NationStates Jolt Archive

Discuss!

Yes I did, and I masturbated the entire damn time. :D

Sigh...not this again.

Ah screw it; I don't care anymore.

Yes I did, and Michael Moore is fat. Anything else?

Wow! Some Bush fans discussing politics....just about as intelligent as Bush himself. Maybe Michael Moore is fat and that's a fact but Bush is stupit, evil and self centered...that's the most sad fact. Anyway! I loved the movie, cried and laughed at the same time. Moore is a fat genious! :)

Yes I did, and let me tell you I was surprised.

You see, I'm very independantly motivated. I strongly oppose anything that's blatantly on one side or the other on this election or this war. Anything that refuses to even acknoledge the other side's point is extremely uncontstructive.

That being said.

Michael Moore does NOT present a whole bunch of "twisted facts" He presents a bunch of unquestionable facts, and shows you the exact evidence. The POINTS he tries to make with them can be easily disputed, but the side of the Iraq war/911 that he presents is not likely one you've seen before.

Honestly, I full heartedly advise anyone to see the movie. Just view the movie. It will get you discussing some issues for a change.

"This is a film that doesn't require us to actually view it to know that it's filled with factual inaccuracies"
-Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director, regarding Fahrenheit 9/11

It's a funny quote because it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Michael Moore does NOT present a whole bunch of "twisted facts" He presents a bunch of unquestionable facts, and shows you the exact evidence. The POINTS he tries to make with them can be easily disputed, but the side of the Iraq war/911 that he presents is not likely one you've seen before.
No.

I saw it in the theater 3 times, am going to head out and buy the DVD (plus 4 copies for friends), and sent Mr. Moore and nice thank-you card.

Yep ... I saw it ...

Yep ... I enjoyed it ...

No.
Yes.

Yes.
Unfortunately, Moore did not present the whole, undeniable truth. I may be voting for John Kerry on October 2nd, but that doesn't mean I can call Fox a crappy news company and at the same time turn a blind eye to Moore's propaganda. Moore has an agenda and he tries getting things on his agenda accomplished through his celebrity and propaganda. I'm not saying Michael Moore is the only who does this, but it would be wrong for me to say he doesn't.

Unfortunately, Moore did not present the whole, undeniable truth. I may be voting for John Kerry on October 2nd, but that doesn't mean I can call Fox a crappy news company and at the same time turn a blind eye to Moore's propaganda. Moore has an agenda and he tries getting things on his agenda accomplished through his celebrity and propaganda. I'm not saying Michael Moore is the only who does this, but it would be wrong for me to say he doesn't.
He might not have portrayed the whole undeniable truth, but all of what he said was true. What you seemed to have been saying was that the facts Moore stated were false, which they weren't. They've already been proven true. But yes, Moore didn't show all of the truth.

He might not have portrayed the whole undeniable truth, but all of what he said was true. What you seemed to have been saying was that the facts Moore stated were false, which they weren't. They've already been proven true. But yes, Moore didn't show all of the truth.
I was saying no to the statement
Michael Moore does NOT present a whole bunch of "twisted facts" He presents a bunch of unquestionable facts, and shows you the exact evidence.
His "facts" aren't exactly untwisted and unquestionable. There may be some fact to everything he presents, but it's not all untwisted. Just for a quick example (not to get into a whole lot of detail), one of the newspaper headlines shown in the movie was fabricated. Granted, the title did exist in that paper, but from a different date and definitely not in the front page, or not near as huge, and in a different font. This is a called a twisted fact.

His "facts" aren't exactly untwisted and unquestionable. There may be some fact to everything he presents, but it's not all untwisted. Just for a quick example (not to get into a whole lot of detail), one of the newspaper headlines shown in the movie was fabricated. Granted, the title did exist in that paper, but from a different date and definitely not in the front page, or not near as huge, and in a different font.
Ah, that makes enough sense. The real problem with Moore is that you have to know what is fact and what he's twisted. It makes him hard to base anny arguments on him. He's mostly just a way to reiforce your own political beliefs.

Ah, that makes enough sense. The real problem with Moore is that you have to know what is fact and what he's twisted. It makes him hard to base anny arguments on him. He's mostly just a way to reiforce your own political beliefs.
Well, like I said, he doesn't present untwisted, unquestionable facts. That's the only point I wanted to make.

Well, like I said, he doesn't present untwisted, unquestionable facts. That's the only point I wanted to make.
Like the government. I'd rather see some fatty lie then a man with real power

Did you see the movie Opal? What part of the movie was false?

I mean, he tries to make ties between George Bush and Osama Bin Laden, and that's a hunk of baloney, but he doesn't present any lies when doing it. Like I said before, it's not the facts he represents that are wrong, it's the opinions he draws from them.

I don’t pay money to watch some guy make a political statement while trying to make it look like a movie. Now if he were to actually make it a movie and throw in a political statement, that might be another story. So far Moore has only made one movie worth spending money on.

Bowling for Columbine?

I saw it, and I think its overrated. By those who hate it, and think its filth, and those who love it and think its the worlds most enlightening piece of modern cinema. Really, I thought it kinda boring and kept falling sorta asleep... all this hype and controversy and I guess I expected it to be more exciting. Or something.

He pushed a little hard on the connections to the Saudis, but otherwise I liked the film. And Moore has made no attempt to hide the fact that he wants Bush out of office. However, there is a difference between Moore and Fox News. Moore presents facts that are skewed towards his point of view. While they may be presented in a manner that is propaganda, people who have tried to discredit the facts have fallen short. Fox News, on the other hand, publishes a completely fictional account of John Kerry's debate and then says that its a big whoopsie.

Bowling for Columbine?

Absolute rubbish

1) Legless Pirates, like I said, I'm not saying Moore is the only guy who does this, but for me, it's morally wrong to say that he doesn't do it.
Did you see the movie Opal? What part of the movie was false?

I mean, he tries to make ties between George Bush and Osama Bin Laden, and that's a hunk of baloney, but he doesn't present any lies when doing it. Like I said before, it's not the facts he represents that are wrong, it's the opinions he draws from them.
2) I think that if you'd read all my posts you'd recognize the pointlessness (and incorrectness) of your post.

3) balogna*

Bowling for Columbine?
No, try thinking of something that actually has actors.

First off, Bowling for Columbine has Charleton Heston in it. He's an actor, and wouldn't take lightly your insults, lol.

Aight, other fish to fry.


2) I think that if you'd read all my posts you'd recognize the pointlessness (and incorrectness) of your post.

3) balogna*

2. Cute. Instead of explaining your position on the topic, you attack me. That takes balls. Reallly really small balls.

3. When using it outside of it's meat definition, I reserve the right to spell it however. Spiced meat: balogna. Your opinions: baloney. mmkay?

2. Cute. Instead of explaining your position on the topic, you attack me. That takes balls. Reallly really small balls.

It seems to me that on the 1st page he explicitly explained his position...

Ah! I missed a post or 2. I apologize completely.

Ah! I missed a post or 2. I apologize completely.
Well I'm glad that got worked out without me having to get really pissed.

First off, Bowling for Columbine has Charleton Heston in it. He's an actor, and wouldn't take lightly your insults, lol.
Alright then. Try thinking of one of his films where the actors were actually playing roles and were credited as something other than "Himself" or "Herself."

Alright then. Try thinking of one of his films where the actors were actually playing roles and were credited as something other than "Himself" or "Herself."
Michael Moore doesn't make movies. He makes documentaries (err...docudramas). Show me one non-Moore documentary with an actor credited as something other than "himself" or "herself" and I'm sure that Pibb Xtra will concede to your correctness.

EDIT: Besides, Moore himself is a celebrity and always plays the part of "Fat, annoying instigator"
Am I right or what?


By the way, Michael Moore directed Canadian Bacon, which has real actors in it as something other than "himself" or "herself," because Canadian Bacon is an actual movie (as opposed to a documentary).

I saw it, Moore raised some valid points, such as the evacuation of the Bin Laden family from Florida while all other flights were still cancelled and the unusually amount of federal money spent on the comfort and protection of anyone associated with Saudi Arabia in the US.

However, like all propaganda, you have to see it, then do researcha dn examine Moore's sources to draw your own conclusions. This film should be used to wake you up to some new ideas or theories, so that you can go check them out for yourself.

Michael Moore doesn't make movies. He makes documentaries (err...docudramas). Show me one non-Moore documentary with an actor credited as something other than "himself" or "herself" and I'm sure that Pibb Xtra will concede to your correctness.Clicky (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/)

By the way, Michael Moore directed Canadian Bacon, which has real actors in it as something other than "himself" or "herself," because Canadian Bacon is an actual movie (as opposed to a documentary).
Oh you just had to edit your post while I was fetching a link :mp5:

Oh you just had to edit your post while I was fetching a link :mp5:
Yea, I had just remembered that after I posted. Besides...wait a second...weren't you saying Moore didn't make movies with actors?

...wait...now I'm confused. But, Canadian Bacon isn't a documentary like Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11, etc.

Whoa....sweet...

Another Moore movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/

By the way, Michael Moore directed Canadian Bacon, which has real actors in it as something other than "himself" or "herself," because Canadian Bacon is an actual movie (as opposed to a documentary).

I love Canadian Bacon! It was one of the best and funniest movies ever made. I wonder if Canada likes it?

Yea, I had just remembered that after I posted. Besides...wait a second...weren't you saying Moore didn't make movies with actors?
No, I said Moore only made one movie worth me spending money on. That movie being Canadian Bacon.

so...anyone believe it will have an effect on the prezelection?

so...anyone believe it will have an effect on the prezelection?
It most definitely will. Even if all of it was false, there are idiots who will believe anything.

I got really bored about half way through it.

so...anyone believe it will have an effect on the prezelection?

I don't think it will.

No, I said Moore only made one movie worth me spending money on. That movie being Canadian Bacon.
These days there are no movies made worth me spending money on (because I work in a movie theater). The last time I spent money on a movie was when I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 on opening day (2 days before I got my job... :( )

I don't think it will.
How can it not?

How can it not?

It won't because:

1) its been debunked! Even the 9/11 Commission report refuted it.

2) It won't because people have already made up their minds.

3) It won't because the people aren't as stupid as Moore makes them out to believe.

4) It can't be shown right now due to election laws.

:headbang: How could anyone like this movie? I usually do research on world issues and so i knew everything that was in the movie long before I went and saw it. Moore has such a disrespect for life and government. I'm not pro Bush, infact i'm sure i'm the opposite yet he is the leader of "the free world" and as such deserves respect. Mr. Moore should have just ended his movie career with bowling for columbine which was also quite a lie!
Sincerely, Gisellapalooza

It won't because:

1) its been debunked! Even the 9/11 Commission report refuted it.

2) It won't because people have already made up their minds.

3) It won't because the people aren't as stupid as Moore makes them out to believe.

4) It can't be shown right now due to election laws.
1) People still believe it because more people go to the movies than watch the News.
2) Some peoples mind were made up by the movie. It came out in July.
3) Yes, some of them are.
4) Can't be shown right now? You mean in theaters? That's why it's out on DVD. My friend has a film lecture class. The professor is showing Fahrenheit 9/11 on November 2nd (since it's like a 10am class, and college gets don't get up before they have to go to their first class).

...
4) It can't be shown right now due to election laws.

would you by any chance know how to find the election law on the net, and post the link to it? or anyone?

1) People still believe it because more people go to the movies than watch the News.
2) Some peoples mind were made up by the movie. It came out in July.
3) Yes, some of the mare.
4) Can't be shown right now? You mean in theaters? That's why it's out on DVD. My friend has a film lecture class. The professor is showing Fahrenheit 9/11 on November 2nd (since it's like a 10am class, and college gets don't get up before they have to go to their first class).

1) is undoubtably true however I didn't say watching the news. I said that the 9/11 commission Report refuted certain parts and that was Highly anticipated and was Number 1 Best seller.

2.) Those that made up their mind by the movie probably had a leaning that way anyway. Infact, I'm pretty sure of it. If this was going to change the election, don't you think that the poll numbers would reflect it? They're not.

3) Mare?

4) No not in theaters and I would suspect that putting it on DVD probably violated election laws since the FEC (I think) ruled that it can't be shown since we're now less than 20 days from elections. I could be wrong on the ruling and if I am, I'll apologize.

This movie will not change the outcome of this election though I am willing to place bets that if Kerry wins, Moore will take credit for it because of the movie even though I doubt it did anything to help him.

Ok, I was wrong.

The FEC dismissed it.

I apologize

I saw it, and was pretty much appalled at how much more pathetic it was than Bowling for Columbine. Seriously, Moore's altogether too obvious slants of the issues and statements stand out way too strongly. For a propaganda film, it really is pretty good. For a documentary, it sucks the big one...just like the last "documentary" Moore made.

I was really expecting something much better from Moore. Instead, he focused way too much on a couple aspects and barely alluding to other ones that either disproved him or balanced out his accusations. He has completely capitalized off of people's emotions. (Remember the mother that went from supporting the military's actions to hating it? Or the people crying in the immediate aftermath of 9-11? Do you think he checked with those people for the rights to use their faces? I strongly doubt it.)

His attempt to show that Congressmen were cowards who would much rather send other people to war than their own families failed miserably, although he tried to paint it the best way he could. Many of the congressmen just walked past because they had no desire to have an interview with Moore where he could twist their words to make it seem like they said something they didn't. His belligerence preceded him and definitely hurt his ability to make a point here.

I won't deny that the vast majority of his facts were true, but the full truth of them is very debatable. He often phrased "facts" in a manner that made them more opinion, and he often seemed to pass off his opinions as facts.

Will it have an effect on the election? It already has and will continue to. Yes, people who are way to malleable will be swayed by his "documentary," and other people who dismiss it as propaganda will remember the accusations he made and question Bush a bit more - though most likely they won't try to find the answers, but just let the doubt build.

1) is undoubtably true however I didn't say watching the news. I said that the 9/11 commission Report refuted certain parts and that was Highly anticipated and was Number 1 Best seller.

2.) Those that made up their mind by the movie probably had a leaning that way anyway. Infact, I'm pretty sure of it. If this was going to change the election, don't you think that the poll numbers would reflect it? They're not.

3) Mare?

4) No not in theaters and I would suspect that putting it on DVD probably violated election laws since the FEC (I think) ruled that it can't be shown since we're now less than 20 days from elections. I could be wrong on the ruling and if I am, I'll apologize.

This movie will not change the outcome of this election though I am willing to place bets that if Kerry wins, Moore will take credit for it because of the movie even though I doubt it did anything to help him.

1) How many copies do you have to sell to be a best seller? How many Americans watched Fahrenheit 9/11? How many did both? For the younger, lazier generation (like myself), watching is much easier than reading.
2) I would like to see some poll results from just before and just after Fahrenheit 9/11's opening weekend. Of course it's not going to get a bump now...it's been out for 3 months...and for those people who may have already been leaning toward Kerry but weren't completely decided until they saw the movie, how do you know they wouldn't've been swung toward Bush if they never saw Fahrenheit 9/11? And if you can accept that they could've been swung toward Bush (no matter how unlikely it was), but the movie prevented that, then you've admitted that the movie impacted the election.
3) them are*
4) The FEC can't tell me what I can and can not watch in the privacy of my own home. It's called the first amendment.

And on a final note, "impact the election" does not mean a Kerry victory. It simply means that the movie swayed some voters. I don't see how anyone can say it didn't (even if some people got so pissed at Moore that they decided to vote for Bush, it still impacted the election).

1) How many copies do you have to sell to be a best seller? How many Americans watched Fahrenheit 9/11? How many did both? For the younger, lazier generation (like myself), watching is much easier than reading.

This explains the obesity problems and the intellectual problems. Pick up a book and learn. You might be surprised at just how much you don't know. I have read many books ranging from Biography to History Books to Science Fiction. Each Book broadens my horizons.

2) I would like to see some poll results from just before and just after Fahrenheit 9/11's opening weekend. Of course it's not going to get a bump now...it's been out for 3 months...and for those people who may have already been leaning toward Kerry but weren't completely decided until they saw the movie, how do you know they wouldn't've been swung toward Bush if they never saw Fahrenheit 9/11? And if you can accept that they could've been swung toward Bush (no matter how unlikely it was), but the movie prevented that, then you've admitted that the movie impacted the election.

And yet, Bush is up in most polls. Not to mention the Electoral College Vote, which is a bit more important than the Popular Vote. However, it is still a close election and it can still go either way but I do believe that the movie will have no impact as to who gets elected. Yes it has been out for the three months but it is a laugh. My roommate actually has it and I will probably watch it. But I do know what has been said about it. I do know what I've read. And I do know what I know that is true and untrue.

3) them are*

Your right. The majority of the likely voters have made up their minds.

4) The FEC can't tell me what I can and can not watch in the privacy of my own home. It's called the first amendment.

Read my post above. The FEC dismissed it.

And on a final note, "impact the election" does not mean a Kerry victory. It simply means that the movie swayed some voters. I don't see how anyone can say it didn't (even if some people got so pissed at Moore that they decided to vote for Bush, it still impacted the election).

Your right! It doesn't mean a Kerry Victory. I still doubt that Kerry will win. That'll ruin Hillary Clinton's run for the White House in 2008.

Will it have an effect on the election? It already has and will continue to. Yes, people who are way to malleable will be swayed by his "documentary," and other people who dismiss it as propaganda will remember the accusations he made and question Bush a bit more - though most likely they won't try to find the answers, but just let the doubt build.
The truth is it probably won't. Those "malleable" people you refer to are usually too apathetic to vote. It seems to me you are inferring that the majority of voters will base their decision off of a movie... while we love to use the media as a scapegoat to all of our problems, the film wasn't that powerful. Ultimately Farenheit 9/11 set both parties deeper in their ways: conservatives rampaged in the presence of propaganda filth, and most bush-haters took to it religiously.

At the university of Arkansas, the Young Democrats have registered 600 new voters. The College Republicans have registered 400 voters. The PRIDE group registered like 100 voters, and other groups have registered new voters. I think we'll see more votes coming in this year.

And Corneliu, I think you're a bit dense. I'm not arguing that the movie will impact who gets elected. I'm arguing that the movie will impact the election. That means, the movie will impact who votes and how they vote...but it may or may not be significant enough (or in the right direction) to change the overall outcome. It's like saying that having an injured quarterback will impact a football game. Your passing game may be down...but that doesn't mean you lose the game becuase you can still run. The injured quarterback has an impact on the game, but may not necessarily change the outcome.

At the university of Arkansas, the Young Democrats have registered 600 new voters. The College Republicans have registered 400 voters. The PRIDE group registered like 100 voters, and other groups have registered new voters. I think we'll see more votes coming in this year.

Everyone is registering new voters. Question is, how many of these people will vote? That has always been the problem in elections.

And Corneliu, I think you're a bit dense. I'm not arguing that the movie will impact who gets elected. I'm arguing that the movie will impact the election. That means, the movie will impact who votes and how they vote...but it may or may not be significant enough (or in the right direction) to change the overall outcome. It's like saying that having an injured quarterback will impact a football game. Your passing game may be down...but that doesn't mean you lose the game becuase you can still run. The injured quarterback has an impact on the game, but may not necessarily change the outcome.

You do have a point here and I should've realized that. I think I've been studying to much! LOL!

Everyone is registering new voters. Question is, how many of these people will vote? That has always been the problem in elections.
I think that every is willing to admit that this election is a pretty important one. I would venture to say almost as important as the 1932 election (although not as lopsided either way)...

You do have a point here and I should've realized that. I think I've been studying to much! LOL!
You finally see the point I was trying to make the whole time...did the analogy help? I'm the analogy master.

I think that every is willing to admit that this election is a pretty important one. I would venture to say almost as important as the 1932 election (although not as lopsided either way)...


You finally see the point I was trying to make the whole time...did the analogy help? I'm the analogy master.

somewhat.

http://www.fec.gov/aos/aor2004-30draft.pdf

the fec - opinion

"Citizens United has described itself as being in the business of issue advocacy."

maybe this is only interesting to law students...post it anyway, wont hurt the trees :)

I love Canadian Bacon! It was one of the best and funniest movies ever made. I wonder if Canada likes it?

isn't john candy canadian? That is what i heard.

I haven't seen it. I think Michael Moore is a fool. Though I might see it, just so I can have more backup for disagreeing with it. Though I'll see it when one of my friends or relatives buys or rents it. I'm not willing to contribute money to Michael Moore.

isn't john candy canadian? That is what i heard.

Not that I know of. Might have been.

I haven't seen it. I think Michael Moore is a fool. Though I might see it, just so I can have more backup for disagreeing with it. Though I'll see it when one of my friends or relatives buys or rents it. I'm not willing to contribute money to Michael Moore.

My roommate bought it over fall break so I might watch it while he's out. Since I didn't pay for it, none of my money went to him :D

isn't john candy canadian? That is what i heard.
I believe he is, hang on a sec..................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
Yep, born in Toronto