of. Orwellian doublespeak at its finest. You can thank me later. For now, enjoy...


http://www.shopmetrospy.com/graphics/Product_143_PrSpare2.jpg


Brought to you by Moorewatch.com (http://www.moorewatch.com/)

[Artha]

I'll take 10.

edit: As long as they don't come with the crappy shadow effect.

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by Artha]

[peam]

No trouble picturing that one on the back of a rusty '72 Ford pickup with Yosemite Sam mudflaps.

[Hulkein]

LOL, hahahaha. I thought the same thing.

It's the truth though.

I prefer the 'you can pry my gun from my cold dead hands' on the back of a rusted out '85 Bronco.


Not that I disagree with either bumper stickers, it's just funny as hell, lol.

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by Hulkein]

[Back]

Truth is I bet there are a lot of republicans out there cringing to themselves over that kind of crap.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Backlash
Truth is I bet there are a lot of republicans out there cringing to themselves over that kind of crap.

You'd be correct...