Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 wins Cannes Film Award - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 05-24-2004, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
I won't read all the tripe above, because a kook like Moore isn't worth taking seriously, even if he didn't make up his own material.

Moore is a fraud, as evidenced in the link below:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/127ujhuf.asp

Case in point.

hammer4all · 05-24-2004, 08:05 PM

Moore's acceptance speech at the Cannes Film Festival

pROCK · 05-26-2004, 06:48 AM

I used to like Moore back in his "Canadian Bacon" and "TV Nation" days.

Now, he seems to have gotten to dogmatic and extreme
ever since some people started challenging him after "bowling for columbine".

roachboy · 05-26-2004, 07:23 AM

documentary films are **arguments about** the world. they are not, and cannot be "objective"---but then nothing is "objective"---not even the national geographic-style docs that use long shots and stationary cameras to give the illusion of scientific detachment. that which purports to be "objective" is almost inevitably an argument the premises of which are buried.

given that documentaries are arguments, i dont undertstand the basis for conservative attacks on moore's work--if people think there are inaccuracies, then they are free to argue about them, but that if anything increases the value of his films because at least they put you in a position of having to think a bit.

if you find moore irritating--and i do, but more for his voice than for his politics--then so be it---but that again had nothing to do with his films as documentary.

i have long been puzzled by contemporary conservatism and its aversion to real argument. the ideology seems to prompt folk to not lay the premises of their positions out, to subject them to scrutiny. most of the attacks on moore's films seem to be border defense actions aimed at preventing precisely this kind of argument from occurring. for all the talk that circulates about democracy in conservative circles, you would think that debate--open debate in which people were willing to lay out the whole of their arguments--would be welcome. but insterad you get the reversion to smear, the attempt to discredit the sources of discomfort.

Hwed · 05-26-2004, 03:44 PM

Quote:

if people think there are inaccuracies, then they are free to argue about them

Inaccuracies? Inaccuracies?

The man made up an entire interview and published it as fact. If you call that an "inaccuracy," I'm guessing call the September 11th attacks a "plane crash."

lukethebandgeek · 05-26-2004, 04:57 PM

Moore's latest book and movie were entertaining if nothing else. He definately hams it up. But, he does make you at least give a thought to certain issues. We're discussing that right now, so, even if we haven't seen his movie, his point was still made. We're discussing, debunking, proving, ect...

The point is that extreme liberals/conservatives will always end up saying something twisted just enough, or something that thier crowd will always want to hear. These political figures, like Neil Bortz, or Al Franken, exist not to convince the other side to convert to thiers, but to prey off of the convicitoins and enthusiasms of thier own side.

Harman · 05-27-2004, 06:11 AM

In case he is a fraud, and I have some doubts about that, it is still a good idea to hear his toughts because Bush's entourage ain't better.

Locobot · 06-05-2004, 08:34 PM

The trailer is posted here: www.fahrenheit911.com , it's a pretty effective preview. I really want to see to what degree I agree or disagree with what he has to say. Looks like it has some Iraqi war footage that hasn't been censored or craptified by satallite linkage.

gibingus · 06-22-2004, 09:21 AM

Christopher Hitchens writes about Michael Moore's "lies" for slate.com

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584

Take it for what you will....

tecoyah · 06-22-2004, 10:27 AM

Just the opposite extreme of government propoganda.Take 'em both with a couple pounds of salt.....find the truth beneath the BS.

docbungle · 06-22-2004, 01:52 PM

Michael Moore makes movies. He is not a fraud. He is welcome to make a movie about whatever subject matter he pleases and to put whatever type of personal spin on it that he wants to.

I'm not saying everything in Moore's films are absolute fact, but I DO believe that the types of films he creates are good for sparking debate and independent thought. They bring up many relevant issues that, regardless of your stance, just might warrant a closer look.

Jam · 06-23-2004, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by saltfish
I, personally, laugh at the pseudo-intellectuals that beleive Mr. Moore's films are factual. ...heh... It seems as though these same people take whatever this man says as gospel. ...funny, that is exactly what Moore wants you to do.

No... ...he's not in this business to create a scene, he really wants us to know whats going on.

/sarcasm

-SF

oh yeah and thats nothing like all those americans who beleive whatever bush says is gospel?

silent_jay · 06-23-2004, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jam161
oh yeah and thats nothing like all those americans who beleive whatever bush says is gospel?

Like WMD's, Al-Quaeda connections to Saddam, no one screwed up on Sept.11, etc. Good job Mr. Moore expose this government for what it is a fraud.

saltfish · 06-23-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by silent_jay
Like WMD's, Al-Quaeda connections to Saddam, no one screwed up on Sept.11, etc. Good job Mr. Moore expose this government for what it is a fraud.

Still, with all of it's problems, the United States of America is the best nation in the world.

:sarcasm: If you don't like it, move to Canada! :/sarcasm:

BigGov · 06-23-2004, 11:48 AM

I like how Michael Moore goes on all these talk shows now and just goes on and on about how he'll take on any right-winger in a debate, anytime, anywhere.

Well, Joe Scarborough has called his bluff, he's accepted the challenge, and he's offered Michael Moore a full hour to come on his show and debate. Moore hasn't accepted.

Charlatan · 06-23-2004, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by saltfish

:sarcasm: If you don't like it, move to Canada! :/sarcasm:

Silent Jay *is* Canadian...

matteo101 · 06-23-2004, 04:49 PM

You honestly think that the NRA would let the film be released to the public if Moore was lying? You honestly think that? I guarantee that they went over BFC with a fine toothed comb to try and find any sort of fact that was untrue in order to stop the movie from being released. There is no way in the world that they would let him get away with lyeing about there company. Please someone prove me wrong.

Seaver · 06-23-2004, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Please someone prove me wrong.

Been posted many times, try looking at it. Bowlingfortruth.com

matteo101 · 06-23-2004, 06:05 PM

If you would like to explain, be my guest. I didn't ask them bowlingfortruth I asked people on this board.

BigGov · 06-23-2004, 06:10 PM

We have no desire to search the websites we provide you for every single arguement that refutes your opinions.

matteo101 · 06-23-2004, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Because they wouldn't win. The reason Lockheed, the people interviewed, the nation of Canada or Charlton Heston haven't sued Michael Moore is because it's a hassle that has little to no promise of pay off either in legal ruling or public opinion. Lawsuits or even vigorous pursuits to clear their names by any of the pre-mentioned would only make them look more foolish under the scrutiny of the media eye and every person reading this knows it. That is why I made the site. Because it's not that those defamed in BFC can't or even simply won't make large public efforts to defend themselves - it's just not a prudent move for most of them.

But regardless - This question is silly because the one who asks it never applies the logic to Michael Moore. He says that anyone saying that there is something false in Bowling For Columbine is committing libel, yet he pursues no action against any of the 'libelers'. The best he does is post a pathetic page on his website that just makes fun of his critics and contains more of his staple spin, lies and distortions.

This is the responce of Bowling for Truth...Do I believe it..Hell no...He didnt mention the NRA. Why didn't he do that? Because he knows that the NRA would be willing to go through the hassle to prove wrong a film that is shattering the opinions of there organization for many many people...

yatzr · 06-23-2004, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
Just the opposite extreme of government propoganda.Take 'em both with a couple pounds of salt.....find the truth beneath the BS.

interesting note on that....Christopher Hitchens is a lefty. Here's him bashing Reagan

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/

It's not everyday a lefty bashes Moore like that.

hammer4all · 06-23-2004, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
interesting note on that....Christopher Hitchens is a lefty. Here's him bashing Reagan

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/

It's not everyday a lefty bashes Moore like that.

Hitchens is certainly a strange one. I don't know if you could really qualify him as a true "lefty" though. Here he is taking the neocon's position in favor of the war in Iraq.

http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

silent_jay · 06-24-2004, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by saltfish
:sarcasm: If you don't like it, move to Canada! :/sarcasm:

Like Charlatan said I am Canadian thank god for that, not touching the greatest country thing because I beg to differ.

Charlatan · 06-24-2004, 06:33 AM

Hitchens is neither left or right in any traditional way of thinking... I have read his argument against and Farenheit 9/11 and look forward to seeing the film for myself.

matteo101 · 06-24-2004, 03:09 PM

Top ten lies by George W Bush...

Quote:

10. "I have been very candid about my past." Bush said this during a press conference a few days before Election Day 2000. He was then in the middle of media firestorm that followed the revelation that he had once been arrested for drunken driving. Of course, this statement was untrue. He uttered it while he was trying to explain why he had not been "candid" about his arrest record. And during the campaign, he had not been "candid" about other significant matters, including what seemed to be a missing year in his National Guard service (which did not jibe with what he wrote about his service in his autobiography) and his apparent (though unacknowledged) shift from supporting abortion rights in the late-1970s to opposing them in the 1990s. He also was not "candid" about the tax plans he had pushed while governor of Texas. He always referred to them as "tax cuts" and did not mention that his major tax proposal included both tax cuts for property owners and an increase in the sales tax and the creation of a new business tax.

9. "I’m a uniter not a divider." This was a Bush catchphrase, a mantra. It was shorthand for his claim that he engaged in positive, not negative, politics and could heal a political culture ripped apart by the bitter ideological and partisan combat of the Clinton years. Yet during the 2000 presidential campaign and the Florida fracas, Bush and his lieutenants engaged in down-and-dirty and divisive political maneuvers. Just ask Senator John McCain, Bush’s main Republican opponent, whose record on veterans affairs was falsely attacked by a Bush surrogate and who was accused falsely by the Bush campaign of opposing research for breast cancer. As president-elect, Bush nominated one of the most divisive ideologues in Washington, former Senator John Ashcroft, to be attorney general. During a pre-inauguration interview, Bush acknowledged that he expected Ashcroft to be a lightning rod. But would-be uniters-not-dividers do not shove lightning rods up the backsides of their opponents. Another example: during the 2002 congressional campaign, Bush accused Democrats—who differed with him on employment rules for the new Department of Homeland Security—of sacrificing national security for their own petty purposes. He did this to help elect Republicans to office. Such a move was well within his rights as a political player, but not the action of a fellow who cares more about uniting than dividing.

8. "My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans." All the available slots of this top-ten list could be filled by statements Bush made to sell his tax cuts at various points—on the campaign trail, in 2001 (for the first major tax-cuts battle), and in 2003 (for the second major tax-cuts battle). But I chose an assertion from 2001 that echoed statements from the campaign trail, that would be reprised in 2003, and that represented the best-sounding argument for his tax cuts. Bush frequently claimed his tax cuts would help low- and middle-income Americans, and in 2000 and 2001 he often spoke of a mythical single-mom waitress, making $22,000 or so, who would be guided into the middle-class by his tax cuts. The point was to make it seem as if he truly cared for hard-pressed Americans and that his tax cuts did indeed embody his promise of "compassionate conservatism." (By the way, I am not placing on this list Bush’s claim that he is a "compassionate conservative." That’s a rather relative term more suitable for judgment than truth-based evaluation.) But when the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche reviewed his tax plan for Time magazine during the 2000 campaign, it found that his beloved waitress would receive no reduction in her taxes. Zippo. In 2001, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that this waitress might gain $200 from Bush’s tax cuts if she managed to pull in $25,000 a year. But such a sum would not place her on the highway to the middle class. In fact, about 12 million low- and moderate-income families received no tax relief from Bush’s 2001 tax cuts (and millions of families were left out of his 2003 package). His plan unlocked few doors. Instead, about 45 percent of the 2001 package was slated to go to the top 1 percent of income earners. In 2003, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated that individuals earning between $16,000 and $29,000 would net about $99 from Bush’s proposed tax cuts. Again, not an amount that would cover the entrance fee for a middle-class life.

7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research." That was what Bush said during an August 9, 2001, speech, announcing his decision to permit the federal funding of stem cell research that only used stem cells lines that existed before his speech. Bush was presenting his policy as a Solomon-like compromise. Religious right leaders and the Catholic Church were opposed to all stem cell research because it uses cells extracted from five-day old blastocysts (or embryos) in a process that destroys the embryos. (These embryos usually are leftovers created by in vitro fertilization at fertility clinics and no longer needed by the couples for which they were produced). But many prominent Republican donors and patient advocacy groups supported stem cell research, noting that scientists believed that studying stem cells (which have the potential to grow into any one of the more than 200 different types of human cells) could lead to treatments for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other terrible diseases. In his speech, Bush said that 60 stem cell lines already existed—"where the life and death decision has already been made"--and that these lines could support a vital and vibrant research effort. Consequently, he said, federally funding could be limited to underwriting research that employed only these lines. Bush was trying to have it both ways. He could appease his social conservative supporters by saying no to any federal support for new stem cell lines, and he could claim to support research that might potentially help millions of people. There was one problem. The 60 pre-existing lines did not exist. The number was closer to a dozen—if that—an amount that experts in the field did not consider sufficient for research purposes. And when scientists and media reports convincingly discredited Bush’s count—which Bush might have initially assumed to be correct—the Bush administration kept repeating its untruthful position. Sticking to the 60-lines fantasy (or lie) permitted Bush to avoid making an explicit decision to curtail stem cell research. But in effect that was what he had done without admitting it.

6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." Bush said this in November 2002, as he appointed Henry Kissinger to be chairman of an independent 9/11 commission that Bush had orignially opposed. (Kissinger lasted two weeks in the job.) But Bush has not encouraged the uncovering of every detail. His administration did not turn over information to the congressional 9/11 inquiry about intelligence warnings the White House reviewed before 9/11. The administration also refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings—including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"—were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them. Moreover, the administration claimed that Bush’s awareness of these warnings (not the warnings themselves) was classified information—an argument unprecedented in the modern history of national security secrets. Bush also refused to let the congressional inquiry release the portion of its final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi citizens or officials. By resorting to such secrecy—which happened to keep hidden information that might be embarrassing or inconvenient for the Bush administration--Bush made it impossible for investigators to "uncover every detail" and for the nation to "learn every lesson."

5. "[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger." Bush said that a month after 9/11, and he has repeated that vow several times since then, including at the start of his recent month-long vacation at his Texas ranch. Every possible step? A reassuring line, but it is not true. Two years after the attacks, there still is no plan for enhanced security at the nation’s thousands of chemical plants. (Over a hundred of them handle chemicals that if released could threaten a million or so Americans.) According to the General Accounting Office, the Bush administration has not even "comprehensively assessed the chemical industry’s vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks." In October 2002, Tom Ridge, Bush’s chief homeland security official, said that voluntary regulations for the chemical industry would not suffice, but that is the policy the administration has been slowly pursuing. And less-than-everything has been the approach in other critical areas. A recent report from a Council on Foreign Relations task force—headed up by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman—says that not enough has been done to improve the abilities of first responders and that their basic needs will be underfunded by $100 billion over the next five years. The nation’s ports have asked for $1 billion to beef up security; the Bush administration has announced grants of $300 million. Various reports note that the federal government has not done all that is necessary to improve its biodefense capabilities. The administration has opposed efforts to mandate the screening of commercial cargo carried by passenger aircraft. (Most of this sort of cargo is not currently screened—creating one large security loophole.) So "every possible step" has not been taken.

4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]." As the Enron scandal reached the White House in early 2002, Bush uttered this remark, claiming he had nothing to do with Lay until after winning the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. It was an apparent and clumsy effort to diminish his relationship with the now-disgraced Enron chief. But in1994, Lay and Enron had been leading contributors to Bush’s campaign. And Lay—long a patron of Bush’s father—had worked with Bush in political settings prior to 1994. In a pre-scandal interview, Lay noted he had been "very close to George W." for years before1994. (In the mid-1980s, Bush’s oil venture was in a partnership with Enron.) Bush also claimed that his administration had been of absolutely no help to Enron. That might have been true during the scam-based company’s final days. But in the months preceding that, the Bush administration had assisted Enron in a variety of ways. This included appointing individuals recommended by Lay as top energy regulators and opposing wholesale price caps on electricity during the California energy crisis, a move that came after Lay (whose electricity-selling company was using manipulative tactics to gouge California) urged the White House to block price caps.

3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." These two Bush remarks go hand in hand, even though the first was said on March 17, 2003, two days before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, and the other came during a November 7, 2002, press conference. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. There has been much media debate over all this. But the postwar statements of Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of the CIA, provide the most compelling proof. He has been conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, and he has told reporters that the intelligence on Hussein’s WMDs was full of caveats and qualifiers and based mostly on inferential or circumstantial evidence. In other words, it was not no-doubt material. He also has said that prewar intelligence reports did not contain evidence of links between Hussein and al Qaeda. The best information to date indicates that the prewar intelligence did not leave "no doubt" about WMDs and did not support Bush’s claim that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. Bush’s primary reason for war was founded on falsehoods

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush issued this triumphant remark in late May 2003, while being interviewed by a Polish television reporter. He was referring to two tractor-trailers obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded these vehicles were mobile bio-weapons plants. Yet they had found not a trace of biological agents on either. (And no bio-weapon facility could be scrubbed completely clean.) In subsequent weeks, it turned out that State Department analysts and even DIA engineering experts—as well as outside experts—did not accept the CIA and DIA conclusion, and some of these doubters believed the explanation of Iraqis who claimed the trucks were built to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Whichever side might be ultimately right about the trailers, this all-important piece of evidence was hotly contested. It was hardly solid enough to support Bush’s we-found-them declaration or to justify a war.

1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House." Bush said that many a time during the 2000 presidential campaign, and in at least one ad pledged to "return honor and integrity" to the Oval Office.

From www.bushlies.com

If I were an American citizen, i would not focus so much on Moore lying, i think i would focus JUST A LITTLE bit more on my PRESIDENT lying....This is silly guys...like what makes more sense?

Check out this video...
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/150/view.html?ad_id=2967
or this one
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/150/view.html?ad_id=1265

"Lies, the real weapons of mass destruction"

Hanxter · 06-25-2004, 10:19 AM

matteo101 · 06-25-2004, 11:15 AM

GOOD ONE *CLAP CLAP*............

bodymassage3 · 06-25-2004, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matteo101

If I were an American citizen, i would not focus so much on Moore lying, i think i would focus JUST A LITTLE bit more on my PRESIDENT lying....This is silly guys...like what makes more sense?

This is a good point.

Scipio · 06-26-2004, 01:03 AM

I think this pretty much tells the tale:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/ratings

silent_jay · 06-26-2004, 06:48 AM

What tale was that supposed to have told. The review says 6.8, if people went by reviews alone then none of Mr. Moores films would be seen, and plenty of other great movies wouldn't of been seen.

bodymassage3 · 06-26-2004, 08:33 AM

Its almost ENTIRELY a 10 (top of the scale) or a 1. On any other movie's ratings, i'm sure you'd see more than .05% in between.

silent_jay · 06-26-2004, 08:38 AM

I've noticed the same thing, people either love the film or they hate it, there really isn't any in between

bodymassage3 · 06-26-2004, 02:17 PM

Yeah..I was just saying that in response to you asking what "story" was to be told. 10 or a 1, with almost NO in-between...yup, politics is definately in play there.

Sparhawk · 06-26-2004, 08:26 PM

I was dragged to the movie on a date, and thought I would be bored silly. I was very surprised by how many laughs were in there. The last half was definitely the more disturbing half, dealing as it does with the Iraq War and the push to war. Another thing that added to my enjoyment factor was seeing it with a mostly black audience - I felt like I was at First Baptist, on Sunday morning with all the uh huh!'s and amen!'s - definitely added to the entertainment. I give it two thumbs up.

If anyone here has actually seen it and wants to talk about it, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

And I'd like to ask those who are still on the fence about the November election to check this movie out, and add it to your thought process while you're deciding on a candidate.

hammer4all · 06-27-2004, 01:21 AM

I saw it on Friday and I thought it was awesome.

I'm a news junky so I already knew pretty much everything he said, but seeing it all pieced together was entertaining. Moore really lets the video speak for itself, which is good. It's also nice to finally see a progressive viewpoint get some airtime. At the end of the movie, nearly everyone in the theater gave it a round of applause, which was a little surprising since I live in a very conservative area.

Now it is everyone's job to see The Corporation. Yes, Moore is in it!

Tman144 · 06-27-2004, 10:14 AM

The movie was very compelling, but it does have flaws. Most of the damaging evidence was just kind of thrown out there with you the viewer left to make your own assumptions. The only solid point that can be made is that Bush has been neck deep in Saudi money ever since his first business. And that Bush is a crappy businessman.

Also, that part with the crying mother went on way too long. It went from showing the pain of losing a son to just a way to get the people in the audience choked up. Twice.

Being an atheist, I also came away with another thing that was probabally unintended. I kept thinking about how useless these people's religions were. The mother who lost her son asks Jesus why her boy had to be taken, he never did anything to anybody. The Muslim woman asks God to protect her and her family but that doesn't seem to work either. The whole time I was thinking that if these people didn't rely on God so much none of this would have ever happened.

Scipio · 06-27-2004, 03:08 PM

I encourage people to go see it simply because it's worth talking about. Obviously, a lot of people in the blue column are going to go see it no matter what, but why should republicans go see it? It's a known fact that there are a lot of anti-moore talking points out there, and that they get recited everywhere, including on this board, by people who've never seen a Michael Moore film. (And yeah, some Moore bashers have seen Bowling for Columbine, or whatever; you guys aren't the point)

So, if you bash Moore, but have never seen one of his films, I suggest you check it out. (Same goes for FOX News bashers who never watch FNC, or whatever.)

I saw it, and enjoyed it, though he does cover a lot of ground. Some points get simplified, or simply implied without much explanation.

I am probably going to go check out House of Bush, House of Saud, as I think it might shed some light on the spectacularly complex relationship between GHWB, GWB, the USA, big business, Saudia Arabia, the Saudi royal family, and Saudi oil industry. Should make for some solid summer reading.

My biggest gripe with the movie is that although it makes a case that Bush is a dishonest, lazy rich kid with good connections who got lucky, it doesn't draw out impacts and such. Though it connects Bush to the death and destruction in Iraq, it's left up to the viewer to make the big picture judgement. He never says: "Bush is unfit for the presidency, and must go." He delivers anecdotes and images of Bush that make him look foolish or inept, with a wink and a grin.

In other words, the film is powerful, but in some ways indirect and imperfect.

Locobot · 07-04-2004, 02:05 PM

I saw it last night and I must say, the hype is deserved. The collected footage and evidence is amazing. When the Secret Service appears and starts questioning Moore outside the Saudi embassy it's as if they were TRYING to prove there is a conspiracy. For those who don't know: the Secret Service provides security for OUR leaders and investigates counterfiters ONLY. It proves that someone in the Saudi embassy is only a button push or phone call away from the very highest levels of our nation's security. I couldn't stop thinking during the movie that we simply have the wrong people in charge of our country. It's a good thing that we have the possibility for regime change in a few months.

05-26-2004, 07:23 AM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	documentary films are arguments about the world. they are not, and cannot be "objective"---but then nothing is "objective"---not even the national geographic-style docs that use long shots and stationary cameras to give the illusion of scientific detachment. that which purports to be "objective" is almost inevitably an argument the premises of which are buried. given that documentaries are arguments, i dont undertstand the basis for conservative attacks on moore's work--if people think there are inaccuracies, then they are free to argue about them, but that if anything increases the value of his films because at least they put you in a position of having to think a bit. if you find moore irritating--and i do, but more for his voice than for his politics--then so be it---but that again had nothing to do with his films as documentary. i have long been puzzled by contemporary conservatism and its aversion to real argument. the ideology seems to prompt folk to not lay the premises of their positions out, to subject them to scrutiny. most of the attacks on moore's films seem to be border defense actions aimed at preventing precisely this kind of argument from occurring. for all the talk that circulates about democracy in conservative circles, you would think that debate--open debate in which people were willing to lay out the whole of their arguments--would be welcome. but insterad you get the reversion to smear, the attempt to discredit the sources of discomfort. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-26-2004, 04:57 PM	#46 (permalink)
lukethebandgeek Chicks dig the Saxaphone Location: Nowheresville OH	Moore's latest book and movie were entertaining if nothing else. He definately hams it up. But, he does make you at least give a thought to certain issues. We're discussing that right now, so, even if we haven't seen his movie, his point was still made. We're discussing, debunking, proving, ect... The point is that extreme liberals/conservatives will always end up saying something twisted just enough, or something that thier crowd will always want to hear. These political figures, like Neil Bortz, or Al Franken, exist not to convince the other side to convert to thiers, but to prey off of the convicitoins and enthusiasms of thier own side. __________________ Yes, band camp is all it's cracked up to be. So I like Chrono... So what?

06-22-2004, 09:21 AM	#49 (permalink)
gibingus Insane Location: 38° 51' N 77° 2' W	Christopher Hitchens writes about Michael Moore's "lies" for slate.com http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584 Take it for what you will.... __________________ if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

06-22-2004, 10:27 AM	#50 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Just the opposite extreme of government propoganda.Take 'em both with a couple pounds of salt.....find the truth beneath the BS. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

06-22-2004, 01:52 PM	#51 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	Michael Moore makes movies. He is not a fraud. He is welcome to make a movie about whatever subject matter he pleases and to put whatever type of personal spin on it that he wants to. I'm not saying everything in Moore's films are absolute fact, but I DO believe that the types of films he creates are good for sparking debate and independent thought. They bring up many relevant issues that, regardless of your stance, just might warrant a closer look. __________________ Bad Luck City

05-24-2004, 08:05 PM	#42 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	Moore's acceptance speech at the Cannes Film Festival

05-26-2004, 06:48 AM	#43 (permalink)
pROCK Upright	I used to like Moore back in his "Canadian Bacon" and "TV Nation" days. Now, he seems to have gotten to dogmatic and extreme ever since some people started challenging him after "bowling for columbine".

05-27-2004, 06:11 AM	#47 (permalink)
Harman Upright Location: Belgium	In case he is a fraud, and I have some doubts about that, it is still a good idea to hear his toughts because Bush's entourage ain't better.

06-05-2004, 08:34 PM	#48 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	The trailer is posted here: www.fahrenheit911.com , it's a pretty effective preview. I really want to see to what degree I agree or disagree with what he has to say. Looks like it has some Iraqi war footage that hasn't been censored or craptified by satallite linkage.

06-23-2004, 11:48 AM	#55 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	I like how Michael Moore goes on all these talk shows now and just goes on and on about how he'll take on any right-winger in a debate, anytime, anywhere. Well, Joe Scarborough has called his bluff, he's accepted the challenge, and he's offered Michael Moore a full hour to come on his show and debate. Moore hasn't accepted. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

06-23-2004, 04:49 PM	#57 (permalink)
matteo101 In transition Location: north, no south abit, over to the right, getting warmer...there!	You honestly think that the NRA would let the film be released to the public if Moore was lying? You honestly think that? I guarantee that they went over BFC with a fine toothed comb to try and find any sort of fact that was untrue in order to stop the movie from being released. There is no way in the world that they would let him get away with lyeing about there company. Please someone prove me wrong.

06-23-2004, 06:05 PM	#59 (permalink)
matteo101 In transition Location: north, no south abit, over to the right, getting warmer...there!	If you would like to explain, be my guest. I didn't ask them bowlingfortruth I asked people on this board.

06-23-2004, 06:10 PM	#60 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	We have no desire to search the websites we provide you for every single arguement that refutes your opinions. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

06-24-2004, 06:33 AM	#65 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Hitchens is neither left or right in any traditional way of thinking... I have read his argument against and Farenheit 9/11 and look forward to seeing the film for myself. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-25-2004, 11:15 AM	#68 (permalink)
matteo101 In transition Location: north, no south abit, over to the right, getting warmer...there!	GOOD ONE CLAP CLAP............

06-26-2004, 01:03 AM	#70 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	I think this pretty much tells the tale: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/ratings __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

06-26-2004, 06:48 AM	#71 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	What tale was that supposed to have told. The review says 6.8, if people went by reviews alone then none of Mr. Moores films would be seen, and plenty of other great movies wouldn't of been seen. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

06-26-2004, 08:33 AM	#72 (permalink)
bodymassage3 Upright	Its almost ENTIRELY a 10 (top of the scale) or a 1. On any other movie's ratings, i'm sure you'd see more than .05% in between.

06-26-2004, 08:38 AM	#73 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	I've noticed the same thing, people either love the film or they hate it, there really isn't any in between __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

06-26-2004, 02:17 PM	#74 (permalink)
bodymassage3 Upright	Yeah..I was just saying that in response to you asking what "story" was to be told. 10 or a 1, with almost NO in-between...yup, politics is definately in play there.

06-26-2004, 08:26 PM	#75 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I was dragged to the movie on a date, and thought I would be bored silly. I was very surprised by how many laughs were in there. The last half was definitely the more disturbing half, dealing as it does with the Iraq War and the push to war. Another thing that added to my enjoyment factor was seeing it with a mostly black audience - I felt like I was at First Baptist, on Sunday morning with all the uh huh!'s and amen!'s - definitely added to the entertainment. I give it two thumbs up. If anyone here has actually seen it and wants to talk about it, I'd like to hear what you have to say. And I'd like to ask those who are still on the fence about the November election to check this movie out, and add it to your thought process while you're deciding on a candidate. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

06-27-2004, 01:21 AM	#76 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	I saw it on Friday and I thought it was awesome. I'm a news junky so I already knew pretty much everything he said, but seeing it all pieced together was entertaining. Moore really lets the video speak for itself, which is good. It's also nice to finally see a progressive viewpoint get some airtime. At the end of the movie, nearly everyone in the theater gave it a round of applause, which was a little surprising since I live in a very conservative area. Now it is everyone's job to see The Corporation. Yes, Moore is in it!

06-27-2004, 10:14 AM	#77 (permalink)
Tman144 Tilted	The movie was very compelling, but it does have flaws. Most of the damaging evidence was just kind of thrown out there with you the viewer left to make your own assumptions. The only solid point that can be made is that Bush has been neck deep in Saudi money ever since his first business. And that Bush is a crappy businessman. Also, that part with the crying mother went on way too long. It went from showing the pain of losing a son to just a way to get the people in the audience choked up. Twice. Being an atheist, I also came away with another thing that was probabally unintended. I kept thinking about how useless these people's religions were. The mother who lost her son asks Jesus why her boy had to be taken, he never did anything to anybody. The Muslim woman asks God to protect her and her family but that doesn't seem to work either. The whole time I was thinking that if these people didn't rely on God so much none of this would have ever happened. __________________ "Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

06-27-2004, 03:08 PM	#78 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	I encourage people to go see it simply because it's worth talking about. Obviously, a lot of people in the blue column are going to go see it no matter what, but why should republicans go see it? It's a known fact that there are a lot of anti-moore talking points out there, and that they get recited everywhere, including on this board, by people who've never seen a Michael Moore film. (And yeah, some Moore bashers have seen Bowling for Columbine, or whatever; you guys aren't the point) So, if you bash Moore, but have never seen one of his films, I suggest you check it out. (Same goes for FOX News bashers who never watch FNC, or whatever.) I saw it, and enjoyed it, though he does cover a lot of ground. Some points get simplified, or simply implied without much explanation. I am probably going to go check out House of Bush, House of Saud, as I think it might shed some light on the spectacularly complex relationship between GHWB, GWB, the USA, big business, Saudia Arabia, the Saudi royal family, and Saudi oil industry. Should make for some solid summer reading. My biggest gripe with the movie is that although it makes a case that Bush is a dishonest, lazy rich kid with good connections who got lucky, it doesn't draw out impacts and such. Though it connects Bush to the death and destruction in Iraq, it's left up to the viewer to make the big picture judgement. He never says: "Bush is unfit for the presidency, and must go." He delivers anecdotes and images of Bush that make him look foolish or inept, with a wink and a grin. In other words, the film is powerful, but in some ways indirect and imperfect. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

07-04-2004, 02:05 PM	#79 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	I saw it last night and I must say, the hype is deserved. The collected footage and evidence is amazing. When the Secret Service appears and starts questioning Moore outside the Saudi embassy it's as if they were TRYING to prove there is a conspiracy. For those who don't know: the Secret Service provides security for OUR leaders and investigates counterfiters ONLY. It proves that someone in the Saudi embassy is only a button push or phone call away from the very highest levels of our nation's security. I couldn't stop thinking during the movie that we simply have the wrong people in charge of our country. It's a good thing that we have the possibility for regime change in a few months.