NationStates Jolt Archive


Anti Moore Website

Power and War
16-07-2004, 02:10
Hey, do you hate Michael Moore? Do you like George Bush? then go to
http://s3.invisionfree.com/death_to_MOORE

and voice it
Kisarazu Imported
16-07-2004, 02:12
im a liberal and i despise that freeloader moore as much as i hate rush limbaugh
Power and War
16-07-2004, 02:17
At least you hate Moore
Rock Goths
16-07-2004, 02:18
I dont quiet hate moore I just find him annoying I just think if he hates the country as much why does he talk about it as much
Sumamba Buwhan
16-07-2004, 02:35
on the contrary Moore loves the country so much he dedicates his lifes work to making it the best it can be.

The Majority of America loved Farenheit 9/11 and it made history for a Documentary. Granted he twists the truth in some cases, but that just shows his perception. Everyone puts their own twist to whatever "truths" we learn. He shows his point of view and it seems to be the point of view of alot of people because he gets high marks. Remarkably even FOX gave Farenheit 9/11 a mostly favorable review.
Tygaland
16-07-2004, 02:37
on the contrary Moore loves the country so much he dedicates his lifes work to making it the best it can be.

The Majority of America loved Farenheit 9/11 and it made history for a Documentary. Granted he twists the truth in some cases, but that just shows his perception. Everyone puts their own twist to whatever "truths" we learn. He shows his point of view and it seems to be the point of view of alot of people because he gets high marks. Remarkably even FOX gave Farenheit 9/11 a mostly favorable review.

Michael Moore does not make documentaries. He makes movies.
The Black Forrest
16-07-2004, 02:38
on the contrary Moore loves the country so much he dedicates his lifes work to making it the best it can be.

The Majority of America loved Farenheit 9/11 and it made history for a Documentary. Granted he twists the truth in some cases, but that just shows his perception. Everyone puts their own twist to whatever "truths" we learn. He shows his point of view and it seems to be the point of view of alot of people because he gets high marks. Remarkably even FOX gave Farenheit 9/11 a mostly favorable review.

Unlike Limbaugh and a few other conservative personalities, Moore freely admits to having an agenda.

For that reason and the out right hostility; I am going to make it a point to go see his film.
Power and War
16-07-2004, 02:39
This would be good stuff for the site, argue their
BLARGistania
16-07-2004, 02:44
Michael Moore does not make documentaries. He makes movies.

You mean full-length documentaries. Documentaries are meant to purvey the facts as seen by a limited view point, exactly what Moore does.
Sumamba Buwhan
16-07-2004, 02:51
Why should I argue there? Thats a lame excuse for a messageboard. Too limited and not worth my time. I am already here arguing it, if you have an intelligent viewpoint to retort with then I will be here to read it.
Tygaland
16-07-2004, 02:57
You mean full-length documentaries. Documentaries are meant to purvey the facts as seen by a limited view point, exactly what Moore does.

Definition of "Documentary":

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

(Source: www.dictionary.com)

Seeing as Moore does editorialise, his films are not documentaries but movies.
Ubedarn
16-07-2004, 02:59
I d/loaded it from Kazaa and it stunk,unfair attacks on our military,contradictions and outright lies on just about everything and cutting the footage on Ms Rice to portray her making a false quote was a typical Moore touch.This site gives an accurate account of Moore's mockumentary:
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Here's a site where a young film maker hounds Moore and gives him a taste of his own medicine.The movie is due out in late July and there's a trailer on the site: http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/index.html
Glinde Nessroe
16-07-2004, 03:04
Well I'd much rather prefer listening to the unaffective ramblings of Michael Moore, then the life shattering promises of George "Dubya".
Incertonia
16-07-2004, 03:08
Yeah, I hate that Moore guy. I mean, Sean Connery was sooooooooooo much better as James Bond. :D
Russanidalaska
16-07-2004, 03:10
i love moore and his movies, and agree with nearly every point he makes. i am adamently anti-bush, and i feel that moore's movie needs to be seen by every american who claim they care about this country.
Wowcha wowcha land
16-07-2004, 03:14
I saw that 9/11 movie. I diddn't like it. It was the same old same old from the left i've been hearing since the election. I get it, you're upset that you lost SHUT UP! Besides that Moore is ummm.. An alright guy... I guess. Bitching about him though will just make him bitch moore. Ha! I love that pun.
Cassada
16-07-2004, 03:19
The only problem I see with Bush is that many Americans listen to his point of view, do not realize that he has thrown in his own personal bias, and then listen to him as the Gospel Truth.

While I have Moore's books and have watched the documentries, I also read the works of everyone from Chomsky to Coulter, and I advise that everyone does the same.

Moore is a funny man, a charismatic man, a man who shares a few of the same beliefs as I. However I do not think he is a man to lead such a large fan base as the one he has.

Edit: As for the bowlingfortruth siteā€¦

Moore's "crazy conspiracy theories" were put in the movie because they rose a legimate point about whether President Bush deserved to be sitting in the oval office. However due to the amount of time he had in the movie as well as the fact that he had to move on to other topics, he could not go in as much depth as he could have. He does go int o this depth in his book "Dude, Where's My Country?"
Left Winged Saudis
16-07-2004, 03:23
Michaels documentary/movie's are really leftwinged twisted, but arent michael's opponents rigght wing twisted? I think we sghould all just not listen to any of the geniuses and make our own conclusions. Thats what thye are doing.
CanuckHeaven
16-07-2004, 03:29
Hey, do you hate Michael Moore? Do you like George Bush? then go to
http://s3.invisionfree.com/death_to_MOORE

and voice it
Why would you support a link to a forum topic entitled "Death to Moore"?

Why do you hate Michael Moore?
Xerxes855
16-07-2004, 04:05
I like Michael Moore. I don't agree with all of his opinions, and he is more radical then I am, but I applaud his courage. Farneheit911 was good. Definitly one sided, but that is to be expected. Anyone going to see any political movie like F911 or Bowling for Columbine or listen to Limbaugh or Franken or read Moore or Colter is an idiot if they actually think they are getting unbiased coverage. Of course it is editorialized, you shouldn't base your knowledge just off of it. They are presenting their point of view and presenting the information that supports it, and anyone who doesn't look at it that way is an idiot.
Tygaland
16-07-2004, 04:25
....Anyone going to see any political movie like F911 or Bowling for Columbine or listen to Limbaugh or Franken or read Moore or Colter is an idiot if they actually think they are getting unbiased coverage. Of course it is editorialized, you shouldn't base your knowledge just off of it. They are presenting their point of view and presenting the information that supports it, and anyone who doesn't look at it that way is an idiot.

Exactly.
Eridanus
16-07-2004, 04:38
I like Moore. We have similiar view points. But i like to do my own research to though, jsut so I'm sure I know what I'm talking about.
Nothern Homerica
16-07-2004, 05:49
What I like best about Michael Moore is that he uses the rather successful tactics of right-wing entertainers against them. He is the first to admit to this. Unlike like many vocal liberals, he has no problem with the Anne Coulters and Ruch Limbaughs of the world, he respects the results they have gotten and has adopted many of their mothods. This is precisely why talk radio hosts so hate him; he's stealing their gig. His views are the left-wing equivalent of someone like Sean Hannity. Moore is just funnier.
Tygaland
16-07-2004, 05:55
What I like best about Michael Moore is that he uses the rather successful tactics of right-wing entertainers against them. He is the first to admit to this. Unlike like many vocal liberals, he has no problem with the Anne Coulters and Ruch Limbaughs of the world, he respects the results they have gotten and has adopted many of their mothods. This is precisely why talk radio hosts so hate him; he's stealing their gig. His views are the left-wing equivalent of someone like Sean Hannity. Moore is just funnier.

I have no problem with what Moore says. It doesn't bother me one bit. What bothers me is people who take everything he says as undeniable fact and then base their beliefs on what he presents in his books and movies.
Cassada
16-07-2004, 05:56
I have no problem with what Moore says. It doesn't bother me one bit. What bothers me is people who take everything he says as undeniable fact and then base their beliefs on what he presents in his books and movies.

Yeah, precisely. If you don't recognize that he has a bias in what he does and you believe what he says no matter how outrageous it is, that's where you go wrong.
Monkeypimp
16-07-2004, 07:01
I'm seeing Moores movie when it comes out in the film fest next week. The problem with him is too many people either take his word as gospel or call him stupid because they don't like hearing what he says.

I looked at the forum, and there were 2 threads on the main anti-moore bit. The most popular one was about how he must have been bottlefed.... Useless.
Arammanar
16-07-2004, 07:08
I like Michael Moore. I don't agree with all of his opinions, and he is more radical then I am, but I applaud his courage.
Yeah, he's awfully courageous to release an anti-Bush movie from Hollywood in the election season. That's akin to a courageous firefighter running to put out a burning water bed.
Insane Troll
16-07-2004, 07:11
59 deceits in Farenheit 9/11

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Jassand
16-07-2004, 08:18
I like Michael Moore. I think He's a great auther and director, even if not all of his facts are perfect. I don't think that he lies. But like almost every other polititan/political person, they do mess with the statistics a bit, with out realy liying. I hope that the American Citizans realy take his books/movies into consideration for there election choice. I think that his distrubutions are also benifitting others around the world. Have any off you Moore Haters actully read any of his books? I think that the majority/most facts he states are true. Go Moore. Go Nader. Go Opera! (Good political views in my opinion, can't be bought out, etc.) :) ;) :D
CanuckHeaven
16-07-2004, 08:34
59 deceits in Farenheit 9/11

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
You could probably watch the movie in the time that would be required to read the 44 pages on this web site.

As expected, when I read a few of the so called "deceits", I quickly picked up on the bias of the author, especially # 59 that suggests that Moore supports terrorists.

I am going to see the movie on Saturday night with my son and I will draw my own conclusions.

Thanks anyways.
Jassand
16-07-2004, 08:45
That's great that you are going to see it with your son. How old is he? Just a warning: it is a little disturbing when it comes to the war seans. I'm twelve and a bout 2 weeks ago I wached it with my dad. It was kinda emotional (depressing, not crying kinda emotional) , but I realy enjoyed it. I would Highly reccemend it.
Incertonia
16-07-2004, 08:48
Why is everybody hating on Moore? She was hot in Striptease and Charlie's Angels 2. Sure she has fake tits, but so does most of Hollywood. Don't be hatin'! :D
Evil Elite
16-07-2004, 08:54
Why is everybody hating on Moore? She was hot in Striptease and Charlie's Angels 2. Sure she has fake tits, but so does most of Hollywood. Don't be hatin'! :D


Moore? Tit's?

<Thinks of Moore, shirtless>


Oh, GOD HELP ME! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! TAKE IT OUT OF MY BRAIN! PLEASE! PPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Incertonia
16-07-2004, 08:56
Moore? Tit's?

<Thinks of Moore, shirtless>


Oh, GOD HELP ME! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! TAKE IT OUT OF MY BRAIN! PLEASE! PPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Think of Demi--the burning will stop.
Jassand
16-07-2004, 09:01
Why is everybody hating on Moore? She was hot in Striptease and Charlie's Angels 2. Sure she has fake tits, but so does most of Hollywood. Don't be hatin'! :D

I think your talking about a different Moore. We are talking about Michael Moore, a politition smart guy person (nice decription, ah?)
Incertonia
16-07-2004, 09:04
I think your talking about a different Moore. We are talking about Michael Moore, a politition smart guy person (nice decription, ah?)
No kidding--on the first page I made a similar post about Roger Moore that everyone promptly ignored too. I was hoping to inject some levity into a retarded subject.
Jassand
16-07-2004, 09:10
No kidding--on the first page I made a similar post about Roger Moore that everyone promptly ignored too. I was hoping to inject some levity into a retarded subject.

hahaha... not. :headbang:
Tygaland
16-07-2004, 09:15
No kidding--on the first page I made a similar post about Roger Moore that everyone promptly ignored too. I was hoping to inject some levity into a retarded subject.

Maybe your jokes need to fly at lower altitude so more people here will "get" them. I didn't think it was all that subtle myself but what can you do.... :confused:
Bella Noche
16-07-2004, 09:18
i believe that michael moore is after exposure and accountability. i think if anything, his documentaries force people to think and challenge what is fed to them. everything moore says is not perfectly unbiased but neither is anything else in the media. although i agree that moore is obnoxious at times, i think he is witty, brilliant, funny, and honest. from watching many interviews, reading every article, and watching everything he touches i really feel comfortable saying that he cares about america and just like many of us does not like the direction our country is going. i don't think bush is a bad person but i do think he's a bad president. tell me what good he has done. what substantial good he has done. i'd really like to know because i feel like i have the most biased bad view of him because all i've ever read, heard, or seen of him is bad. even from media sources praising his stance on education, I don't agree, I think that his approach is harsh and unsupported by funds. Anyway the point is I don't think Michael Moore deserves half of the critisizm he has recieved. I can't wait to see what is next.
Jassand
16-07-2004, 09:21
i believe that michael moore is after exposure and accountability. i think if anything, his documentaries force people to think and challenge what is fed to them. everything moore says is not perfectly unbiased but neither is anything else in the media. although i agree that moore is obnoxious at times, i think he is witty, brilliant, funny, and honest. from watching many interviews, reading every article, and watching everything he touches i really feel comfortable saying that he cares about america and just like many of us does not like the direction our country is going. i don't think bush is a bad person but i do think he's a bad president. tell me what good he has done. what substantial good he has done. i'd really like to know because i feel like i have the most biased bad view of him because all i've ever read, heard, or seen of him is bad. even from media sources praising his stance on education, I don't agree, I think that his approach is harsh and unsupported by funds. Anyway the point is I don't think Michael Moore deserves half of the critisizm he has recieved. I can't wait to see what is next.

I agree almost Fully. Good speech Bella.
V-Ger
16-07-2004, 09:29
you know, the weird thing is that if it was a anti Kerry movie, i would be like "its the best tihng ive ever seen" lol
Jassand
16-07-2004, 09:36
Do u mean you are pro-bush and null-kerry?

BTW,
Goodnight.
Helioterra
16-07-2004, 11:44
I'm seeing Moores movie when it comes out in the film fest next week. The problem with him is too many people either take his word as gospel or call him stupid because they don't like hearing what he says.
I think the most scary thing about Moore is that he is almost the only guy many Americans listen. There are dozens of intellectuals who are trying to get their message heard. And they use proper arguments. But they are not funny. I think people should really think why making fun of everything is the only way to get the message to public. Start reading, start watching other chanels, check everything and before that don't believe anything. You'll find that Moore's revelations are just a hint of what's really going on.
The Holy Word
16-07-2004, 13:56
Definition of "Documentary":

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

(Source: www.dictionary.com)

Seeing as Moore does editorialise, his films are not documentaries but movies.Is that ever actually possible? Surely any documentry maker makes editorial judgements, not just in terms of what they put in, but also in terms of what they leave out. It could also be argued that Moore does fit defination one. But then so does pretty much anything.
Xerxes Xavier
16-07-2004, 15:03
I wasn't a fan of Moore telling Canada and us (Australia) how to vote in our up coming election. It wasn't even a very good arguement as to how I should vote: "I don't understand how Howard can be embedded with Bush.... At least he's got half a brain, and I'm being generous." was basically it. Well, that's all well and good to say that, but it was such a craptastic thing to say on account of the fact that, no one from our nation is telling Americans going "Don't vote for Bush because... blah blah blah.." as if the people of the U.S. can't make the decision for themselves. You don't need someone from another country telling us how to vote with such a lame arse excuse of an explanation.
imported_Pigsy
16-07-2004, 15:27
Bush and Moore, they're both a-holes. Both seek publicity, but thats kinda obvious considering who they are and what they do, and they are both making money out of 9-11.

Moore often says things about the US being overly consumerist and then you check out how fat he is. Fighting for the poor man's cause, but living in Manhattan.
Formal Dances
16-07-2004, 15:31
Is that ever actually possible? Surely any documentry maker makes editorial judgements, not just in terms of what they put in, but also in terms of what they leave out. It could also be argued that Moore does fit defination one. But then so does pretty much anything.

I've seen a ton of documentaries on The History Channel. All of them deal with facts. Moore injected his own agenda into this movie and it is obvious by the reviews i've read.

Chanuckhevean, I hope you enjoy the movie and I hope that you realize that it is biased against bush and that he twisted many facts and cut speeches apart and spliced them together. It is an entertainment value only and it shouldn't be considered a documentary.
The Holy Word
16-07-2004, 15:40
I've seen a ton of documentaries on The History Channel. All of them deal with facts. Moore injected his own agenda into this movie and it is obvious by the reviews i've read.
Are you acknowledging that factual documentaries are impossible where it comes to modern political issues then? I'd even question the example that you use. Like anyone else, historians have their own set of beliefs which is naturally going to influence their work. Your problem with Moore seems to be that his agenda is overt as opposed to hidden. (And that it isn't your agenda. I've never seen you attack Coulter or Fox News for the same reasons). Out of interest, who are the authors of the reviews you're reffering to.
Helioterra
16-07-2004, 15:48
I've seen a ton of documentaries on The History Channel. All of them deal with facts. Moore injected his own agenda into this movie and it is obvious by the reviews i've read.

Chanuckhevean, I hope you enjoy the movie and I hope that you realize that it is biased against bush and that he twisted many facts and cut speeches apart and spliced them together. It is an entertainment value only and it shouldn't be considered a documentary.

Factual documentaries are just one style in documentaries. Most documentaries are presenting someone's point of view and Fahrenheit 911 is presenting Moore's ideas. How Man with a movie camera is a factual documentary? And still at least this far it has always been considered as documentary.
Saying that, I do know that many people tend to think that documentaries are objective and factual and because of this I think we should have some more precise terms for documentaries. Maybe factfilms and others or what ever..
Reynes
16-07-2004, 19:00
i love moore and his movies, and agree with nearly every point he makes. i am adamently anti-bush, and i feel that moore's movie needs to be seen by every american who claim they care about this country.Sounds like you took it, hook line and sinker.

Moore is anything but a patriot. Let's see what he says when beyond our borders:

To the London Mirror:
"[Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]"

"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

In Cambridge:
"You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe."Uh, sprechen sie Deutsch, Europe? (x2!)
sprechen sie Russian, Germany?
C'mon, Somalia, was the food really that bad?
You're welcome to have Saddam back.
(I could go on, but you get the point.)

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win."Wow. Raving patriotism. I didn't compare Zarqawi with Revere.

Do some research before you jump on the bandwagon. Just because he's anti-Bush doesn't mean he's right.
Jassand
16-07-2004, 20:30
Hey, I wrote a cool topic about Moore also, exept, this isn't an anti-Moore topic, it's a Pro-Moore and a Anti Moore Topic About what being patriotic realy is and why people hate Moore. Please atleast check it out:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340196
The Black Forrest
16-07-2004, 20:41
"[Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]"

There is some truth to us being dumb. Many many americans don't even know their own history. Hey if it's on TV; it must be true. Republicans never lie right?


"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

There is truth to that as well. I have explained to many people that Afghans are not Arabs. Muslims are not all Arabs.


Uh, sprechen sie Deutsch, Europe? (x2!)
sprechen sie Russian, Germany?
C'mon, Somalia, was the food really that bad?
You're welcome to have Saddam back.
(I could go on, but you get the point.)

Wow you fought in Europe? Sorry but our grandparents and great-grandparents are owed. Not you!

You were involved in the cold war? See above.


Quote:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win."
Wow. Raving patriotism. I didn't compare Zarqawi with Revere.


Wow all iraqis are like Zarqawi?

-edit-

Oh and by the way. Zarqawi is not Iraqi! :eek:
Soviet Democracy
16-07-2004, 20:43
im a liberal and i despise that freeloader moore as much as i hate rush limbaugh

I am also a liberal. I do not like the way Moore presents his views, much like I do not like the way Rush lies to support his views. If I had to pick one I would go with Moore, because at least he does not piss me off with his message.
Colerica
16-07-2004, 21:20
Wow all iraqis are like Zarqawi?

-edit-

Oh and by the way. Zarqawi is not Iraqi! :eek:

Moore isn't talking about the normal Iraqis, he's talking about the Islamo-Fascist terrorists who saw off innocent people's heads with knives. Moore should be deported for treason....no, stratch that...executed for treason....

Me!
Tygaland
17-07-2004, 01:48
In reference to the definition of "Documentary" posted earlier:

Is that ever actually possible? Surely any documentry maker makes editorial judgements, not just in terms of what they put in, but also in terms of what they leave out. It could also be argued that Moore does fit defination one. But then so does pretty much anything.

Yes it is possible. I have watched many true documentaries where their initial hypothesis is not substantiated and others where their initial hypothesis is supported. Where the people creating the documentary provide all the evidence to the viewer and therefore show a true conclusion. All documentaries need to be edited but it is the way they are edited that truly dictates whether they are a true documentary. Moore leaves out vital information that may not support his argument, he shuffles interview responses to try and support his views and uses quotes out of context and out of sequence. This is not the work of a documentary maker. It is the work of a movie maker. The fact that he uses real-life footage rather than that of actors (even though he does use actors on occasion also) does not make it a documentary.
As for the first definition that is a broader meaning for the word documentary used as an adjective. As in "documentary evidence". The second definition relates specifically to books or film.
That being said it does narrow the field as far as true documentaries go but that is fine by me. Moore's work is not a documentary but a movie based on his opinions and nothing more. If it inspires people to read more and seek out more information with an intent to make up their own minds based on what they learn then it is a positive thing. If people watch Moore's movies and base their beliefs solely on his work then that is a sad reflection on those people because they are doing themselves a great disservice.
MKULTRA
18-07-2004, 00:56
people who condemn Moore for doing his civic duty have unamerican values
Tygaland
18-07-2004, 01:05
people who condemn Moore for doing his civic duty have unamerican values

I don't condemn Moore for anything. I condemn the people who take his opinion as gospel and refuse to think for themselves.
Colerica
18-07-2004, 01:07
people who condemn Moore for doing his civic duty have unamerican values

I don't condemn Moore. He's expressing his First Amendment rights and I'll die defending scumbags like Moore's right to speak their mind. No, as a matter of fact, I take that back...I do condemn Moore....for slander and libel...and presenting lies as fact.....

Me!
MKULTRA
18-07-2004, 01:59
I don't condemn Moore. He's expressing his First Amendment rights and I'll die defending scumbags like Moore's right to speak their mind. No, as a matter of fact, I take that back...I do condemn Moore....for slander and libel...and presenting lies as fact.....

Me!
yet you defend war criminals like Bush/Cheney...strange
Goed
18-07-2004, 02:01
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death you're ability to say it.

Or something like that.

Voltaire, I believe :p
Imperial Ecclesiarchy
18-07-2004, 02:33
Moore is a schemer. Before you quit reading this, read a bit more, and perhaps understand why many feel that what he is doing is fundamentally wrong, at least in the eyes of this moderate American conserative.

Moore is an American. His mission is to ultimately influence the government into adopting pseudo-socialist positions, like banning guns and such. That is fine. I couldn't care less. Anybody can do that. It is his right.

Moore's 'documentary' won at the Cannes festival. In Europe and around the world, he directly addressed foreigners about how inept his president is. I value my nation's sovreignty. I feel violated. What if somebody from your country or city went abroad and maligned your home? I would never have done this to any liberal. Despite his positions and behavior, I never hated Bill Clinton. He was my president. I might feel momentary anger, but it is not the unfocused, irrational, adolescent rage that Moore basks in. And I don't complain to the neighbors.

I apologize for my post's length. Agree or disagree, you suffered through my writing, and hopefully you understand me now. Good day.
Colerica
18-07-2004, 03:18
yet you defend war criminals like Bush/Cheney...strange

Careful, MKULTRA, you might just break your leg jumping to conclusions like that....

Me!
Tygaland
18-07-2004, 04:57
Moore is a schemer. Before you quit reading this, read a bit more, and perhaps understand why many feel that what he is doing is fundamentally wrong, at least in the eyes of this moderate American conserative.

Moore is an American. His mission is to ultimately influence the government into adopting pseudo-socialist positions, like banning guns and such. That is fine. I couldn't care less. Anybody can do that. It is his right.

Moore's 'documentary' won at the Cannes festival. In Europe and around the world, he directly addressed foreigners about how inept his president is. I value my nation's sovreignty. I feel violated. What if somebody from your country or city went abroad and maligned your home? I would never have done this to any liberal. Despite his positions and behavior, I never hated Bill Clinton. He was my president. I might feel momentary anger, but it is not the unfocused, irrational, adolescent rage that Moore basks in. And I don't complain to the neighbors.

I apologize for my post's length. Agree or disagree, you suffered through my writing, and hopefully you understand me now. Good day.

A good post. Moore is now making it his business to insult leaders of other countries allied with the US. He can say what he likes but the use of schoolyard name-calling is unnecessary and makes him look foolish.
Tygaland
18-07-2004, 04:58
Careful, MKULTRA, you might just break your leg jumping to conclusions like that....

Me!

He didn't jump to that conclusion he has been there a long time hoping the evidence will eventually make it the right conclusion. :rolleyes:
Justness
18-07-2004, 05:45
Moore is a schemer. Before you quit reading this, read a bit more, and perhaps understand why many feel that what he is doing is fundamentally wrong, at least in the eyes of this moderate American conserative.

Moore is an American. His mission is to ultimately influence the government into adopting pseudo-socialist positions, like banning guns and such. That is fine. I couldn't care less. Anybody can do that. It is his right.

Moore's 'documentary' won at the Cannes festival. In Europe and around the world, he directly addressed foreigners about how inept his president is. I value my nation's sovreignty. I feel violated. What if somebody from your country or city went abroad and maligned your home? I would never have done this to any liberal. Despite his positions and behavior, I never hated Bill Clinton. He was my president. I might feel momentary anger, but it is not the unfocused, irrational, adolescent rage that Moore basks in. And I don't complain to the neighbors.


It seems to me that you don't yourself think what is right or wrong or you think but act like a sheep and adopt opinions of authorities or don't adopt but you just let it be even if you know or didn't know they're wrong. That's not patriotism in my opinion. Patriotism is making you're country better, not being blind. And why should it matter where Moore has born? Moore is just showing that he's enough intelligent to see faults of his own country instead seeing only the faults of other countries. And you ask "what if somebody from your country or city went abroad..." then I would be glad tha he/she has enough spirit to stand against his own nation. And you say Moore is irrationa? never considered watching on mirror?
Tygaland
18-07-2004, 05:54
It seems to me that you don't yourself think what is right or wrong or you think but act like a sheep and adopt opinions of authorities or don't adopt but you just let it be even if you know or didn't know they're wrong. That's not patriotism in my opinion. Patriotism is making you're country better, not being blind. And why should it matter where Moore has born? Moore is just showing that he's enough intelligent to see faults of his own country instead seeing only the faults of other countries. And you ask "what if somebody from your country or city went abroad..." then I would be glad tha he/she has enough spirit to stand against his own nation. And you say Moore is irrationa? never considered watching on mirror?

Imperial Ecclesiarchy merely expressed their opinion on why they do not like the way Moore delivers his message. In their opinion you can make changes to your country in a more positive way than denigrating your country and its President to an international audience.

Moore's method is "in-your-face" and his penchant for name-calling and ridiculing people he disagrees with gets a lot of people off-side. I wouldn't call it irrational but rather more childish. I did not think Imperial Ecclesiarchy was irrational, they posted their views in a clear and concise manner.

If Moore is entitled to his opinion then so is Imperial Ecclesiarchy.
Goed
18-07-2004, 06:19
I agree on him going abroad just to insult the president.

Honestly, he's hated enough as it is :p. Keep your efforts HERE if you want him to not be elected.

Speaking of being hated, I don't hate Bush. Do I think he's been a good president? Heeeeeell NO. But hate him? Yesh, that's a bit overboard.


Moore's methods are...questionable to say the least. There are much better, nicer, more polite, and above all else CIVIL ways to show you're feelings of the current administration.
Tygaland
18-07-2004, 06:57
I agree on him going abroad just to insult the president.

Honestly, he's hated enough as it is :p. Keep your efforts HERE if you want him to not be elected.

Speaking of being hated, I don't hate Bush. Do I think he's been a good president? Heeeeeell NO. But hate him? Yesh, that's a bit overboard.


Moore's methods are...questionable to say the least. There are much better, nicer, more polite, and above all else CIVIL ways to show you're feelings of the current administration.

I agree. I cannot comment on Bush being a good or bad President as I am not American.
Thou Shalt Not Lie
18-07-2004, 07:24
Sounds like you took it, hook line and sinker.

Moore is anything but a patriot. Let's see what he says when beyond our borders:

To the London Mirror:


In Cambridge:
Uh, sprechen sie Deutsch, Europe? (x2!)
sprechen sie Russian, Germany?
C'mon, Somalia, was the food really that bad?
You're welcome to have Saddam back.
(I could go on, but you get the point.)

Wow. Raving patriotism. I didn't compare Zarqawi with Revere.

Do some research before you jump on the bandwagon. Just because he's anti-Bush doesn't mean he's right.

Perhaps you should go and see the movie and then you can give a more objective view of the topic, rather than use quotes from an obviously anti-Moore web site?

Fahrenheit 911 is certainly a powerful movie that raises the consiousness of the viewer.
Tygaland
18-07-2004, 07:27
Perhaps you should go and see the movie and then you can give a more objective view of the topic, rather than use quotes from an obviously anti-Moore web site?

Fahrenheit 911 is certainly a powerful movie that raises the consiousness of the viewer.

Farenheit 9/11 is a movie full of deceptions. The fact that you dismiss anti-Moore websites point-blank yet praise his movies suggests you are as biased as the websites you dismiss.
Watch the movies if you like, read the websites that criticise the movies and then make up your own mind.
MKULTRA
19-07-2004, 01:14
Farenheit 9/11 is a movie full of deceptions. The fact that you dismiss anti-Moore websites point-blank yet praise his movies suggests you are as biased as the websites you dismiss.
Watch the movies if you like, read the websites that criticise the movies and then make up your own mind.
the same can be said in reverse--you have no right to dismiss Moores movie out of hand as being full of deceptions unless youve seen it
Thou Shalt Not Lie
19-07-2004, 04:01
Farenheit 9/11 is a movie full of deceptions. The fact that you dismiss anti-Moore websites point-blank yet praise his movies suggests you are as biased as the websites you dismiss.
Watch the movies if you like, read the websites that criticise the movies and then make up your own mind.

I saw both the movie and the web site. Did you?
Katganistan
19-07-2004, 06:41
Maybe your jokes need to fly at lower altitude so more people here will "get" them. I didn't think it was all that subtle myself but what can you do.... :confused:

I understood the references. Didn't seem terribly commentworthy.

(BTW George Lazenby was a better Bond.) ;)
Tumaniaa
19-07-2004, 07:10
Hey, do you hate Michael Moore? Do you like George Bush? then go to
http://s3.invisionfree.com/death_to_MOORE

and voice it

Wow, such vision! That forum is built on such noble principles! I think you've got a movement here! Sure, today there are only two dyslexic people going "Moor suk!" in that forum...But tomorrow? Who knows? Maybe there will be three?
The Holy Word
19-07-2004, 13:33
Yes it is possible. I have watched many true documentaries where their initial hypothesis is not substantiated and others where their initial hypothesis is supported. Where the people creating the documentary provide all the evidence to the viewer and therefore show a true conclusion. All documentaries need to be edited but it is the way they are edited that truly dictates whether they are a true documentary. Moore leaves out vital information that may not support his argument, he shuffles interview responses to try and support his views and uses quotes out of context and out of sequence. This is not the work of a documentary maker. It is the work of a movie maker. The fact that he uses real-life footage rather than that of actors (even though he does use actors on occasion also) does not make it a documentary.Can you think of any specific examples? Particuarly as far as documentrys about modern controversial political issues are concerned.
That being said it does narrow the field as far as true documentaries go but that is fine by me. Moore's work is not a documentary but a movie based on his opinions and nothing more. If it inspires people to read more and seek out more information with an intent to make up their own minds based on what they learn then it is a positive thing. If people watch Moore's movies and base their beliefs solely on his work then that is a sad reflection on those people because they are doing themselves a great disservice.I'd agree with that, but would say it goes further then that. Anyone who bases their beliefs solely on someone/something else is doing themselves a great disservice. And whether that is Moore, Fox News, Marx or the Bible is largely immaterial.
Formal Dances
19-07-2004, 13:46
the same can be said in reverse--you have no right to dismiss Moores movie out of hand as being full of deceptions unless youve seen it

MKULTRA, there has been more than one analyst on this movie that has debunk Moor's 'Documentary'

More than one piece of evidence left out in Moore's movie. Speeches where spliced and quotes left out. When he asked Senators about sending their kids off to war, he left out that a few of them have their children FIGHTING IN IRAQ when he said they wouldn't!

As Americans, I don't hate him for speaking against Bush here, but when he goes abroad then insults the President as well as his COUNTRY? That goes to far in my book!
Spratt
19-07-2004, 14:29
As Americans, I don't hate him for speaking against Bush here, but when he goes abroad then insults the President as well as his COUNTRY? That goes to far in my book!

There is a HUGE difference between insulting a country and acknowledging a countries problems. What he has said abroad has (in most cases) hit dead on. While on that note, I don't understand why talking about foreign politics is so controversial. Is it really that bad for someone to hear an opinion on a foreign country that doesn't come from the media?
The Holy Word
19-07-2004, 15:42
As Americans, I don't hate him for speaking against Bush here, but when he goes abroad then insults the President as well as his COUNTRY? That goes to far in my book!I thought to be President you had to win the popular vote. Is it different in the U.S.?

Your argument would also apply to those who spoke against slavery, segregation and rule by the British outside the U.S. And authors like P.J. O'Rourke who attack the U.S. from a libertarian right perspective.

Ironically there is a lot wrong with Moore. The difference between his "man of the people" persona and his egotistical prima donna behaviour. His hypocrisy and flipflopping on the issue of the Democratic party. (To claim to believe in the class war and then support a corporate party is ridiculous). His abandonment of Mumia to win favour with the liberal elite. But as usual, the right are to dim to make the attacks that actually matter.
3P
19-07-2004, 15:52
Ok, that website is just sad. And everyone that posts there obviously does not understand Michael Moore. Everyone who hates him is always talking about how he hates America, but if you ever picked up one of his books, or watched one of his movies, or his TV shows, or really, just thought about what he was doing, would understand that Michael Moore loves America more than anyone else in the world. He has dedicated his life to defending Americans who have had wrong done to them, and to making the country that he loves a better place, and making sure that justice is served. Everyone always says he is biased so therefore his documentaries aren't accurate, and I say people that say that are stupid. How are you ment to make a point by going, "Well, on the other hand..." He had a whole staff fact check all his documentaries and all his books. You people who hate him seriously just don't understand him, and are too set in your own evil ways to even think about understanding him. I love Michael Moore. I think he's great, unlike me, he hasn't given up on America, when he has every reason to. You guys bitch about him, and yet he dedicates his life to helping you (whether you know it or not), everyone hates what he says, but he knows that some things need to be said, so he says them. Michael Moore is a talented film maker, and an intresting writer. If you have nothing better to do all day than sit around and bitch about him on the internet, and praise some man who is lying to you, and killing innocent people for no god damned reason, then you seriously need to go and get a life.
Formal Dances
19-07-2004, 16:15
I thought to be President you had to win the popular vote. Is it different in the U.S.?

Your argument would also apply to those who spoke against slavery, segregation and rule by the British outside the U.S. And authors like P.J. O'Rourke who attack the U.S. from a libertarian right perspective.

Ironically there is a lot wrong with Moore. The difference between his "man of the people" persona and his egotistical prima donna behaviour. His hypocrisy and flipflopping on the issue of the Democratic party. (To claim to believe in the class war and then support a corporate party is ridiculous). His abandonment of Mumia to win favour with the liberal elite. But as usual, the right are to dim to make the attacks that actually matter.

It is different in the USA! You don't have to win the popular vote. All you have to do is gain 270 Electoral Votes to become president. If a president doesn't win the popular vote, he is called a minority president.
Formal Dances
19-07-2004, 16:21
He had a whole staff fact check all his documentaries and all his books.

Well if he does have a whole staff to fact check, then he should get a new staff. Every network had a report on this movie and most of them have punched holes in his so called facts! If what he claims is factual then he needs to re-read the full press reports as well as KEEP WHOLE QUOTES for his movies. Its a known fact that he spliced speeches and put them to other speeches to make a point that HE wants to make. He doesn't care about facts. He only cares about a political agenda. Both of his movies have been debunked on several occassions. Anaylsts as well as political anaylsts have debunked this movie. Now if a political anaylst has debunked this movie, doesn't that tell you something about this movie?
3P
19-07-2004, 16:26
both of his movies? He has many more than two.

He has never lied in his movies, most of the stuff he says an opinion, but many people think that he is presenting it as a fact. They're opinions. Sure, he takes things out of context, but honestly, who dosen't?
Formal Dances
19-07-2004, 16:29
both of his movies? He has many more than two.

He has never lied in his movies, most of the stuff he says an opinion, but many people think that he is presenting it as a fact. They're opinions. Sure, he takes things out of context, but honestly, who dosen't?

I only know of 2 of his films. I don't know about the others but the 2 that I do know about have been debunk as full of his opinions as well as half truths, in which to quote Marcus from Bablyon 5 (and others that have posted this) "a half truth is the worst type of lie"
CanuckHeaven
19-07-2004, 17:07
I only know of 2 of his films. I don't know about the others but the 2 that I do know about have been debunk as full of his opinions as well as half truths, in which to quote Marcus from Bablyon 5 (and others that have posted this) "a half truth is the worst type of lie"

You really don't know for sure because you haven't seen the movie. You are basing your knowledge on other people's biased opinions?

I have seen the movie and it was very enlightening. It also shows the human aspect which is missing in most news stories.
Formal Dances
19-07-2004, 17:20
You really don't know for sure because you haven't seen the movie. You are basing your knowledge on other people's biased opinions?

I have seen the movie and it was very enlightening. It also shows the human aspect which is missing in most news stories.

no i'm not! I'm basing my opinions on what people have said on the news and on the radio. They have pointed out that Moore's movie is more opinion than fact. The facts are in the speeches that he cut and spliced with others to point out what he wanted them to say. He spliced interviews to other interviews to make it sound like that they have said this. All the people he interviewed stated that isn't what I've told him. That is why I've said what I've said. His movie, and Bowling too, have been debunked. They are not 'Documentaries' but movies for entertainment. It won't decide the election! People are just going for entertainment more than anything else. People who take this for gospel need to have their pretty little heads examined.
Frozenhells
19-07-2004, 19:22
Think about it... targeted people and media debunk what they believe he presents as fact, though he might be in some cases merely presenting opinions and interpretations...


still, considering the weight and importance of the subjects he covered in BFC and F9/11, has anyone heard or read about anything remotely ressembling a trial for, say, diffamation and/or libel?

If everyone cries and cringes that "I didn't say that!" or "it's all lies!", WHY didn't anyone actually get all lawyer-happy on his (admitedly somewhat wide) butt?

Moore doesn't present the whole truth, that's an undeniable fact and he's probably the first one to admit it, but no one seems to take the care of -officially- debunking his supposed lies even though they complain and cry plenty.

Think about it...
CanuckHeaven
19-07-2004, 23:53
no i'm not! I'm basing my opinions on what people have said on the news and on the radio. They have pointed out that Moore's movie is more opinion than fact. The facts are in the speeches that he cut and spliced with others to point out what he wanted them to say. He spliced interviews to other interviews to make it sound like that they have said this. All the people he interviewed stated that isn't what I've told him. That is why I've said what I've said. His movie, and Bowling too, have been debunked. They are not 'Documentaries' but movies for entertainment. It won't decide the election! People are just going for entertainment more than anything else. People who take this for gospel need to have their pretty little heads examined.

Well I have seen the movie, and you haven't. For me to take your word as "gospel", would certainly require a head examination.

I suggest strongly that you see Fahrenheit 911, then we can truly compare notes, and your credibility will be enhanced? Until then, all you can do is regurgitate other people's biased opinions.
Formal Dances
20-07-2004, 00:06
Well I have seen the movie, and you haven't. For me to take your word as "gospel", would certainly require a head examination.

I suggest strongly that you see Fahrenheit 911, then we can truly compare notes, and your credibility will be enhanced? Until then, all you can do is regurgitate other people's biased opinions.

How are their opinions biased? Most of them wen to see and then debunked it. Some Senators have debunked it. Analysts have debunked it. As such, Moore won't get my money. Yea it got good reviews however, people will forget all about it.

So how are the Senators, analysts and people that study these things, biased?
Incertonia
20-07-2004, 00:18
First off--who are these Senators that have "debunked" Moore's claims? Forget for the moment that Senators are by their natures partisan and therefore biased--who are they and what did they debunk?

And which analysts have debunked it and where? Show me one with no ties to major right-wing groups and we'll talk. Most of the so-called debunkings have been differences in interpretation of fact, not in matters of fact in itself.
Formal Dances
20-07-2004, 00:21
First off--who are these Senators that have "debunked" Moore's claims? Forget for the moment that Senators are by their natures partisan and therefore biased--who are they and what did they debunk?

And which analysts have debunked it and where? Show me one with no ties to major right-wing groups and we'll talk. Most of the so-called debunkings have been differences in interpretation of fact, not in matters of fact in itself.

Senators that Moore quoted out of context during his interviewing of senators and asking them if they would send their children off to war. Moore didn't use the quotes that senators told them have kids in the War over in Iraq.
Incertonia
20-07-2004, 00:24
Senators that Moore quoted out of context during his interviewing of senators and asking them if they would send their children off to war. Moore didn't use the quotes that senators told them have kids in the War over in Iraq.There are no Senators with children in Iraq. There's one member of the House with a kid in Iraq, and that's in for the entire Congress. There are Senators with kids in the military, but none of them have kids in Iraq.
Formal Dances
20-07-2004, 00:41
There are no Senators with children in Iraq. There's one member of the House with a kid in Iraq, and that's in for the entire Congress. There are Senators with kids in the military, but none of them have kids in Iraq.

In the military and in Iraq those Senators have!
The Black Forrest
20-07-2004, 00:45
In the military and in Iraq those Senators have!

All right who is in Iraq and how do you verify what they are doing?
Incertonia
20-07-2004, 00:46
In the military and in Iraq those Senators have!
I stand corrected. (http://myhome.hanafos.com/~commo7/senators'%20sons%20in%20war%20an%20army%20of%20one.htm) There is one Senator with a child in the military that is deployed in Iraq. Senator Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota. He's the only one. I've backed my statement up--if there are others, then now's the time to put up or shut up.
The Holy Word
20-07-2004, 00:47
In the military and in Iraq those Senators have!Do you have their names?
Reynes
20-07-2004, 00:50
Wow you fought in Europe? Sorry but our grandparents and great-grandparents are owed. Not you!

You were involved in the cold war? See above.If you took the half-second to cross-reference Moore's quote, you would have seen that I was obviously poking fun at Moore's belief we spread nothing but misery around the world. I was not glorifying myself.
DUMBASS.
Sumamba Buwhan
20-07-2004, 01:00
I FINALLY got to see F9/11 and it was really good.

Moore's commentary did bug me on some parts because the case against Bush really makes itself. Moore insinuates stuff too much, but I am glad that he is giving people issues to think about.

Yes, only one senator has a kid in the miltary but I don't know if he is in Iraq or not. I applaud that Senators KID for doing that even though he came from a priveledged family though.
CanuckHeaven
20-07-2004, 01:01
I stand corrected. (http://myhome.hanafos.com/~commo7/senators'%20sons%20in%20war%20an%20army%20of%20one.htm) There is one Senator with a child in the military that is deployed in Iraq. Senator Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota. He's the only one. I've backed my statement up--if there are others, then now's the time to put up or shut up.
The fact remains that Moore made an excellent point in this documentary by exposing this lack of service by elected officials' children.

FYI:

Mr. Johnson's son Brooks, 31, is a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division, in a helicopter assault unit that, the last the senator knew, was stationed in Kuwait, awaiting orders.
The Black Forrest
20-07-2004, 01:03
If you took the half-second to cross-reference Moore's quote, you would have seen that I was obviously poking fun at Moore's belief we spread nothing but misery around the world. I was not glorifying myself.
DUMBASS.

Are you now? Hmmm some of your comments in the past suggest otherwise.

It's not a question of self glorification, its the belief you think Europe owes this country for WWII. As stated they owe our grandparents, great-grandparents, or greatx2 grandparents.

The Neo-Cons are so fervant in this attitude, they almost sound like they think they fought the war.

DUMBASS?

From you that can be considered a compliment!
Formal Dances
20-07-2004, 01:03
The fact remains that Moore made an excellent point in this documentary by exposing this lack of service by elected officials' children.

CanuckHeaven, we don't force people to serve. Our force is ENTIRELY VOLUNTEER. If they don't want to sign up and serve in the military, that is their right.

Just because our elected officials children don't sign up, doesn't mean anything.
Sumamba Buwhan
20-07-2004, 01:09
FD, do you really believe that the poor generally sign up for service because they just love their country more? that doesn't mean anything? that doesn't say anything to you?

NO, they do it because they recruit poor people, as rich keeds have no need to go into the military.

There are kids from priveledged famillies in the military and that shows true character. But that is the exception and not the rule.

To me, that speaks volumes.
CanuckHeaven
20-07-2004, 02:33
CanuckHeaven, we don't force people to serve. Our force is ENTIRELY VOLUNTEER. If they don't want to sign up and serve in the military, that is their right.

Just because our elected officials children don't sign up, doesn't mean anything.
On the contrary, it means very much. Let me explain....

When there was talk of the US invading Iraq, a friend of mine (also a Canadian), was all for it while I was dead set against it. At any rate we bantered back and forth for a couple of weeks on MSN, and I finally asked him if he would be so much in favour if HIS kids would have to go over to Iraq and fight and his response was...."that is not a fair question".

I said that it was a total fair question. I suggested that if you believe in anything so strongly, then you yourself must be willing to make that same sacrifice. So I asked him again if he would be willing to put his children's lives in harms way for Iraq. His honest answer? NO!!

So yeah it is very relevant when politicians declare war, knowing full well that their immediate families will not be at risk. Michael Moore drives this point home very clearly in Fahrenheit 911.

No matter how you slice it, when there are wars, people are going to die and some are going to get seriously injured. Therefore, we need always remember WHO is making the sacrifices?
Spratt
20-07-2004, 03:09
[QUOTE=Formal Dances]I'm basing my opinions on what people have said on the news and on the radio. They have pointed out that Moore's movie is more opinion than fact. The facts are in the speeches that he cut and spliced with others to point out what he wanted them to say. He spliced interviews to other interviews to make it sound like that they have said this. QUOTE]

In the movie, the majority of the facts were presented through interviews, not speeches. I remember only two live pieces of footage that may have been spliced, and they lasted for about two minutes total. Consider the amount of time he put into the rest of the movie. Do you honestly believe you can get that much truth out of ANYONE in politics? How about the radio that talked about this? Do they always tell the truth?
Talondar
20-07-2004, 04:49
Howdy
I'll be quick. I have not seen the movie because I haven't found a way to see it without giving Moore my money. I support his right to say what he wants, but I also support my right as a consumer not to help fund his views. Those of you who have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, is this website accurate?
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fif...renheit-911.htm
Straughn
20-07-2004, 05:19
Noticeably, most of the folks on these kinds of threads that attack more (including poster) either don't actually have experience in the subject matter presented in his materials, or don't do enough discerning on their own.
Simple point - if all he's saying are lies, then merely turn the volume off and continue to watch. Whatcha got then?
The editorial parts are just that, admittedly - editorial.
The rest is ACTUAL FOOTAGE. Go argue about that. Maybe an intrepid individual would BOTHER to check Moore's sources and notes, which he usually AMPLY provides. So the only rational explanation for a person to ASSume that it's all lies and propaganda from him are people who are too lazy, spiteful and easily mentally persuaded into a contradictory position to his presentation.
Many, MANY people yelled and ranted about the film without EVER seeing it or even KNOWING the subject matter at all. Those are the kind of people who should be affecting your perception of truth and experience? Especially bearing false witness? Let them stay with their Harlequin romance novel-style presentations from their "sources", there's a big enough TV selection to accomodate them.
Or think for yourself and find the evidence out for yourself.
Fnord.
Incertonia
20-07-2004, 05:21
Howdy
I'll be quick. I have not seen the movie because I haven't found a way to see it without giving Moore my money. I support his right to say what he wants, but I also support my right as a consumer not to help fund his views. Those of you who have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, is this website accurate?
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fif...renheit-911.htmFrom what I've read of them, most of Kopel's "debunkings" are actually differences of opinion in interpretation of the evidence, not disputations of fact.
Cannot think of a name
20-07-2004, 05:50
I don't know why, but the senator thing is bothering me the most. I guess because getting mad at the people who think Moore invented editing is just too much for me right now....

The first, THE FIRST senator that Moore stopped agreed with him, took the pamphlets and said he'd talk with his son. Was he blowing smoke up Moore's ass? Probably. Did Moore press it? No. Did he leave it out? Nope. In fact, he placed it first in the sequence. Only two others where talked to, and then there was some comidic footage of senators running from Moore like he had Kooties.

So Moore DID include a senator that accepted the proposal, in fact gave him top listing.

Move on.
Shabd
20-07-2004, 07:51
on the contrary Moore loves the country so much he dedicates his lifes work to making it the best it can be.

Moore hates the U.S.A. He's said multiple times that he thinks "American's are stupid". He is not working to improve the country; he's out to loudly trash anyone he can. Moore has said he will go after Kerry if he wins the presidency.

The Majority of America loved Farenheit 9/11 and it made history for a Documentary. Granted he twists the truth in some cases, but that just shows his perception. Everyone puts their own twist to whatever "truths" we learn. He shows his point of view and it seems to be the point of view of alot of people because he gets high marks. Remarkably even FOX gave Farenheit 9/11 a mostly favorable review.

Many people may have liked the movie, but it doesn't make it any more factual; it's filled with suppositions and half truths. A documentary "documents" facts; he never has in any of his films.

Granted he twists the truth in some cases, but that just shows his perception. We have a word for people who see things that aren't really there: Delusional.

Peace
Incertonia
20-07-2004, 08:17
Point one--there's a hell of a difference between saying "Americans are stupid" and hating America. Let me let you in on a little secret--by and large, Americans are stupid. We fail to see beyond our own asses when it comes to the effects we have on the rest of the world. We fail to look at the long term consequences of our actions. We get swept away by Britney Spears for fuck's sake! Individual Americans are intelligent, but as a society, we're too self-absorbed to be intelligent.

Point two--there was no twisting in Moore's movie. There was interpretation of available evidence. Don't agree with his conclusions? Fine. I don't agree with all of them either. That doesn't mean that his conclusions are without merit. That just means that there are different ways of looking at the available evidence.
IIRRAAQQII
20-07-2004, 08:23
I liked "Bowling for Columbine". I didn't see any partisanship, and i like finally a documentarian voicing his opinions on film whilst still giving the interviewees the chance to explain theirselves when it comes to firearms.
Laerod
20-07-2004, 08:33
Moore hates the U.S.A. He's said multiple times that he thinks "American's are stupid". He is not working to improve the country; he's out to loudly trash anyone he can. Moore has said he will go after Kerry if he wins the presidency.

Moore has stated that he loves America, but hates what has become of it and is using his constitutional rights to make it better. The idea that "American's are stupid" is a valid remark given the fact that our "education President" has cut funding for libraries and has decided to put (comparatively) more money into the military than into education.
The Holy Word
20-07-2004, 10:55
I don't know why, but the senator thing is bothering me the most. I guess because getting mad at the people who think Moore invented editing is just too much for me right now....
And we're still waiting for the names of these senators to be provided. I suspect it could be a long wait. ;)
CanuckHeaven
20-07-2004, 10:56
Howdy
I'll be quick. I have not seen the movie because I haven't found a way to see it without giving Moore my money. I support his right to say what he wants, but I also support my right as a consumer not to help fund his views. Those of you who have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, is this website accurate?
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fif...renheit-911.htm

Perhaps the best way to discover whether the website is accurate or not, is to go and see the movie yourself, then you won't have to base your opinion on other peoples opinions?

Personally speaking, I believe the above website is an over stuffed, opinionated rant against Moore, and in the end, it would have you believe that Moore is pro terrorist. Well I certainly don't buy into that garbage.

Fahrenheit 911, excellently conveyed the intended messages, and is a must see.
Sumamba Buwhan
20-07-2004, 16:45
If you haven't seen F9/11 and you are griping about it then your gripes have NO MERIT whatsoever, and you should really just shut the hell up.

If you have seen F9/11 and you are griping aobut it then back it up.

My roomies boyfriend is a rich republican that was for the war and he said it was a good movie that raises good points, and that everyone should see it and think about the views and facts presented.
Spratt
20-07-2004, 19:22
I've noticed something lately: not supporting the president is anti-american. I was in a public area talking with one of my friends about the current state of the government and someone said to me that I was:
1. Against America, and
2. Pro-terrorist
It was completely irrational. Just because a president was elected doesn't mean that he can't be a complete idiot/a liar/incappable of running the country. Let me ask you this: would Bush have been elected if his father hadn't been president? Doubtful. And I thought the father/son thing ended in this country. So don't call me anti-American for questioning Bush. Think about what you say before you give me the dis-pleasure of talking to you.
MKULTRA
21-07-2004, 00:16
I've noticed something lately: not supporting the president is anti-american. I was in a public area talking with one of my friends about the current state of the government and someone said to me that I was:
1. Against America, and
2. Pro-terrorist
It was completely irrational. Just because a president was elected doesn't mean that he can't be a complete idiot/a liar/incappable of running the country. Let me ask you this: would Bush have been elected if his father hadn't been president? Doubtful. And I thought the father/son thing ended in this country. So don't call me anti-American for questioning Bush. Think about what you say before you give me the dis-pleasure of talking to you.
its part of the republican culture war to punish dissent even tho dissent is the very core of our Democracy-we have an administration that wants to rule like the Saudi Kings
Toastyland
21-07-2004, 00:37
Howdy
I'll be quick. I have not seen the movie because I haven't found a way to see it without giving Moore my money. I support his right to say what he wants, but I also support my right as a consumer not to help fund his views. Those of you who have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, is this website accurate?
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fif...renheit-911.htm

How can you not go to a movie because you don't want to fund the maker? Moore already got paid, the only people you're hurting are the ones working at the movei theatre.

The way it works is that the theatres but the film, and then they resell it to the consumers. Moore already got paid before the first movie hit she screen.

Besides, it's a great movie.
Panhandlia
21-07-2004, 03:41
on the contrary Moore loves the country so much he dedicates his lifes work to making it the best it can be.
Hmmm...if Jabba the Moore does love his country so much, he certainly has a weird way to show it. Nevermind Fahrenlies 911 (which I think refers to the # of lies he has in it...,) look at Bowling for Columbine, or Roger and Me, or any other of his "documentaries" (for better effect, do the quotation marks a-la Dr Evil.) All these "works of art" (again, do the Dr Evil quotation marks) really are simple, unadulterated whine sessions. And I am sure you have heard of Jabba the Moore referring to the Soviet Union and the US as "one evil empire down, one to go." Yeah, love for the country, indeed.

The Majority of America loved Farenheit 9/11 and it made history for a Documentary. Granted he twists the truth in some cases, but that just shows his perception. Everyone puts their own twist to whatever "truths" we learn. He shows his point of view and it seems to be the point of view of alot of people because he gets high marks. Remarkably even FOX gave Farenheit 9/11 a mostly favorable review.
You must be smoking the same stuff RedArrow seems to be freebasing. The "majority of America loved F911"???? In what universe? Presuming an average ticket price of $7.50, the $23M it collected in its opening weekend give you barely over 2 million viewers...and quite a few of them went to see it 2 or 3 times! Now, did the lefty Kool-Aid drinkers love it? Yeah. But even leftist commentators have lost count of the number of inaccuracies or plain lies that Jabba the Moore has packed into his "documentary." (Dr Evil style quotation marks, please.) As for Fox giving F911 high marks...let's see the link that says so.
The Golden Simatar
21-07-2004, 03:55
Moore Is The Best!
Incertonia
21-07-2004, 03:56
Let's see--name calling? Check. Specious argument with no provision of proof? Check. Unwillingness to quote current figures that disprove his poorly stated thesis? Check. Yep--Panhandlia's back.
The True Domination
21-07-2004, 03:56
I love that guy. He's such a shit-disturber... A quality to be admired in your everyday social/political activist. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm gonna DL it any day now. And yes, I think Moore would appreciate the fact that poor people like me want to see his work too.
CanuckHeaven
21-07-2004, 04:43
Let's see--name calling? Check. Specious argument with no provision of proof? Check. Unwillingness to quote current figures that disprove his poorly stated thesis? Check. Yep--Panhandlia's back.
Obviously hasn't seen the movie and hasn't got a leg to stand on. Check

At last count, Fahrenheit was up to $93 Million in box office receipts and is #5 after 4 weeks since its' release.
Cannot think of a name
21-07-2004, 06:06
Obviously hasn't seen the movie and hasn't got a leg to stand on. Check

At last count, Fahrenheit was up to $93 Million in box office receipts and is #5 after 4 weeks since its' release.
This (trying to diminish the numbers) is the silliest of all rebuttles to the film. In it's opening weekend more people saw it than any documentary ever. That's EVER! The next highest grossing documentary (Bowling for Columbine) grossed around $22 million for it's entire run, F9/11 toped that in three days. Hedge that all you want, that's signifigant. If you want to paint it as meaningless, then people have to stop quoting FNCs ratings as a defence. Even then, doesn't hold. The box office numbers are signifigant. Sorry Bob.
Insane Troll
21-07-2004, 07:30
Ooooh, look at this.

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/whatever_it_takes/
CanuckHeaven
21-07-2004, 21:28
Ooooh, look at this.

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/whatever_it_takes/
Something wrong with the web site? Looks like Moore is encouraging people to vote. What a great idea!!
The Black Forrest
21-07-2004, 21:42
Something wrong with the web site? Looks like Moore is encouraging people to vote. What a great idea!!

To the Neo-Cons that is a bad idea! ;)
Tygaland
22-07-2004, 11:48
Can you think of any specific examples? Particuarly as far as documentrys about modern controversial political issues are concerned.

None spring to mind but that is irrelevant. I am not a subscriber to near enough is good enough. If it does not fit the criteria it is not a documentary.

I'd agree with that, but would say it goes further then that. Anyone who bases their beliefs solely on someone/something else is doing themselves a great disservice. And whether that is Moore, Fox News, Marx or the Bible is largely immaterial.

Yes, thats what I have been saying all along. This is not Moore-specific, it is just this thread was about Michael Moore. If it were about Fox New or anything else I would say the same thing.
The Holy Word
22-07-2004, 11:57
None spring to mind but that is irrelevant. I am not a subscriber to near enough is good enough. If it does not fit the criteria it is not a documentary.The problem I have with your stance here is that I think you rely too much on a unobtainable idea of objective reporting. I'm a firm subscriber to the Gonzo school of journalism and I'd much rather journalists wore their beliefs on their sleeves (Moore, PJ O'Rourke, Hunter S Thompson) then pretended otherwise.


Yes, thats what I have been saying all along. This is not Moore-specific, it is just this thread was about Michael Moore. If it were about Fox New or anything else I would say the same thing.But it has to be said that there are far less people on here who claim Moore is politcally neutral then say the same about Fox News.
Tygaland
24-07-2004, 01:41
The problem I have with your stance here is that I think you rely too much on a unobtainable idea of objective reporting. I'm a firm subscriber to the Gonzo school of journalism and I'd much rather journalists wore their beliefs on their sleeves (Moore, PJ O'Rourke, Hunter S Thompson) then pretended otherwise.

There is a difference between wearing your beliefs on your sleeve and deliberately manipulating information to sway people to your thinking and omiting counter-arguments. Documentaries can have a theme or point to prove but they must do so in a balanced fashion. Moore fails dismally inthis regard.

But it has to be said that there are far less people on here who claim Moore is politcally neutral then say the same about Fox News.

It is not about claiming political neutrality, it is about dealing with facts. I do not have access to Fox News so cannot comment either way on its bias or lack thereof. Noone who has more than 2 braincells would claim Moore is politically neutral.
Moore does far more damage to the anti-war/anti-Bush argument by throwing up trash like Farenheit 9/11 than by sticking to the facts and delivering them in their entirity. Problem is, when this is done, very few of his theories hold up. Journalists from the Right and Left in my country have canned the film. One side because of its deceptions and dishonesties, the other side because the ease with which his theories are shot down severely damages the arguments of those that share his aims but choose to use fact.

If you think the war in Iraq is unjust, fine. If you dislike Bush as President, fine. But if these are such common and easily justifiable views then why does Moore need to resort to BS to get the point across? Entertainment value would be my guess. Placing sensationalism ahead of fact and reason excludes Moore's film from being a documentary. It is a film...a deceitful film.
Spratt
25-07-2004, 00:44
There is a difference between wearing your beliefs on your sleeve and deliberately manipulating information to sway people to your thinking and omiting counter-arguments. Documentaries can have a theme or point to prove but they must do so in a balanced fashion. Moore fails dismally inthis regard.

OK...is there ANY person activly involved in politics who tells the truth. Candidates lie, government officials lie, and people like Moore lie. But compared to all these people Moore is pretty honest. I am neither left-wing or right-wing, and I support Moore's work entirely. He strives to improve our nation, and I can't say that much for either of the two current candidates for presidency.
Tygaland
25-07-2004, 01:16
OK...is there ANY person activly involved in politics who tells the truth. Candidates lie, government officials lie, and people like Moore lie. But compared to all these people Moore is pretty honest. I am neither left-wing or right-wing, and I support Moore's work entirely. He strives to improve our nation, and I can't say that much for either of the two current candidates for presidency.

OK, let me clear this up for you.

Moore can say what he likes, I have no problem with what he says. The actual point I was discussing was why his films are not documentaries. They are not documentaries because the are heavily editorialised and he deceives his audience to guide them to his conclusions. That is not a documentary but a movie. There is a distinction and that is what I was trying to show. Whether you acknowledge that distinction is up to you.
Oggidad
25-07-2004, 15:50
you guys, cool it. All the stuff that the right wing websites said was incorrect about bowling for columbine is dealt with on michaelmoore.com and much of it was proven to be vicious slander on a great and couragous man, who stood up to the NRA. In fact, I defy any anti-gun control person to tell me why Americas murder rate by guns is almost treble that of any other country?

Now, if I'm not very much mistaken michaelmoore.com will deal with the crazed lies of the right wing concerning this new film.

Also, some of the points made on the bowlingfortruth website are laughable, an 8 year old would be amused. Michael Moore cannot apparently both support his own boys but at the same time recognise that the Iraquis have the right to their own country back? He's unpatriotic for opposing wars and bush? Deeply amusing to someone such as myself. And to think that people say moore tells lies...
Insane Troll
25-07-2004, 17:24
you guys, cool it. All the stuff that the right wing websites said was incorrect about bowling for columbine is dealt with on michaelmoore.com and much of it was proven to be vicious slander on a great and couragous man, who stood up to the NRA. In fact, I defy any anti-gun control person to tell me why Americas murder rate by guns is almost treble that of any other country?

Now, if I'm not very much mistaken michaelmoore.com will deal with the crazed lies of the right wing concerning this new film.

Also, some of the points made on the bowlingfortruth website are laughable, an 8 year old would be amused. Michael Moore cannot apparently both support his own boys but at the same time recognise that the Iraquis have the right to their own country back? He's unpatriotic for opposing wars and bush? Deeply amusing to someone such as myself. And to think that people say moore tells lies...

Most of his responses were something like "They're wrong, I never did that".

Not too convincing, Mr. Moore.
CanuckHeaven
25-07-2004, 17:55
Most of his responses were something like "They're wrong, I never did that".

Not too convincing, Mr. Moore.
If anyone's argument is not too convincing, it would be yours, because you haven't seen the movie?

Go and see it and then we can compare notes?
Stumpchasers
25-07-2004, 17:59
Wow...

I came late to this discussion, but am I right to say that I can summarize the entire supporting side of this argument with essentially what Michael Moore himself said, and the fact that the movie did well in the box office, despite the fact that it may or may not have been a documentary?

Those are two saaaaad sad arguments, if you ask me.

I believe that Mr. Moore is a limelight-seeking moron who, much like many others *cough*liberalsandmedia*cough, seeks to cloud the free thought of the American public with what he believes to be the truth, all the while raking in the cash from moviegoers. Unfortunately, a portion of the public is too unaware of what it means to be American - I take pride in the fact that I can form my own opinion based on my own analysis of the facts. Just because Michael Moore says it's so, or even the evening news, doesn't mean that he (or they) are right. There are too many Americans who think they have to align themselves with someone or some set of beliefs just because someone else said so. WRONG!

Michael Moore's opinions about his own movies (and indeed his own beliefs and life in general) can be given only as much credit as the movies that they are about. Regardless of how much anyone tries to argue it, he's entitled to have them, but no one has to believe them. But I dare any supporter of him to find a favorable view of him or his movies that is supported by connections between what he says and the real, hard facts.

And the argument that a "documentary" did well at the box office, so American's must agree with him is bunk. 100%. I know several people who have seen the movie simply because they wanted to see what the fuss was about, not because they respect Michael Moore.

Anyway, just my two cents. It may not agree with you, but this is my first post, and so you have nothing yet to judge my opinion on. If you hate me, that's fine. If you think I've said something stupid, I'm ok with that. If you think you can change my opinions by spouting yours, think again.
Chess Squares
25-07-2004, 18:02
Wow...

I came late to this discussion, but am I right to say that I can summarize the entire supporting side of this argument with essentially what Michael Moore himself said, and the fact that the movie did well in the box office, despite the fact that it may or may not have been a documentary?

Those are two saaaaad sad arguments, if you ask me.

I believe that Mr. Moore is a limelight-seeking moron who, much like many others *cough*liberalsandmedia*cough, seeks to cloud the free thought of the American public with what he believes to be the truth, all the while raking in the cash from moviegoers. Unfortunately, a portion of the public is too unaware of what it means to be American - I take pride in the fact that I can form my own opinion based on my own analysis of the facts. Just because Michael Moore says it's so, or even the evening news, doesn't mean that he (or they) are right. There are too many Americans who think they have to align themselves with someone or some set of beliefs just because someone else said so. WRONG!

Michael Moore's opinions about his own movies (and indeed his own beliefs and life in general) can be given only as much credit as the movies that they are about. Regardless of how much anyone tries to argue it, he's entitled to have them, but no one has to believe them. But I dare any supporter of him to find a favorable view of him or his movies that is supported by connections between what he says and the real, hard facts.

And the argument that a "documentary" did well at the box office, so American's must agree with him is bunk. 100%. I know several people who have seen the movie simply because they wanted to see what the fuss was about, not because they respect Michael Moore.

Anyway, just my two cents. It may not agree with you, but this is my first post, and so you have nothing yet to judge my opinion on. If you hate me, that's fine. If you think I've said something stupid, I'm ok with that. If you think you can change my opinions by spouting yours, think again.


DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON

HYPOCRITICAL CONSERVATIVE ALERT

so anyone who speaks their mind against the government is unpatriotic but anyoen who speaks their mind for the government is patriotic, and the opinion only matters if its not liberal

drown yourself in a toilet
CanuckHeaven
25-07-2004, 18:17
Wow...

I came late to this discussion, but am I right to say that I can summarize the entire supporting side of this argument with essentially what Michael Moore himself said, and the fact that the movie did well in the box office, despite the fact that it may or may not have been a documentary?

Those are two saaaaad sad arguments, if you ask me.

I believe that Mr. Moore is a limelight-seeking moron who, much like many others *cough*liberalsandmedia*cough, seeks to cloud the free thought of the American public with what he believes to be the truth, all the while raking in the cash from moviegoers. Unfortunately, a portion of the public is too unaware of what it means to be American - I take pride in the fact that I can form my own opinion based on my own analysis of the facts. Just because Michael Moore says it's so, or even the evening news, doesn't mean that he (or they) are right. There are too many Americans who think they have to align themselves with someone or some set of beliefs just because someone else said so. WRONG!

Michael Moore's opinions about his own movies (and indeed his own beliefs and life in general) can be given only as much credit as the movies that they are about. Regardless of how much anyone tries to argue it, he's entitled to have them, but no one has to believe them. But I dare any supporter of him to find a favorable view of him or his movies that is supported by connections between what he says and the real, hard facts.

And the argument that a "documentary" did well at the box office, so American's must agree with him is bunk. 100%. I know several people who have seen the movie simply because they wanted to see what the fuss was about, not because they respect Michael Moore.

Anyway, just my two cents. It may not agree with you, but this is my first post, and so you have nothing yet to judge my opinion on. If you hate me, that's fine. If you think I've said something stupid, I'm ok with that. If you think you can change my opinions by spouting yours, think again.
Welcome to NationStates! Your very first post and you jumped right into one of the hottest topics on the Forum...that certainly is courageous of you.

You are entitled to your opinion of course but sometimes the sledding gets tough in here and people tend to look for factual material rather than hollow rhetoric. I noticed that your post is a tad bit based on bias and with that I would like to give you a little good news bad news.....

The bad news is that NatonStates has just ordered a new shipment of body bags......

The good news is that this week you get a choice of red, white, or blue. what colour do you prefer?
Stumpchasers
26-07-2004, 04:26
DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON

HYPOCRITICAL CONSERVATIVE ALERT

so anyone who speaks their mind against the government is unpatriotic but anyoen who speaks their mind for the government is patriotic, and the opinion only matters if its not liberal

drown yourself in a toilet

Would you care to point out in my post where I accused anyone of being unpatriotic, or differentiated between those who speak for or against the government?

Perhaps some of the world's problems could be solved if certain of us would refrain from putting words in the others' mouths.

If you would open your mind to an opposing viewpoint and read it for content rather than "hypocrisy," perhaps you would have noticed that I only accused those who blindly follow the lead of the outspoken radicals such as Michael Moore (and indeed, some conservatives - the church comes to mind) of being "unpatriotic."

And unfortunately, I don't believe it would be possible to "drown (myself) in a toilet." Clearly, when I passed out from lack of air, I would no longer be able to hold my head upside-down under water. Perhaps you'd like to suggest some other way in which I could meet my demise?

Finally, Mr. CanuckHeaven, my post, while coincidentally not entirely free from bias, I admit, does represent an accurate portrayal of my beliefs, formed on my very own. Is there any portion of my post that you would like me to explain to you?
CanuckHeaven
26-07-2004, 05:50
Finally, Mr. CanuckHeaven, my post, while coincidentally not entirely free from bias, I admit, does represent an accurate portrayal of my beliefs, formed on my very own. Is there any portion of my post that you would like me to explain to you?

Actually there is no need to explain that you have a biased opinion of Moore, it is rather evident in your post. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. IMHO Moore did a superb job on Fahrenheit 911, and Bowling For Columbine.
Brachphilia
26-07-2004, 06:33
Anti-Moore website? Would that be weight watchers?
Goed
26-07-2004, 06:53
Anti-Moore website? Would that be weight watchers?

Wow, I'm quivering in fear of your wit now.



...Actually I'm not, you're just a little shit. Smile! :)
Opal Isle
26-07-2004, 06:55
Anti-Moore website? Would that be weight watchers?
Anti-Brachphilia website is probably www.Firefighters.net
Opal Isle
26-07-2004, 06:55
Anti-Brachphilia website is probably www.Firefighters.net
I didn't even realize that is a real site...anyway, someone needs to extinguish his flames, right?
Stumpchasers
26-07-2004, 06:56
Actually there is no need to explain that you have a biased opinion of Moore, it is rather evident in your post. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. IMHO Moore did a superb job on Fahrenheit 911, and Bowling For Columbine.

Thank you for recognizing exactly my point. Your opinion is important to you as mine as important to me. I appreciate your politeness - this is the way a debate should be conducted.

Until the next time, sir.
Brachphilia
26-07-2004, 06:57
Alot of of love here for that fat sack of traitorous sedition. Here's a website for you www.imafaggot.com
Goed
26-07-2004, 07:01
Once again, your wit drives me off the wall in excitement.

Wait, no. I meant your wit is little more then excrement.


Sorry, got it wrong.

You're still a shit, but baby jesus loves you! :)
Tygaland
26-07-2004, 10:31
Actually there is no need to explain that you have a biased opinion of Moore, it is rather evident in your post. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. IMHO Moore did a superb job on Fahrenheit 911, and Bowling For Columbine.

Thats because you are biased in favour of Moore. ;)
The Holy Word
26-07-2004, 19:14
There is a difference between wearing your beliefs on your sleeve and deliberately manipulating information to sway people to your thinking and omiting counter-arguments. Documentaries can have a theme or point to prove but they must do so in a balanced fashion. Moore fails dismally inthis regard.But as I said before, documentaries never do that. They pick and choose their counter viewpoints carefully. And the subconscious biases of the documentary makers are as, if not more influential, as Moore's conscious bias.

It is not about claiming political neutrality, it is about dealing with facts. I do not have access to Fox News so cannot comment either way on its bias or lack thereof. Noone who has more than 2 braincells would claim Moore is politically neutral. I'd go further then that. Anyone who believes political neutrality exists is a moron.
Moore does far more damage to the anti-war/anti-Bush argument by throwing up trash like Farenheit 9/11 than by sticking to the facts and delivering them in their entirity. Problem is, when this is done, very few of his theories hold up. Journalists from the Right and Left in my country have canned the film. One side because of its deceptions and dishonesties, the other side because the ease with which his theories are shot down severely damages the arguments of those that share his aims but choose to use fact.Absolutely. I've outlined my problems with Moore before. And I stick by my view that, yet again, the Right aren't hitting on Moore's real weak points, as there own political interests preclude that.

If you think the war in Iraq is unjust, fine. If you dislike Bush as President, fine. But if these are such common and easily justifiable views then why does Moore need to resort to BS to get the point across? Entertainment value would be my guess. Placing sensationalism ahead of fact and reason excludes Moore's film from being a documentary. It is a film...a deceitful film.
Again I'd agree to an extent. Moore doesen't do the serious parapolitical analysis needed to really address the unanswered questions about 9/11. But I do think the right single Moore out, not because of his sensationalism, but because it's not sensationalism used in their political interests. And that reeks of hypocrisy.