NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just watched FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and found it thoroughly depressing. I wondered if it has affected the way the US will vote? I mean if it is all true God help America if Bush gets in again.

You realize its all made up right?

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

You realize its all made up right?

No it's not. He used nothing but facts.. where you may dispute it is perhaps in his narration. All the stuff he showed were indeed factual and did happen.

Personally i dont think its all true or made up but im sure at least a morgoraty is true

the movie runs on 1.11. on tv here in germany while on the other big channel runs a 2h doku about the history of america.
nice isnt it? :D

F 9/11 is nothing but lies, true-believers. Defend it all you want. It is lies.

F 9/11 is nothing but lies, true-believers. Defend it all you want. It is lies.

So the videos of things that Bush and his administration actually did and said is all hyper-realistic computer graphics?

Yes, some of Moore's conclusions may be faulty. The file footage is of course true.

Use the movie as a springboard to hunt down and confirm or debunk the things that worry you most.

erinnah if you want truth watch fahrenHYPE 9/11 it points out over 50 lies in moores film its awesome

You cant deny that Michael Moore, no matter how much of an ignorant bigot he is, knows how to make a movie. He took a unique blend of Lies with a dash of truth and simmered it in Venice Film Festival to make the best selling documentery of all time.

I have just watched FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and found it thoroughly depressing. I wondered if it has affected the way the US will vote? I mean if it is all true God help America if Bush gets in again.
I certainly hope it affects the vote. I think the majority of what's in there is true. While Michael Moore would be the first person to tell you he is biased, I also think he was very careful to not put anything in the film that would not stand up to the intense scrutiny the movie would obviously get.

erinnah if you want truth watch fahrenHYPE 9/11 it points out over 50 lies in moores film its awesome

We'll respect your criticism a lot more if you learn the English language. Perhaps you were making an exceedingly clever reference to James Joyce. If so, I apologize.

You cant deny that Michael Moore, no matter how much of an ignorant bigot he is, knows how to make a movie. He took a unique blend of Lies with a dash of truth and simmered it in Venice Film Festival to make the best selling documentery of all time.
I guess that's not bad for a "failed comedian"

I don't think it matters if he lied or not. He's stating his opinion. Its up to you if you want to believe him or not.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is an opinionated rant. The best thing to do while watching the movie is to not accept something as true just because Michael Moore says it's true. Are the facts in this movie? Yes, there are. But there are plenty of exaggerations as well.

The important thing to remember is that Michael Moore is a liberal, and he made no attempt to claim that this movie is non-biased. Just be careful with what you take as fact.

You realize its all made up right?

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

The only fair thing to do is to read this criticism and the read Michael Moore's rebuttal at www.michaelmoore.com

You cant deny that Michael Moore, no matter how much of an ignorant bigot he is, knows how to make a movie. He took a unique blend of Lies with a dash of truth and simmered it in Venice Film Festival to make the best selling documentery of all time.
And the Sheeple bought it. :D

I don't trust Michael Moore either but FahrenHYPE 9/11 is spinning things as much as fahrenheit 9/11 is (Ann Coulter is in it, I mean come on).

So if you want to see a movie that might change your mind on bush's policies see Errol Morris' Fog of War.

All of the data in F 9/11 is fact, but I probably wouldn't defend a signle one of Moore's conclusions.

It's choosing the lesser of the evils. Sure, Bush may not be perfect, but I shudder to imagine the cataclysmic events that will take place if Kerry becomes our 44th President. His "Plan for America" changes every day. No thanks, I'll pick the lesser of the two stupids.

I don't think it matters if he lied or not. He's stating his opinion. Its up to you if you want to believe him or not.
I dissagree, he's not passing this off as his "opinion". He released it as a documentary.
doc·u·men·ta·ry Audio pronunciation of "documentary" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.

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

I've heard incessantly people blindly claiming that the movie is just lies.

And while Moore may twist his narrations a bit, there's no disputing that facts are the key element - he refers to facts. Documents, statements, known alliances.

It's choosing the lesser of the evils. Sure, Bush may not be perfect, but I shudder to imagine the cataclysmic events that will take place if Kerry becomes our 44th President. His "Plan for America" changes every day. No thanks, I'll pick the lesser of the two stupids.

When it rains, does someone have to nudge you to keep you from looking up into the sky with your mouth open, eventually causing you to drown?

I finally saw that movie. My friend rented both that and FahrenHype 9/11 to do a comparison on it. Moore bends the facts and basically just tells you his opinion throughout the entire thing. He withholds many things and only puts in the parts that make Bush seem like more of an asshole. Not only that but just the way he narrates it. It’s like he’s narrating a children’s book.

It's choosing the lesser of the evils. Sure, Bush may not be perfect, but I shudder to imagine the cataclysmic events that will take place if Kerry becomes our 44th President. His "Plan for America" changes every day. No thanks, I'll pick the lesser of the two stupids.



And having another 1000 dead US soldiers in Iraq doesn't make you shudder? Kerry may not always be consistant but even though Bush is, what he's consistant on scares the hell out of me.

And having another 1000 dead US soldiers in Iraq doesn't make you shudder? Kerry may not always be consistant but even though Bush is, what he's consistant on scares the hell out of me.

Except that Bush isn't very consistent at all. He just says he is. I mean, the man opposed the 9/11 commission!

Except that Bush isn't very consistent at all. He just says he is. I mean, the man opposed the 9/11 commission!



I did say "what he's consistant on", meaning that he jumps back and forth other issues.

I found the movie overly long and I got bored towards the end, but I have paid enough attention to know about the lies; from Bush's car ride to the White House being pelted with eggs; it was hit by one egg - TO the attack being based on the Unocal pipeline; efforts to create such a pipeline ended in 1998 as the Clinton administration was overseeing it. In 2002, after the American overthrow of the Taliban, officials in the new Afghan government agreed with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to create a different pipeline.

And having another 1000 dead US soldiers in Iraq doesn't make you shudder?

What about another 300,000 Iraqi men, women, and children in mass graves who were murdered by Saddam?

You realize its all made up right?

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

The author of the deceits backs his statements up about as much as Micheal Moore does. I dont see why we should beleive either.

What about another 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves?



I was getting to that, I just wanted to see how'd he'd reply to some of his own being killed and then go to the thousands killed by his own.

F 9/11 is nothing but lies, true-believers. Defend it all you want. It is lies.

Full of bias and exaggerations, maybe, but I doubt there are any outright lies. And as much as I can't stand Michael Moore, at least he isn't the Hitlerite fiend that Cruelter is (and yes, I am a conservative, in case you're wondering).

Why not just gloss over the moorelies website (http://www.moorelies.com)? They've been following his film career since his early beginnings.

If F 911 makes you think just a little it's done some good for the country. a lot of the right bash it while admitting they've never seen it. If you get a chance try watching the extra's that come on the dvd, those include raw footage and an interview with the imbedded journalist that supplied the Iraq stuff. You'll get a better understanding of just why our guys are still getting killed over there. Of course it'll make your average republican froth at the mouth even more.

Maybe I'm behind on my political news, but I haven't heard about many websites debunking Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly. I'm sure there are a lot, but I hear more about Michael Moore than about those guys.

I found the movie overly long and I got bored towards the end, but I have paid enough attention to know about the lies; from Bush's car ride to the White House being pelted with eggs; it was hit by one egg
In the film three eggs are shown hitting Bush's car.

Maybe I'm behind on my political news, but I haven't heard about many websites debunking Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly. I'm sure there are a lot, but I hear more about Michael Moore than about those guys.

what do you mean O'Reilly is being sued for sexual harrasment. Also ABC did a whole bit trying find all the false facts, they didn't find a one.

Maybe I'm behind on my political news, but I haven't heard about many websites debunking Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly. I'm sure there are a lot, but I hear more about Michael Moore than about those guys.

Its because REpublicans have better web-designers :P.

Its true! Honest! However, Democrats control the Radio waves, our music, and our television/movies :D

Yeah sure, it's all lies. That's why we need six more movies to "prove" it and parrot the official whitehouse statement before the film was even seen. Aren't there laws against presenting material like this that is false? Isn't it defamation of character? Or slander? I'm not an attorney, but I do know that if Michael Moore presented as many as 50 falsehoods as fact about President Bush, that there would be some lawsuits pending. Instead we have just as many over the top wack jobs from the right-wing responding with an avalanche of material that proclaims the "truth". Take him to court, throw him in jail and prove me wrong. I have no doubt in my mind that this collection of Christian Heretics in the whitehouse, wouldn't hesitate to do so if they had any legal standing whatsoever.

Its because REpublicans have better web-designers :P.

Its true! Honest! However, Democrats control the Radio waves, our music, and our television/movies :D

Ummm, ever hear of Clear Channel?

Maybe I'm behind on my political news, but I haven't heard about many websites debunking Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly. I'm sure there are a lot, but I hear more about Michael Moore than about those guys.

Heh, that because "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," is the definitive work on the subject. Pay special attention to the end notes.

You can use real footage, but still tell a lie. I must say, though, he is good at doing just that: slanting reality to a point that fits his far left agenda. Though it would be so easy to bring up Mjolnir or other propagandists in this thread, I realize the first person to bring up nazis loses.

-\|/

Heh, that because "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," is the definitive work on the subject. Pay special attention to the end notes.
I've heard a lot about that book, but, to be honest, I thought I'd read Hannity, Coulter, et c. first, which I haven't gotten around to yet. :p Oh well...I still wouldn't vote for Kerry either way.

In the film three eggs are shown hitting Bush's car.
Ok let's mince words over this, call Mike a liar and gloss over the fact that the president had to basically be escorted at a high speed off the streets during his inaugaration parade to avoid being lynched. I don't care how many eggs exactly it was, things were getting scarey for Bush out there, thus being the point. Which is to say, something extremely humiliating for the President.

Moors movie may have false facts in it or maybe all of them are true, one thing everyone can agree on is that everything in that movie is spun to make bush look bad. For example where what really happened is bush invaded iraq and killed thousands of iraquies and a thousand american troops in the process for the interests of furthering amrican influeance in that nation and the middle east, micheal moore would simply say " bush killed thousands of americans and iraques for no good reason", when we all know that america owning iraq is a good thing for americans. Its all a spin and ommiting facts, a more general example of how moore could spin facts would be ....a man killed two robbers defending his wife and child, moore if he didn't like the man in question would say " a man killed two citizens". HE'S A SPIN DOCTOR!

He is a liar, and a bad one at that, yet there are fools that believe every word out of his mouth.

I've heard a lot about that book, but, to be honest, I thought I'd read Hannity, Coulter, et c. first, which I haven't gotten around to yet. :p Oh well...I still wouldn't vote for Kerry either way.

dude read left right. read hannity then Lies, don't read 2 right wing nut job books one after another u will be seriously screwed up!!!!!!! :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :headbang: these are just for fun :)

I have just watched FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and found it thoroughly depressing. I wondered if it has affected the way the US will vote? I mean if it is all true God help America if Bush gets in again.
Congratulations, you've just fallen victim to propoganda.

They say the best lies are the one with a dash of truth.

Bon appetit!

Who cares? It's not like anyone's basing his/her vote on one source/movie/website/book...
(If you are, you need to be shot dead immediately.)

The movie is just one of many sources of data (truths, half truths, lies, or slanders) out there. What you do with them is up to you...

Moors movie may have false facts in it or maybe all of them are true, one thing everyone can agree on is that everything in that movie is spun to make bush look bad. For example where what really happened is bush invaded iraq and killed thousands of iraquies and a thousand american troops in the process for the interests of furthering amrican influeance in that nation and the middle east, micheal moore would simply say " bush killed thousands of americans and iraques for no good reason", when we all know that america owning iraq is a good thing for americans. Its all a spin and ommiting facts, a more general example of how moore could spin facts would be ....a man killed two robbers defending his wife and child, moore if he didn't like the man in question would say " a man killed two citizens". HE'S A SPIN DOCTOR!

well duh, and umm owning iraqis isn't good for american intrests :mp5: thats what we had, this is what we have now :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Who cares? It's not like anyone's basing his/her vote on one source/movie/website/book...
(If you are, you need to be shot dead immediately.)

The movie is just one of many sources of data (truths, half truths, lies, or slanders) out there. What you do with them is up to you...


Sadly, I think many people ARE basing their votes on things like Moore or Vote or Die, etc... Why else would left-leaning musicians, comedians and actors/actresses be rallying together for pro-Kerry functions. There is a huge voter block just waiting to be tapped, although most of them need Bon Jovi to tell them how to vote. I personally don't want someone too friggin lazy to pick up a newspaper deciding who the next President is. If all your views come from a diet of Comedy Central and MTV, please DON'T vote. You won't die, I promise...

Sadly, I think many people ARE basing their votes on things like Moore or Vote or Die, etc... Why else would left-leaning musicians, comedians and actors/actresses be rallying together for pro-Kerry functions. There is a huge voter block just waiting to be tapped, although most of them need Bon Jovi to tell them how to vote. I personally don't want someone too friggin lazy to pick up a newspaper deciding who the next President is. If all your views come from a diet of Comedy Central and MTV, please DON'T vote. You won't die, I promise...

Heh, the funny thing is that Bush says he himself does not read the paper. Also, a study showed that those who watch the Daily show are better informed than those who do not.

Alice Cooper: Anti-Bush acts treasonous morons
Legendary shock artist: 'Rock should never be in bed with politics'

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Alice Cooper

Shock-rock legend Alice Cooper calls rock stars campaigning for Democrat John Kerry treasonous morons.

The 56-year-old Cooper says he was disgusted to learn the likes of Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, R.E.M., Sheryl Crow, James Taylor and Dave Matthews were hitting the road for a series of concerts designed to help defeat President Bush.

"To me, that's treason," Cooper told the Canadian Press. "I call it treason against rock 'n' roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics."

"When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I'd run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick.

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

"Besides," he continued, "when I read the list of people who are supporting Kerry, if I wasn't already a Bush supporter, I would have immediately switched. Linda Ronstadt? Don Henley? Geez, that's a good reason right there to vote for Bush."

What study?

Not attacking, just asking.

Heh, the funny thing is that Bush says he himself does not read the paper.

Why read a paper that spins and misinterprets things you yourself are saying/doing/watching happen?

What convinced me I had to see this movie was seeing just what's going on here, mention it at all and the right comes out with both barrels blazing, they blast away with lots of retoric but little substance. I'm also of the opinion that if there was any outright lies, with how viciously they attack it, there would indeed be some sort of legal action.

Bottom line, if there was nothing to the movie, I doubt they would feel the need to discredit it so badly.

The quotes and stats are all real, they're just out of context and placed in a hostile perspective of course.

Hey, this is what the rightwing spindoctors of FauxNews etc. have been doing for years.

It's refreshing to get in a few punches on the other side, using Rove's own tactics.

Why read a paper that spins and misinterprets things you yourself are saying/doing/watching happen?

the most powerful man in the world needs some criticism and to be able to see how others see him just like ne1 else

The right does no more barrel blazing than the left. I admit, I hate Moore. I have since before BforC. I hate Roger and Me, something that doesn't involve 9/11, Bush, etc... I don't like Moore because even back then he took half truths and spun them.

His whole identity is one huge spin job. He is no crusader for the little man. What about the friends he stepped on making Roger and Me? And that poor paralyzed highschool boy he proudly paraded through Bowling for Cloumbine? That kid came out not too long ago saying how Moore has basically ignored him since. Moore only cares about the little guy long enough to mae more money. How many little guys do you know that own 3 million dollars worth of real estate?

Why read a paper that spins and misinterprets things you yourself are saying/doing/watching happen?
:rolleyes: Yeah you wouldn't want to develop anything like a real world perspective on anything. Just stick to what the cabinet feeds you.

Much of the film is facts, yes, and, as someone pointed out, these can be spun to mean different things. I don't think the point is that F 9/11 is true or false. If it gets people investigating these things, asking questions and trying to get at the truth, whether or not the truth is consistently what Moore says it is, then it is a good thing. The best way to be informed is to inform yourself, and whatever spraks you to do that is good. And yes, I am left-wing and no, I don't believe every word that comes out of Moore's mouth. He has to be viewed skeptically just as much as everyone else, it doesn't matter if I agree with his politics or not.

If there were outright lies, then Bush can't touch Moore because Bush is considered a "public figure". The same is true about Moore. Most celebrities and government officials are considered public figures.
Basing you're argument about the truth of Moore's documentary on whether or not there was legal action against it, in my opinion, isn't the best idea. Check other sources, like the aforementioned FarenHYPE 911. Of course, these should also be treated with scrutiny.
I will say that certain facts presented in Moore's documentary were false. The entire deal about the Saudi's flying out on there own, special, flight before air traffic was opened up to the public was false. My source? The 9/11 commission report. I would condtitute that as a reliable source.

dunno about the kid , but i hate that you are :mp5:ing more on being sucessful come on

well duh, and umm owning iraqis isn't good for american intrests :mp5: thats what we had, this is what we have now :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

no man, your not seeing the big picture, you don't feel like a murderer when you drive to work or turn on the heat because its cold. Its not like everything we surround ourselves with everyday comes from magic! now thats the resourses are secured by americans, americans will reap the reward of the oil from iraq, and terrorists and muslem fanatics won't have any barganing chips. Just saying moors a spin doctor because thats a very un admerable quality for DOCUMENTARY filmers, and noone seemed to be saying that. DUH!

He is a liar, and a bad one at that, yet there are fools that believe every word out of his mouth.

I agree. Bush IS a bad liar, and yet there are fools that believe every word out of his mouth.

I agree. Bush IS a bad liar, and yet there are fools that believe every word out of his mouth.
Good try, you miss, you know I meant Moore. THanks for playing, you're wrong, try again.

there's a FahrenHYPE 9/11 coming out - it's a counter movie to Fahrenheit 9/11

both are 100% propaganda. dont watch them, if you did, dont believe or listen to either of them

Maybe I'm behind on my political news, but I haven't heard about many websites debunking Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly. I'm sure there are a lot, but I hear more about Michael Moore than about those guys.
That is probably due to the fact that the "righties" KNOW that Moore has struck a nerve, and that the truth hurts, and that it is very difficult to honestly debunk Fahrenheit 911. :eek:

Good try, you miss, you know I meant Moore. THanks for playing, you're wrong, try again.

Oh, boo hoo. Oh, boo hoo hoo. I have no sense of humor, oh boo hoo wah wah wah.

Grow up, put up, or shut up. If you can't see sarcasm when its hitting you in the face, I'm not sure I'm the loser in this match.

In the film three eggs are shown hitting Bush's car.
This is the silly thing, in that the righties will concentrate on eggs and completely ignore the fact that tens of thousands were protesting the inaugaration of Bush. Now THAT was the salient point and NOT the eggs. :eek:

:) Oh, boo hoo. Oh, boo hoo hoo. I have no sense of humor, oh boo hoo wah wah wah.

Grow up, put up, or shut up. If you can't see sarcasm when its hitting you in the face, I'm not sure I'm the loser in this match.
Children. Whatcha gonna do?

there's a FahrenHYPE 9/11 coming out - it's a counter movie to Fahrenheit 9/11

both are 100% propaganda. dont watch them, if you did, dont believe or listen to either of them
And you will be the sole judge of that huh?

no man, your not seeing the big picture, you don't feel like a murderer when you drive to work or turn on the heat because its cold. Its not like everything we surround ourselves with everyday comes from magic! now thats the resourses are secured by americans, americans will reap the reward of the oil from iraq, and terrorists and muslem fanatics won't have any barganing chips. Just saying moors a spin doctor because thats a very un admerable quality for DOCUMENTARY filmers, and noone seemed to be saying that. DUH!

then why don't we attack Suadi Srabia huh? they have way more oil than iraq. o wait they actually do fund terrorism, and we wouldn't want to offend Bandahr Bush :upyours: you loser

o 1 more thing (no pun intended folks) according to Bush wer'e in iraq to free the iraqis, so far the only thing we've freed them from is their lives.

Alice Cooper: Anti-Bush acts treasonous morons
Legendary shock artist: 'Rock should never be in bed with politics'

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Alice Cooper

Shock-rock legend Alice Cooper calls rock stars campaigning for Democrat John Kerry treasonous morons.

The 56-year-old Cooper says he was disgusted to learn the likes of Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, R.E.M., Sheryl Crow, James Taylor and Dave Matthews were hitting the road for a series of concerts designed to help defeat President Bush.

"To me, that's treason," Cooper told the Canadian Press. "I call it treason against rock 'n' roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics."

"When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I'd run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick.

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

"Besides," he continued, "when I read the list of people who are supporting Kerry, if I wasn't already a Bush supporter, I would have immediately switched. Linda Ronstadt? Don Henley? Geez, that's a good reason right there to vote for Bush."


Hahahaha

I may not be a Bush supporter, but I sure do love Alice Cooper.

I'm not after Moore for being successful. He can have all the money he wants. I just don't approve of him selling himself as one thing then existing as another. I also think it's wrong for him to present these "documentaries" without the whole fact. I plan on looking at Hype and deciding the same thing.

If Moore wants to say he's a fil maker than say that, not that this is the truth. The Screenwriters guild gave him an award for best doc screenplay. Most doc don't have scripts...

As far as the kid from Columbine... It happened. From the kids own mouth. It happened.

Michael Moore sucks.

Michael Moore sucks.
More than words are capable of conveying. :p

I'm not after Moore for being successful. He can have all the money he wants. I just don't approve of him selling himself as one thing then existing as another. I also think it's wrong for him to present these "documentaries" without the whole fact. I plan on looking at Hype and deciding the same thing.

If Moore wants to say he's a fil maker than say that, not that this is the truth. The Screenwriters guild gave him an award for best doc screenplay. Most doc don't have scripts...

As far as the kid from Columbine... It happened. From the kids own mouth. It happened.
Dammit dammit dammit dammit dammit dammit dammit.

Yes, documentaries do have scripts. You guys want to nitpick the opinions or representation in F9/11, fine-quit making up this bullshit. Jesus Christ. Do you honestly think they invented the award to give it to him? Do you guys even think about this shit for, like, a second before you type it?

You make up scripts for documentaries, we don't just throw them together willy nilly and hope they make sense. We don't sit the narrators down and say 'Wing it.' We transcribe the entire interview, that's the whole thing, and then from those transcriptions we decide what to use and what order it goes in along with whatever, if any, commentary goes along with it. What form do you think that takes, or easily understood title we give that document? SCRIPT.

Stick to the content of the material, quit fucking around with the form to make your arguments.

Stick to the content of the material, quit fucking around with the form to make your arguments.
Whatever, F9/11 is not a documentary, anymore than Spiderman 2 is.

Whatever, F9/11 is not a documentary, anymore than Spiderman 2 is.
bullshit.

If you can't argue content then step aside.

:rolleyes: Yeah you wouldn't want to develop anything like a real world perspective on anything. Just stick to what the cabinet feeds you.
Actually the president does not need to subscribe to a newspaper becase a staff from the CIA, State Dept and Interior publish a summary each day of the worlds news gleamed from news sources, among others. I only wish I could read his daily update.

bullshit.

If you can't argue content then step aside.
:rolleyes: Hey, no argument,it's not a dopcumentary. It is a work of fiction.

Then why not debate the facts? You have a problem with the damn script award argument? Fine. But why not provide me with some FACTS to fight the other things I've said? I mean real facts. Show me numbers. Documents. Not something you think you may have heard or other vague things.

I'm sorry if I offended someone who is obviously a documentarian. Correct?

It's docu-drama...

The sole purpose of the film is not to inform, but to cause controversy.

Then why not debate the facts? You have a problem with the damn script award argument? Fine. But why not provide me with some FACTS to fight the other things I've said? I mean real facts. Show me numbers. Documents. Not something you think you may have heard or other vague things.

I'm sorry if I offended someone who is obviously a documentarian. Correct?
Yep, thats what I am. And I don't give a rats ass about the needling little crap over "this happened on a wenesday not a Tuesday" or whatever other things you want to throw around, but those bullshit arguments like 'documentaries don't have scripts' and 'it's not a documentary, it's a tuna fish sandwich' is just retarded. Stay on topic.

Needling around? You mean the little things called facts people like you are supposed to care about?

I'm not talking tuesday vs friday. I mean like when he takes 2 commercials, slices them together and presents them as fact. Then when he gets caught, removes it for video, THEN when DVD version comes about, realizes how much of an impact that made, CHANGES it again with just enough validity to allow said commercial to stay in the movie.

Thats what I'm talking about. If you think the facts don't matter then you don't matter, either here or as a documentarian...

It's docu-drama...

The sole purpose of the film is not to inform, but to cause controversy.
It's just lies used by Moore to stir up shit, cause hate and strife, and to spread ignorance among the masses of this nation.

That would be from the BEST DOCUMENTARY AWARD winning Bowling for Columbine, by the way. As a film maker in that field, it should sicken you that someone making obvious non-docs should win that award while others who actually make docs don't win.

Bowling and F 9/11 have been smashed to bits, Moore is a joke, and My heart weeps for Filmmaking. :)

The ad in question, for anyone curious is supposedly from the Bush Sr. v Dukakis campaign in 1988. Actually its a mixture of a Bush ad and National Security PAC ad topped off with a title by Moore. Nothing tells you what your seeing isn't one commercial.

The ad in question, for anyone curious is supposedly from the Bush Sr. v Dukakis campaign in 1988. Actually its a mixture of a Bush ad and National Security PAC ad topped off with a title by Moore. Nothing tells you what your seeing isn't one commercial.
He adds things to the commercial to skew the meaning. This is not cute editing, as so often pushed on this site, this is LYING.

*DVD Release Update*

In the Bowling For Columbine DVD release, Moore subtly and silently acknowledged that the caption stating Hortons crime was both phony and incorrect by altering the text in the caption. The caption stating "WIllie Horton released, then kills again" now, on the home version of the movie, reads "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman."

Moore called the error a 'typo'. Yeah, I'm sure he accidentally hit the "T-H-E-N-space-K-I-L-L-S-space-A-G-A-I-N" keys, in that order, while typing... That's not a "typo"; that's just incorrect.

Spinsanity.org notes that Moore's correction doesn't make the insertion of text that wasn't in the original ad any more excusable. And he has "conspicuously failed to correct the rest of the film's distortions and inaccuracies. While it is too late for the Oscar voters he deceived, Moore still owes it to the public to set the record straight."

I'm reminded of a line from the movie "The Ref" with Dennis Leary & Kevin Spacey, where in a scene driving to the house for Christmas, the mother says "Who would catch a criminal, and then let him go free??" to which the child in the back seat replies "republicans...?"

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/williehorton.htm

I would merely say to watch both films. Height and Hype. Then look at all the facts.
Another movie that is coming out is Celcius 41.11 (www.celcius4111.com)

And why in crap would Bush sue Moore for slander? Do you have any idea how much of a field day and scandal that would turn into? For instance the whole Bill O'Reilly thing, him suing his accuser first does what? IT makes it look more suspicious. You know what I find funny, is that the Dems are the only ones who do such things (ie their threats against sinclair broadcasting)

Michael Moore is the bigges idiot there is...literally...the biggest.
I watched his BforC and had to change it after being disgusted at his attempts to make America look evil in that "what a wonderful world" thing with the old footage.

And you all have said that Moore showed real footage. In Hype911 someone says "give me enough footage and I could make Michael Moore look annorexic." In other words, real footage does not count for much, its all in the whole context of the entire footage. You can take footage and make it look like anything you want.

For instance Bush's statement of "I am not worried about [Bin Laden]" you took it out of context. The rest of the statement says "We have him on the run." So Bush didnt pull a John Kerry (www.kerryoniraq.com) (here you may find instances of out of context thigns as well, its a partisan website) but was merely a victim, as he always is, of twisted propoganda.

Needling around? You mean the little things called facts people like you are supposed to care about?

I'm not talking tuesday vs friday. I mean like when he takes 2 commercials, slices them together and presents them as fact. Then when he gets caught, removes it for video, THEN when DVD version comes about, realizes how much of an impact that made, CHANGES it again with just enough validity to allow said commercial to stay in the movie.

Thats what I'm talking about. If you think the facts don't matter then you don't matter, either here or as a documentarian...
You don't seem to understand-I don't care about the argument of the content of the film. Have at it-site all the crap you want and argue back and forth with the others all you want-what I do care about is when you create this bullshit about the form itself to make your arguments. I've spent my time on this crap and it's a mostly a bunch of people running around pretending they've never consumed media before-I've had it. I don't care. I'm not a champion for this film-I don't care. Don't fuck with the form itself to make your dumbass arguments, that is all I care about.

You don't seem to understand-I don't care about the argument of the content of the film. Have at it-site all the crap you want and argue back and forth with the others all you want-what I do care about is when you create this bullshit about the form itself to make your arguments. I've spent my time on this crap and it's a mostly a bunch of people running around pretending they've never consumed media before-I've had it. I don't care. I'm not a champion for this film-I don't care. Don't fuck with the form itself to make your dumbass arguments, that is all I care about.

The form? You should be NAUSEATED over how Moore has fucked with the form!!! I couldn't care less if people consume media, but at least call it what it is. Did I strike a nerve? Do you and Moore have similar film styles? Is that why lies and half truths don't anger you?

The form? You should be NAUSEATED over how Moore has fucked with the form!!! I couldn't care less if people consume media, but at least call it what it is. Did I strike a nerve? Do you and Moore have similar film styles? Is that why lies and half truths don't anger you?
:eek: OUCH!

then why don't we attack Suadi Srabia huh? they have way more oil than iraq. o wait they actually do fund terrorism, and we wouldn't want to offend Bandahr Bush :upyours: you loser

Your obviously a democrat and have let your bi partisan ways blind you. Ask anyone with any comprehension of international polotics and they'll tell you saudi ariabia is already in americas pocket, right along with kuwait, and im not possitive, but im pritty sure that iraq has almost if not more oil that saudi arabia. Now that the trade embargo/sanctions with Iraq are over the new allawi government can start fixing things up they way they should be, and the way sadam never would. I'm not a republican, nor a conservative. I'm just a realistic guy who knows things turned out the way they did for a reason, and if the reason wasn't god for america, there would have been no war. Just because you watched a movie or look at the news headlines on cnn now and then, your no expert on whats going on in the world. On your next reply to this message why don't you really shine me on, and call me a dork, or a duffus, that really makes you a winner in everyones oppinion.

The form? You should be NAUSEATED over how Moore has fucked with the form!!! I couldn't care less if people consume media, but at least call it what it is. Did I strike a nerve? Do you and Moore have similar film styles? Is that why lies and half truths don't anger you?

Again, I am not the champion of the film. Don't care. Here's the thing, Dude, Where's My Car does not invalidate The Bicycle Thief, so your baiting of me is meaningless.

Moore's film, successful or not-accurate or not, does not validate or invalidate my films.

What does affect my film is a bunch of butt-hurt conservatives attacking the form in thier attempt to discredit Moore. You are doing more damage than Moore could possibly do if he used Forrest Gump effects to place Bush in the caves with bin Laden.

Thing is, if the film is as inaccurate as you say, you wouldn't need to dick around with the form and its terms to make you points. If it's as inaccurate as you say it is-STICK TO THE FUCKING INACCURACES and quit pretending to re-invent film.

Oh I forgot, to the person who said that "what about the 1000 soldiers in Iraq"

Look we know Saddam was putting things in place to get WMD's. He had them and he was trying to get them again. Personally I am glad he did not have them. But let me ask you this, had we not removed him, and been lifted, and Saddam gets his WMD's. Then he starts causing trouble, now instead of 1000 dead soldiers, you would be looking at 10000.

I certainly hope it affects the vote. I think the majority of what's in there is true. While Michael Moore would be the first person to tell you he is biased, I also think he was very careful to not put anything in the film that would not stand up to the intense scrutiny the movie would obviously get.

It isn't bias it is non-sensical in some parts. You can give a bigger relation to Carlyle to George Soros then G. W. Bush. You can also look to the 6 Clinton appointees that served on Carlyle during the time Moore is pointing at.
His numbers on Saudi investment are laughable. The author he cites has no idea what he is talking about. Look to the Dave Kopel source on that if you must. His number for foreign investment is way to high for a nation like Saudi Arabia.
He didn't even know the secret service guarded embassies. How much could he possibly know?

Lets go to what he said in a press conference a few weeks after 9/11. "There is no terrorist threat, there is no terrorist threat, there is no terrorist threat..."
He also likened Iraqi resistance on his website to "modern day minute men." He also publicly wondered on his webpage why Bin Laden hit New York and Washington D.C. It would've been ok had Bin Laden hit Republican districts.

If you didn't know this even democrats don't back Moore. Don't you think they would if 9/11 were 100% fact? Hell, Dick Morris the guy who got Clinton elected twice says Moore is full of it. In fact Morris claims that while Bush may be somewhat guilty, Clinton was "soft" on terror. Kerry won't back his movie.
Richard Clark an outstanding critic of President Bush contradicts Moore's claim that Bush let the Bin Laden family go. Not only did they get to use the airports when everyone else did, contrary to Moore's claim. They also were searched and interrogated. I fail to see what good it would've done to keep them in the states? Does Moore believe that relation to someone equals guilt (no matter how many experts and evidence points in the other direction).
Lets see theres also the bogus Iraqi life better under Saddam crap. Really? I think the mass graves in Iraq beg to differ. I think the horrific tapes of people being brutally beaten and hacked to death in Abu Grabe differ.

Theres way to much here to cover but believe me if there was any truth at all in that film Kerry would endorse it. What would he have to lose if it was infallible? Now ask yourself what he has to lose in endorsing something that openly lies to the American people. Im glad Kerry is smarter than that.

Saddam was and still is a prick, but I doubt he would do anything as stupid as using nukes on anyone. I think he would have known the rest of the world would't have stood for it.

Thats what I'm pointing out. More than inaccuracies, they're outright lies. My problem with Moore is that everyone heaps upon him loads of credibility.. If Moore has it in a film, it must be true... Thats my problem with it.

I spend time arguing about him not for some deep seated fear that people will uncover "the truth", but rather that most of his followers, the ones that follow him blindly without question, will be voting on the next President. I don't think a man who sinks to such slight of hand parlor tricks should be given that power.

Thats what I'm pointing out. More than inaccuracies, they're outright lies. My problem with Moore is that everyone heaps upon him loads of credibility.. If Moore has it in a film, it must be true... Thats my problem with it.

I spend time arguing about him not for some deep seated fear that people will uncover "the truth", but rather that most of his followers, the ones that follow him blindly without question, will be voting on the next President. I don't think a man who sinks to such slight of hand parlor tricks should be given that power.
Then stay on topic, not pull bullshit like 'documentaries don't have scripts' out of your ass and you can have whatever kind or parade you want.

F 9/11 is garbage masquerdaing as a documentary, like most liberal filmwork.

F 9/11 is garbage masquerdaing as a documentary, like most liberal filmwork.
http://www.ersatzcipher.com/fark/farkive/Troll-XING.jpg

Then stay on topic, not pull bullshit like 'documentaries don't have scripts' out of your ass and you can have whatever kind or parade you want.

Good one if you think Dick Morris and Richard Clarke are conservatives. I fear for the average intelligence of your side. Its great when people tune out the priests of their own party just to eat up this garbage.
Btw your right most documentaries don't have scripts. Most documentaries also don't mess with a paper to make a Letter to the Editor look like front page story. Most documentaries don't get law suits from the people they interview or papers they interview. Most documentaries don't get bashed by the New York Times, The Boston Globe, the L.A. Times and the Sentinel. But then again your right most documentaries aren't a well scripted Micheal Moore propaganda film. Since when do people have to pay to listen to willfull ignorance? The Nazis and Soviets did it for free...

By the way if any of you have looked at Moore's "war room" you'll find most of them to be restatements of what the movie said. You won't find any answers... well except one attack Kopel said out of 59 go Micheal Moore. One out of 59 ain't bad.
I particularly like the instance where he passed off the letter of the editor in a paper as the front page story. He changed the author's name blew up the story. Changed the date at the top of the paper. His "war room" claims this is a typo. Make your own conclusions... I was laughing heartily at this typo for a good fifteen minutes. Talk about "journalistic integrity" going down the tubes.

So basically, as I understand you, you are saying to hell with all the inaccuracies of the film and center on one mans misunderstanding how a transcript and a screenplay could be the same thing? Forgetting that you, as a doc filmaker, are suppossed to fight outright lies that win awards you would otherwise be in competition for.

Fine. Let him have best screenplay. I don't give a shit. But what of the mockery he's making of your life and work? From now on, anyone placing themselves in the position of "little guy" will have a bias against them.

Good one if you think Dick Morris and Richard Clarke are conservatives. I fear for the average intelligence of your side. Its great when people tune out the priests of their own party just to eat up this garbage.
Btw your right most documentaries don't have scripts. Most documentaries also don't mess with a paper to make a Letter to the Editor look like front page story. Most documentaries don't get law suits from the people they interview or papers they interview. Most documentaries don't get bashed by the New York Times, The Boston Globe, the L.A. Times and the Sentinel. But then again your right most documentaries aren't a well scripted Micheal Moore propaganda film. Since when do people have to pay to listen to willfull ignorance? The Nazis and Soviets did it for free...

"My side" is filmmaker, and my sole argument is that yes, in fact, documentaries do have scripts. That was the only argument I was responding to, it was an argument that was complete bullshit, it was not even well considered bullshit because for it to work The Screenwrighters Guild (which I assume he was talking about the WGA) would have to invented an award just to give it to F9/11. That argument was bullshit. It remains bullshit. Again, I don't give a flying fuck what the rest of the arguments are, not involved, wasn't adressing them, don't care. What bothers me is, in people's haste to burn Moore in effegy they fuck with things like wether or not documentaries have scripts. It's stupid and needs to be corrected, much like you all feel the need to correct whatever it is you all are butt-hurt about. Don't like being corrected on those things? Think about what you're saying for half a damn second. Trying to argue with me about the rest of the film is a waste of your time because I don't care. I was merely correcting the erronious statement that documentaries don't have scripts. For the rest, you all are on your own.

Have you even looked at the WGA site? Of course they have friggin awards!!!! AND SHOCKER, ONE IS THE BEST SCREENPLAY!!!

So they invented that just for Moore huh? in 1995 they gave their 48th annual award for best screenplay.

So basically, as I understand you, you are saying to hell with all the inaccuracies of the film and center on one mans misunderstanding how a transcript and a screenplay could be the same thing? Forgetting that you, as a doc filmaker, are suppossed to fight outright lies that win awards you would otherwise be in competition for.

Fine. Let him have best screenplay. I don't give a shit. But what of the mockery he's making of your life and work? From now on, anyone placing themselves in the position of "little guy" will have a bias against them.
No, dumbass, I'm saying documentaries have scripts. Not transcripts, we use those to form scripts. That is what I'm saying. What you said, the argument I addressed, was bullshit. Thats it.

And again-if one filmmakers work was able to discredit anothers by value, I'd be far more concerned with porn. F9/11 does not effect short subject low budget documentaries about people who drive beater cars or hobbiests, no matter how much you think it does. Far more damage is done by people trying to invent bullshit about the form because they've run out of factual things to say about the movie.

Have you even looked at the WGA site? Of course they have friggin awards!!!! AND SHOCKER, ONE IS THE BEST SCREENPLAY!!!

So they invented that just for Moore huh? in 1995 they gave their 48th annual award for best screenplay.
Sweet christ. RIF. You do realize you made my argument, right? Do you even know what you're saying anymore? Jesus f'n christ.

Your argument, the ones about documentaries not having scripts, it was bullshit. Thats it. I don't care about the rest.

I admitted that the confusion over scripts and docs was taken and noted.

Now I'm asking you a personal question since you insist on trying to belittle me. Do you have any problem with the way Moore is portrayed?

I am merely stating that for a documentary to have integrity it must not engage in fraudelent means. I can think of no documentary that engages on fraud of the scale Moore does. It isn't nick picking like you say it is if you had any idea the extent to which he is wrong, you wouldn't make this statement.
His statements "butt-hurt" the democrats more... because whether or not Kerry acknowledges the film the public puts the two together. And look to the people nit-picking? Why would high level democrats such as Kerry, top aids in the Clinton administration and every well known magazine in the country be hurt? Dave Kopel the most ardent attacker is a member of the green party. Tell me how conservative they are. They simply see it is full of it. They didn't get hurt by this tripe. Except that the democrats want to have legitimate attacks not some from Micheal Moore's looney bin.
I'm glad you don't make any claims to know what the movie says. You totally discredit yourself. You and Moore share snap judgements of all those who would dare claim his word is short of God's. They must all be conservatives.... how refreshingly naive.

I admitted that the confusion over scripts and docs was taken and noted.

Now I'm asking you a personal question since you insist on trying to belittle me. Do you have any problem with the way Moore is portrayed?
I don't care anymore than I care how people precieve Jerry Bruckhiemer or Steven Speilberg or Ken Burns. For scale, observe:
Moore

































me

At the level I'm at I have more opinions about Rene Tajima-Pena, who I might get a chance to work with, than I do about a filmmaker whose audience I don't even hope to tap.

It's just lies used by Moore to stir up shit, cause hate and strife, and to spread ignorance among the masses of this nation.
Yea, maybe. But I'd be careful, because it's hard to distinguish between you and the rest of the ignorant masses. You wouldn't want to become part of the crowd would you?

Factcheck (http://factcheck.org/)
Spinsanity (http://spinsanity.com/)
Spend some time looking throught these two websites and look at how much bullshit each side throws around about each other.

And here is Spinsanity's section on pundits like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#Pundits).

<Hoping to return to a friendly debate>

But Moore started out that same way. Do you think its morally right to climb to the top, with the image of documentarian, with such questionable integrity?

The others you named admit their work is not to be taken seriously. That is all I want Moore to say, my work like Canadian Bacon, is fiction. Moore needs to say, I think its based in fact, but these are still my ideas and here is where I changed them to fit my agenda.

Yea, maybe. But I'd be careful, because it's hard to distinguish between you and the rest of the ignorant masses. You wouldn't want to become part of the crowd would you?

Knows alot more than the Moore is infallible flock...

Knows alot more than the Moore is infallible flock...
Not really, because he also thinks that everything here (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/) is free of propaganda. It's really just free propaganda.

Factcheck (http://factcheck.org/)
Spinsanity (http://spinsanity.com/)
Spend some time looking throught these two websites and look at how much bullshit each side throws around about each other.

And here is Spinsanity's section on pundits like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#Pundits).

I love those two sites its a shame they aren't more well known.

<Hoping to return to a friendly debate>

But Moore started out that same way. Do you think its morally right to climb to the top, with the image of documentarian, with such questionable integrity?

The others you named admit their work is not to be taken seriously. That is all I want Moore to say, my work like Canadian Bacon, is fiction. Moore needs to say, I think its based in fact, but these are still my ideas and here is where I changed them to fit my agenda.
Thing is, he has been up-front about saying that he is in fact not being fair and that what he was stating was in fact his opinion, to paraphrase what he said on The Daily Show:
Stewart: Are you being fair in this film?

Moore: No. Absolutely not. These are my opinions, I put them in my film, and they might be wrong-but lets have that debate.

Instead we get debate over how documentaries are made.

I didn't read the whole thing yet, but I think its great that they have a section called Media Whores Online... Any site that has that automatically gets added to my favs.

The only reason we are having an argument is because Moore puts off that doc stereotype. He knows it and loves it. It lends him more credibility and more power. But most people who are making major desicions are basing it, at least partly, on Moores movie/books/speeches etc...

Do you consider him a documentarian?

Actual question, no baiting, no flame, just seeking info.

The only reason we are having an argument is because Moore puts off that doc stereotype. He knows it and loves it. It lends him more credibility and more power. But most people who are making major desicions are basing it, at least partly, on Moores movie/books/speeches etc...

Do you consider him a documentarian?

Actual question, no baiting, no flame, just seeking info.
See, though, this I do consider baiting. He is a documentarian. He makes documentries. Now's where you jump up and down and scream and point at whatever is wrong or whatever. Trying to have an argument about whether or not F9/11 is a documentary or Moore is a documentarian is a Red Herring. It does nothing but distance me from your argument. Once you step into this non-sense it becomes about your inability to understand media or talk about the form and not about what Moore actually said.

In all honesty, it is a Moore-esque technique to redirect the discourse away from the substance to the emotional response. It discredits the whole argument and creates white-noise so that the issue is to obscured to even bother retreiving. If you really want to make your point, if you really want to discredit Moore, have the actual argument, don't try to redifine his role. Too Orwellian and I don't buy it.

But you can't seperate them. His persona while under the aegis of "documentarian" conflicts with what a documentary should stand for. You can't seperate him into slivers, that is why I'm asking you honest questions.

No baiting, Its too late, and I have to get up too early to start fighting again with you. If you would prefer we can agree to drop this. Should we run into each other again, by all means we can try again. But I was not trying to bait only ask.

What would you prefer to do? Drop or fight this insane battle to the bitter end. We are never going to completely agree, anyone who has been following this thread sees that.

But you can't seperate them. His persona while under the aegis of "documentarian" conflicts with what a documentary should stand for. You can't seperate him into slivers, that is why I'm asking you honest questions.

No baiting, Its too late, and I have to get up too early to start fighting again with you. If you would prefer we can agree to drop this. Should we run into each other again, by all means we can try again. But I was not trying to bait only ask.

What would you prefer to do? Drop or fight this insane battle to the bitter end. We are never going to completely agree, anyone who has been following this thread sees that.
Only if you conflait the two. Thats muddying the argument. Argue the film, not the filmmaker. If the film doesn't stand up, the filmmaker becomes irrelivant. Lofty notions of 'what a documentary should be' is exactly the kind of Red Herring I'm talking about. I made a documentary about people's crappy cars, for crying out loud. What's the lofty ideal of chopper documentaries on Discovery Channel? If you wanted to be honest you'd argue the content, that's all I'm saying.

That's the truce I'll make-argue the content all you want, I won't interfere. Trying to fudge around with the definitions and what is and isn't a certain type of film is disenginous and does the damage to film that you assign to Moore and I will defend it whenever I see it.

Fine. I guess thanks to our respective views we'll most likely meet/argue again.

It's been fun, though. Gotta love democracy. Take care.

doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.

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


n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries

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

-----

I think Fahrenheit 9/11 fits this definition. If you want to say that it violates the second part of the adjective definition in that it isn't objective, I'd have to disagree. All of the narration is simply speculation. Any thing that Moore doesn't have proof for he says as a question, not as an answer.

doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.

...

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing ...

On that definition, no documentary has ever been made.

Frontline presents some very good documentaries. I've seen Australian filmmakers do some very good work, especially the one regarding drug trafficking in Burma.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is not one of them. It's more like an anti-Bush infomercial.

Frontline presents some very good documentaries. I've seen Australian filmmakers do some very good work, especially the one regarding drug trafficking in Burma.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is not one of them. It's more like an anti-Bush infomercial.
It may not be a good documentary, but I'd like you to EXPLAIN how Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't a documentary based off the content of the movie and the definition I provided.

I have not seen the film and have no intention to... though I think Bush is a bit of a dickhead I think Mike Moore is a bigger one.

See, though, this I do consider baiting. He is a documentarian. He makes documentries. Now's where you jump up and down and scream and point at whatever is wrong or whatever. Trying to have an argument about whether or not F9/11 is a documentary or Moore is a documentarian is a Red Herring.

Documentaries are meant to inform people about an event or topic, not obscure the facts for political gain. When Michael Moore obscures the reality of Saddam's Ba'athist regime (F 9/11) or presents the KKK and NRA as equivalent organisations (BfC), he's using humourous sophisms to deliberately deceive the public. This is not what documentaries are supposed to do.

I consider attempts to convince me that Michael Moore is a "documentarian" to be insults to my intelligence. That you aren't even willing to question the validity of his methodology in this idiom, let alone acknowledge his well-documented fraud, makes it clear why more objective observers would want to simply not bother discussing the issue with you.

See, though, this I do consider baiting. He is a documentarian. He makes documentries. Now's where you jump up and down and scream and point at whatever is wrong or whatever. Trying to have an argument about whether or not F9/11 is a documentary or Moore is a documentarian is a Red Herring.

Documentaries are meant to inform people about an event or topic, not obscure the facts for political and/or economic gain. When Michael Moore obscures the reality of Saddam's Ba'athist regime (F 9/11) or presents the KKK and NRA as equivalent organisations (BfC), he's using humourous sophisms to deliberately deceive the public. This is not what documentaries are supposed to do.

I consider attempts to convince me that Michael Moore is a "documentarian" to be insults to my intelligence. That you aren't even willing to question the validity of his methodology in this idiom, let alone acknowledge his well-documented fraud, makes it clear why more objective observers would want to simply not bother discussing the issue with you.

No it's not. He used nothing but facts.. where you may dispute it is perhaps in his narration. All the stuff he showed were indeed factual and did happen.
Do some research and you'll see how twisted those "facts" are. It's simple.

I have only found ignorant people that don't know anything about history accept these lies handed out by Moore. I have a real fact for him, lose some weight fatty, that is americas worst problem at the minute.

See, though, this I do consider baiting. He is a documentarian. He makes documentries. Now's where you jump up and down and scream and point at whatever is wrong or whatever. Trying to have an argument about whether or not F9/11 is a documentary or Moore is a documentarian is a Red Herring.

Documentaries are meant to inform people about an event or topic, not obscure the facts for political gain. When Michael Moore obscures the reality of Saddam's Ba'athist regime (F 9/11) or presents the KKK and NRA as equivalent organisations (BfC), he's using humourous sophisms to deliberately deceive the public. This is not what documentaries are supposed to do.

I consider attempts to convince me that Michael Moore is a "documentarian" to be insults to my intelligence. That you aren't even willing to question the validity of his methodology in this idiom, let alone acknowledge his well-documented fraud, makes it clear why more objective observers would want to simply not bother discussing the issue with you.
Documentaries are supposed to present an argument. That's what Moore does. Somewhere along the line you may have gotten the idea that documentaries where all supposed to be like the film strips you watched on the wonders of Zinc or Industrial Arts, but nope. They are arguments and since they are assembled by a person they reflect that persons views. Errol Morris uses re-enactments and dramatic camera work to play with perception and tell the the story in Thin Blue Line, manipulating the audiences reaction to make his argument that the person is innocent and been railroaded. He uses constructed images like numbers falling like bombs and dominos falling across a map of asia to accentuate a particular interpretation of what MacNamara is saying in Fog of War. Rob Epstein uses emotional responses, testimony and lengthy shots of the the candlelight vigil for Harvey Milk to evoke an emotional response in The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. Epstein does not interview or give much screen time or consideration to those who would think Milk was not fit for his office, or give credence to the 'twinkie defense.' Even the Maysles brothers, celebrated Verte filmmakers, use moments of conflict, quiet defeated moments of thier subjects in contrast to their bravado to heighten the drama and obserdity of thier situation. The select the section to paint the men as defeated people who are unaware that their time has past. Is that 'fair and balanced' information passing? No, it's a fucking documentary. That you would pretend to be arguing a legitimate point as if documentary is under some great ideological weight, a standard I don't see applied to actual news sources or the administration is an insult to everyones intellegence and my field. I can understand why more intellegent posters might steer clear of the discussion all together. If you had a real argument you'd be arguing the content. You're not. Thus, you are wasting all of our time.

Documentaries reflect the reality as the director wants it to be reflected. Documentaries always have a point of view, they can never be objective.
Not all documentaries try to teach us something, they just represent something.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is as much a documentary than e.g. Titicut Follies or Nanook of the North (which certainly has more errors than Moore's films) they are just use different in style.

Documentaries reflect the reality as the director wants it to be reflected. Documentaries always have a point of view, they can never be objective.
Not all documentaries try to teach us something, they just represent something.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is as much a documentary than e.g. Titicut Follies or Nanook of the North (which certainly has more errors than Moore's films) they are just use different in style.
Thanks man, I should have thought of tapping Nanook of the North, it would have saved me a whole lot of trouble.

Thanks man, I should have thought of tapping Nanook of the North, it would have saved me a whole lot of trouble.
I thought your post was too intelligent and tried to simplify it... :D

o 1 more thing (no pun intended folks) according to Bush wer'e in iraq to free the iraqis, so far the only thing we've freed them from is their lives.

You forgot the rape rooms, torture chambers, plastic shredders, childrens' prisons, machine guns to the head, hands being cut off, being thrown in mass graves, being gassed by their government, being imprisoned for disagreeing with the government, being without food because a dictator wanted money for himself...

You forgot the rape rooms, torture chambers, plastic shredders, childrens' prisons, machine guns to the head, hands being cut off, being thrown in mass graves, being gassed by their government, being imprisoned for disagreeing with the government, being without food because a dictator wanted money for himself...

tell that to the men at Abu Ghraib, like 90% were proven not to have done anything!!!!!! also, they still don't have enough food, we raid houses, Bush is arresting people who wear Kerry stickers at his rallys in this land of the free. We gave him the gas!! and o our leaders our rel generous (business)

I have only found ignorant people that don't know anything about history accept these lies handed out by Moore. I have a real fact for him, lose some weight fatty, that is americas worst problem at the minute.

scuse me? i know a ton about history!! am really well informed, listen to both sides of an argument etc. Moores footage is 100% correct or he has animation from the future! yes he twists it so it shows his point, he admits that! and personal insults? get some better firepower buddy i ain't impressed. i feel like this guy here trying to talk to people like you :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

This is the silly thing, in that the righties will concentrate on eggs and completely ignore the fact that tens of thousands were protesting the inaugaration of Bush. Now THAT was the salient point and NOT the eggs.
Yes, that's right. Or correct, I should say.

I also think it's wrong for him to present these "documentaries" without the whole fact. I plan on looking at Hype and deciding the same thing.

Moore doesn't deny that his film is propaganda.

Actually the president does not need to subscribe to a newspaper becase a staff from the CIA, State Dept and Interior publish a summary each day of the worlds news gleamed from news sources, among others. I only wish I could read his daily update.
The US President gets his own newspaper made for him? Man, that's living!

most of his followers, the ones that follow him blindly without question, will be voting on the next President.
There are blind, ignorant followers on both sides. But PIPA studies show that most of them are on the Bush side. ;)

I certainly hope it affects the vote. I think the majority of what's in there is true. While Michael Moore would be the first person to tell you he is biased, I also think he was very careful to not put anything in the film that would not stand up to the intense scrutiny the movie would obviously get.
Of course, this merely shows that you didn't pay attention to the many criticisms and proven accounts of Moore misquoting or otherwise falsely using or interpreting information, not to mention just plain making things up.

just because one liberal does doesn't mean every liberal does. I'm a liberal, i don't hate America! I just hate bush? :mp5::sniper::gundge::headbang:

1st:
Cannot Think Of A Name
and
Helioterra
You ROCK.
2nd:
A new book (fairly new) - the Official (heh) 9/11 Reader -
just came out that has links and back up stuff for the people who want to argue veracity, including company names and news sources.
It also includes the screenplay, that's the first section after the foreword.
Any debunkers/fans here bothered to read it yet? I have it and am reading it currently ....
Sad part is it doesn't have Moore holding hands w/Shrub on the WH lawn like one of the posters had ... it instead has them sharing popcorn in a dark theater. Might be a conservative or two behind them, a few rows, wearing trenchcoats and moving their hands around a lot ....

There are blind, ignorant followers on both sides. But PIPA studies show that most of them are on the Bush side.

What the PIPA study proved was that those not affiliated with or sympathetic to the Left have the proper, acceptable misconceptions. The questions they asked for their survey had "correct" answers that simply were not true, and they marked wrong any answer that deviated from them - including correct ones.

Then again, the sort of people who consider tactics like these defensible would simply idolise Michael Moore. His sophistic genius puts the PIPA pollsters to shame.

Michael Moore... anyone who believes the crap he says is a Moore-on.
And I know-I've read both Downsize This! and Stupid White Men and seen Canadian Bacon. None are really that great. Why should I think that Fahrenhate 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine should be any better?

tell that to the men at Abu Ghraib, like 90% were proven not to have done anything!!!!!! also, they still don't have enough food, we raid houses, Bush is arresting people who wear Kerry stickers at his rallys in this land of the free. We gave him the gas!! and o our leaders our rel generous (business)
First of all, your grammar and spelling are atrocious (as is the case for most of those on this board). Secondly, if your figures are indeed correct, it seems like there would be more news coverage on it.

The Americans are the only ones that care about the whole Abu Ghraib thing. The only reason we care is because the media cares. The only reason the media cares is because it makes Bush look bad. The Iraqi people have better utilities and food/water supplies than they did under Saddam, and, while still not perfect, we're getting the job done in Iraq. Of course we raid houses, because there are terrorists living and working in them! Kerry tries to get Sinclair Broadcasting in trouble with the FCC while Farenheit 9/11 is still shown all over the place; Kerry tried to sue Swift Boat Veterans for Truth into oblivion in this "land of the free".

Why do people give any credibility at all to Michael Moore? He's talented at what he does, but what he does is create propoganda based on lies and half truths

Michael Moore... anyone who believes the crap he says is a Moore-on.
And I know-I've read both Downsize This! and Stupid White Men and seen Canadian Bacon. None are really that great. Why should I think that Fahrenhate 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine should be any better? :) Agreed!

The Americans are the only ones that care about the whole Abu Ghraib thing. The only reason we care is because the media cares. The only reason the media cares is because it makes Bush look bad. The Iraqi people have better utilities and food/water supplies than they did under Saddam, and, while still not perfect, we're getting the job done in Iraq. Of course we raid houses, because there are terrorists living and working in them! Kerry tries to get Sinclair Broadcasting in trouble with the FCC while Farenheit 9/11 is still shown all over the place; Kerry tried to sue Swift Boat Veterans for Truth into oblivion in this "land of the free".
Only an American would say that you're the only who cares. You could not be more misleaded. Media cares (also) because Abu Ghraib is against everything US claims to stand for (USA is still a member of the UN...)

edit: Let's see, here we don't care:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3956731.stm /edit

The Iraqi people DON'T have better utitlites, water pipes have been destroyed, electricity works only now and then and most of them have to rely on aid workers to get something to eat.
And when I watch news, I can't see anything like "getting the job done", I only see more and more dead soldiers and civilians.

Only an American would say that you're the only who cares. You could not be more misleaded. Media cares (also) because Abu Ghraib is against everything US claims to stand for (USA is still a member of the UN...)

Ok, I was wrong and I'm sorry.

And when I watch news, I can't see anything like "getting the job done", I only see more and more dead soldiers and civilians.

What you don't see is the progress being made. All the news is about people being killed in Fallujah(sp?) or Baghdad(sp?). More people were killed by Saddam Hussein than were killed in this war. They've found over 300,000 people bulldozed over in the desert in mass graves. And that's only what they've found thus far. The reason you don't see this on TV is either a) you don't want to or b) the liberal media (at least in the US) doesn't want you to see it. My point is we're doing all we can to help these people. People die. That's a fact. Where, when and how are not all that significant. But I know I'd rather die serving my country and serving humanity than lonely and scared in some hospital room.

One thing that really irks me about liberals is their obsession with 1000 men being dead in Iraq. Do 1000 American lives have more value than 300000 Iraqi lives? I thought we were all equal. :confused: