AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11 (general discussion - merged)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11 (general discussion - merged) - Page 2

post #41 of 407
6/3/04 at 1:43pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
So you acted as if you knew the circumstances surrounding this quote and it sound like you don't.

It is an annual POLITICAL dinner and this one was attended by Al Gore, Hillary, GWB, and Rick Lazio among others. here is Al's remarks. Pretty funny stuff.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: I'm honored to be at this year's Al Smith Memorial Foundation dinner. This dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which I actually did invent. (Laughter) And, of course, I want to acknowledge FEMA Director James Lee Witt, who accompanied me here tonight. (Laughter) We travel everywhere together. (Laughter) Please accept my apology for interrupting your meal. Since this is a special occasion, I wanted to mark it by getting all of my interruptions out of the way before Governor Bush speaks. (Laughter) I know some people are going to keep accusing me of exaggeration, so let me be clear. Those people seek nothing less than the complete destruction of the American way of life. (Laughter) (Applause) It's absolutely clear. I never exaggerate. You can ask Tipper or any one of our 11 daughters. (Laughter) Another thing that bugs me is when people say I am just a wonk, obsessed with policy detail. Well, like some many Americans, I like to just kick back and relax and watch television for relaxation. One of my favorite shows is "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Well, it should really be called "Who Wants to be After Taxes a $651,437.70 Person?" (Laughter) Of course, that's under my plan. Under Governor Bush's plan... (Laughter) it would be "Who Wants to be After Taxes a $701,587.80 Person?" (Laughter) This is a fund-raiser, isn't it? Whenever I see everybody dressed the same way, my antenna goes straight up. (Laughter) I also make you this simple pledge: If I am entrusted with the presidency, I may not always be the funniest President, but I will never sigh to you. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America. ( Applause )


Oh Naples, wrong yet again... Here, let me recapitulate

Quote:
Originally posted by Faust9
...I don't know, it seems like an off color remark for a wanna-be president. Humor is well and good but this is a little over the edge:...

It appears that I was interjecting my own opinion of the appropriateness here. Phrases like 'I don't know' and 'it seems' may be causing you some trouble here because they are not black and white. It's tough to understand because what I said was neither good nor evil. What I said wasn't a crusade against Bush which may shock you (not your fingers and testicles but rather your sensibility). What I said was, if I may rephrase, "I feel this was a slightly off color remark and though funny may not have been the best move for a politician--especially one running for president."

Now if you want to play the situational awareness game I'm more than up for it because in this thread alone you have proven at least once you don't follow the political picture as well as your prolific posting count would suggest.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...




Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...




Reply
post #42 of 407
6/3/04 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Oh Naples, wrong yet again... Here, let me recapitulate



It appears that I was interjecting my own opinion of the appropriateness here. Phrases like 'I don't know' and 'it seems' may be causing you some trouble here because they are not black and white. It's tough to understand because what I said was neither good nor evil. What I said wasn't a crusade against Bush which may shock you (not your fingers and testicles but rather your sensibility). What I said was, if I may rephrase, "I feel this was a slightly off color remark and though funny may not have been the best move for a politician--especially one running for president."

Now if you want to play the situational awareness game I'm more than up for it because in this thread alone you have proven at least once you don't follow the political picture as well as your prolific posting count would suggest.



Will you take those catch phrases into consideration with people you don't agree with?



Selective context recognition.



Reply
Reply
post #43 of 407
6/3/04 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are so smart and I am so dumb. I must be silly to think that this is the difference between the two administrations visa vi the LB:

"That scandal and Bush's criticism of it is one of the reasons the White House identifies guests."

It is a small and simple sentence, that is obviously why it appealed to me.

Ahhh, the use of language. So killer what was Spielberg called when Clinton allowed him to stay the night? (hint: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...oney/list.html ). Bush = Clinton in this regard. The difference is, Bush is a Hypocrite because he condemned what he now does...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...




Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...




Reply
post #44 of 407
6/3/04 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Ahhh, the use of language. So killer what was Spielberg called when Clinton allowed him to stay the night? (hint: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...oney/list.html ). Bush = Clinton in this regard. The difference is, Bush is a Hypocrite because he condemned what he now does...

First, "killer" is kinda lame, I would like to be known as SLAYER or CONQUERER or DECIMATOR or something cool like that, OK?

The other difference is the number of "Hotel Lincoln" tenants there were. 938 in President Clinton's FIRST term. Not to mention the amount of money that was donated by the "friends" of BC. What chance would you had if you only donated $1000 during that admin? Say it with me, "Slim and none"

President Bush and his wife have had 270 in total according to the article.

NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG FOLKS.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 407
6/3/04 at 2:21pm
Hey you momos quit getting sidetracked with your partisan bickering... back to Moore...

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Does anyone know of any articles critical of Moore's accuracy, but which have less of an obvious axe to grind... (snip)... For those who have found errors, or even lies, in Moore's work, to what extent would you say those things are deliberate vs. careless, substantive and damaging to the structure of his case vs. incidental, etc.?

This site seems to outline quite a few of the Bowling for Columbine fallacies and set-ups. His little intro at least seems to frame the author as somewhat unbiased (not a gun-owner). Regardless of the authors political bent, read the criticisms and make your own judgement. Just read "Michael at the Bank"... that was interesting.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #46 of 407
6/3/04 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Ahhh, the use of language. So killer what was Spielberg called when Clinton allowed him to stay the night? (hint: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...oney/list.html ). Bush = Clinton in this regard. The difference is, Bush is a Hypocrite because he condemned what he now does...

Some documents I ran across just a couple of minutes ago.

http://www.dailyrepublican.com/dncmemo.gif
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintonmemo.gif

maybe old news but interesting anyway.

Fell free to kill the messenger, as usual.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 407
6/3/04 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
This site seems to outline quite a few of the Bowling for Columbine fallacies and set-ups. His little intro at least seems to frame the author as somewhat unbiased (not a gun-owner). Regardless of the authors political bent, read the criticisms and make your own judgement. Just read "Michael at the Bank"... that was interesting.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

The very first thing I went to, first in the list, "Bowling for Columbine: Flaws in the name and meaning behind the movies title" sounds really familiar... like that I remember this particular attack on Moore having been debunked recently here in AO land.

At any rate, this hardly seems to be a dispassionate web site. Doesn't make it wrong, but it wasn't exactly what I was looking for either.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #48 of 407
6/3/04 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
At any rate, this hardly seems to be a dispassionate web site. Doesn't make it wrong, but it wasn't exactly what I was looking for either.

He throws some partisan quips in there, but from the few I've read, seems to make a fairly good cases in pointing out inaccuracies; deception, staging scenerios, unfairly comparing gun homicide numbers etc. Not sure what your looking for. Somehow I don't think you're going to find a "liberalswhohatemoore.com" out there.
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #49 of 407
6/3/04 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Good advice for evaluating any sources of information, especially very partisan sources, even (and perhaps especially sometimes) if they are sources you'd tend to agree with.

Does anyone know of any articles critical of Moore's accuracy, but which have less of an obvious axe to grind, and less of an obviously stupid slant than, oh, say, stuff found at URL like http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/?

For those who have found errors, or even lies, in Moore's work, to what extent would you say those things are deliberate vs. careless, substantive and damaging to the structure of his case vs. incidental, etc.?

Some results from google:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.tsra.com/Bowling2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore
http://www.celebrityhypocrites.com/mmoore.html
http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=687
http://www.splicedonline.com/02features/mimoore.html

I don't know if they all cover it exactly but there.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:04pm
Clinbton Body Count all over again.

You know, for once you finally could have something legitimate to say, Naples, but you end up posting to sites with "Featured Patriot: Ann Coulter."

Oh well. Clinton Body Count it is.

For the record, here's a Moore critic rebuttal:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607

And for those of you getting all worked up over moore, where are you when incidents that actually matter come up?

One example out of hundreds (probably thousands):
Quote:
Powell said, The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says; but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors. [U.S. Secretary of State 1/28/03]

(b) Criticism.

(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that UN weapons inspectors had experienced no such incidents. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:05pm
How about spinsanity?
http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore

Or check out this site (has a some liberal viewpoint links at bottom):
http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/arc...ore010504.html
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #52 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
And for those of you getting all worked up over moore, where are you when incidents that actually matter come up?

Um... it IS a thread about Moore ya know. God forbid we stay on topic.
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #53 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
Um... it IS a thread about Moore ya know. God forbid we stay on topic.

No, that's very, very much on topic. It demonstrates how extreme your political bias really is.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Well, there you have it. This insightful comment has wrapped up the whole thread, so we might as well just lock the thread and go home.

Well, unless someone has anything of substance to add.

OOHH! OOOOOHH! I do...I think he is so far off the left-wing chart its not even funny. This guy has the brass to be make exceptional contributions to our society and instead he turns out overly-liberal prophaganda. His films do nothing more than point the finger at symptoms and they solve nothing. At least he succeeds in infuriating me because other than that he is a complete waste as are his films. Always placing blame and never offering solutions is the easy way to deal with the issues he continuously addresses.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Michael Moore is an idiotic hack and a fraud.

Actually, he's been quite successful in duping the world into believing that he stands for something. Deep down, he must be brilliant. Josef Goebbels was brilliant, too, and just as dangerous as this guy is. OK, almost as dangerous.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No, that's very, very much on topic. It demonstrates how extreme your political bias really is.

So you're saying that me disliking Moore for parading around fiction as non-fiction work is my extreme political bias? No sorry, I just think the guy is a self-absorbed sensationalist.

Nice bait though... I almost took me away from the Moore discussion.
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #57 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
Somehow I don't think you're going to find a "liberalswhohatemoore.com" out there.

Quote:
Or check out this site (has a bunch of liberal viewpoint links at bottom):

How do you reconcile these two posts?
Quote:
Originally posted by Playmaker
This guy has the brass to be make exceptional contributions to our society and instead he turns out overly-liberal prophaganda.

The whole "could make great contributions but doesn't" argument could be applied to many people.

Of course, whenever people in entertainment actually do make good contributions to public discourse, conservatives repeatedly attack them and say their opinions are worthless.
Quote:
His films do nothing more than point the finger at symptoms and they solve nothing ... Always placing blame and never offering solutions is the easy way to deal with the issues he continuously addresses.

But why should we expect him to be a policymaker? The goal of his films and books is to draw attention to the issues he focuses on (and to make money doing it), not to author some grand, all-encompassing solution for world peace and equality.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:35pm
Michael Moore is interested in promoting himself, making movies and making money, which is all well and good. That is all he is , however! He is not to be taken seriously!
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #59 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
How do you reconcile these two posts?

The whole "could make great contributions but doesn't" argument could be applied to many people.

Of course, whenever people in entertainment actually do make good contributions to public discourse, conservatives repeatedly attack them and say their opinions are worthless.

But why should we expect him to be a policymaker? The goal of his films and books is to draw attention to the issues he focuses on (and to make money doing it), not to author some grand, all-encompassing solution for world peace and equality.

In that case he's doing a grand Job....but I still think he's a Douche
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:41pm
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
So you're saying that me disliking Moore for parading around fiction as non-fiction work is my extreme political bias?

Absolutely. You are claiming that you indeed do care about the value of honesty in political discourse, yet you ignore and/or defend dishonesty in our actual government, the place where it actually matters and leads to war, death and global political and economic change.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Predictable whining. At least Moore isn't spewing his "lies" on radio or television EVERY day like Rush Limbaugh and O'Liely to name but 2. Ahh, the irony is pretty thick here. Brilliant!

Edit: just got through 1/3 of the trailer and Moore seems to have some sort of document with Bush's name on it re: the flights out of the US.

I bet you Limbaugh fans are causing the bandwidth problems.

The document with Bush's name on it is some sort of military document ordering the suspension of GWB from flying status effective immediately! Not quite as damning as the trailer makes it seem.

Edit: Added Pic.

Reply
Reply
post #62 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
The very first thing I went to, first in the list, "Bowling for Columbine: Flaws in the name and meaning behind the movies title" sounds really familiar... like that I remember this particular attack on Moore having been debunked recently here in AO land.

Jesus, this stuff makes me mad

That guy just goes on and on about nothing, for no apparent reason.

He starts with a totally unattributed claim that Moore said "on various talk shows"(!!) that "the title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were at a bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders."

Then later, an actual quote of what Moore actually says in the actual movie:

"If they bowled that morning, did the bowling trigger their desire to commit mass murder? Or, if they skipped their bowling class that morning, did that bring on the massacre? Had they bowled, that may have altered their mood and prevented them from picking up their guns."

Hah! The stupid fat fool has blown his own bowling conspiracy wide open by freely speculating, on tape in a film that he himself created, edited and released to the public about whether or not they actually went bowling, when all along he has been pushing the malicious lie that they did!

PS note that this attack is just a retread of another pathetic lie with the more obvious holes in the logic covered over with vague assertions. For more see:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...587#post614587
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #63 of 407
6/3/04 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
[B]How do you reconcile these two posts?

The whole "could make great contributions but doesn't" argument could be applied to many people.

Ya know what, you need to ratchet it down a couple notches. Why do I have to "reconcile" them, I was nice enough to dig deeper FOR YOU and this is how I get repayed? You're the one being adversarial here, I've just been posting links presenting my opinion of Moore. Try switching to non-caffienated herbal tea or something. I recommend Rooibos with a splash of milk.

Quote:
Of course, whenever people in entertainment actually do make good contributions to public discourse, conservatives repeatedly attack them and say their opinions are worthless.

Ummm.His opinions are fine, they're his. Its his method of presenting fiction as non-fiction that rubs me (and most everyone else who criticizes him) the wrong way.

Quote:
The goal of his films is to draw attention to the issues he focuses on, not to author some grand, all-encompassing solution for world peace and equality.

His goals are more than just to "draw attention", he slants facts and scenes to his needs and portrays them as truth. Many people take them at face value. If he would quit touting his films as non-fiction and stop accepting awards for them as such that'd be enough for me.
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #64 of 407
6/3/04 at 4:11pm
The thing that I think is disturbing, is he and his films are put up on high by those with a political axe to grind. The hollywood crowd swoons and the weak minded worship at the feet of the great exposer. He is a fat-cat in the political arena now.

He is shown to be a blatant fact manipulator, and the answer the swooners give is "He is just a filmmaker, an artist expressing himself." So why is he on every political talk show? Why is he a political player?

Which is it?

Is he a whacko filmaker? A quirky artist? Or is he a serious political voice?

Pick one.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 407
6/3/04 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
Try switching to non-caffienated herbal tea or something. I recommend Rooibos with a splash of milk.

Coke is the closest I get to tea or any other caffeinated drink.

[edit] actually, Dr. Pepper has caffeine in it, doesn't it. I drink that far more often than coke, and that's pretty rare in itself.
Quote:
Its his method of presenting fiction as non-fiction that rubs me (and most everyone else who criticizes him) the wrong way ... If he would quit touting his films as non-fiction and stop accepting awards for them as such that'd be enough for me.

Why waste your time on some filmmaker when you have the most powerful government in the world doing it in ways that actuall matter on a global scale? There are vastly more important places to direct such criticism than some entertainer.

Then again, wannabes obsess over "It's Good to be Britney Spears" yet don't bother to learn the actual economics, marketing tactics and internal workings of the music industry. Apparently they have their counterparts in the political "audience."
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 407
6/3/04 at 4:13pm
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
C'mon man!!! If you don't know what a Bush ranger is then you needs to lurke to political discussions rather than respond to them...

Here I'll cut and paste because to get this from the AP directly will cost$$$. If you look for yourself though you'll find a free version.

"Some of these guests are old classmates, some of them have been friends of theirs for many, many years," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said. "They enjoy the opportunity to spend time with them."

"Old classmates"...

Yale? Wonder how many were also Skull and Bones members?

/tinhatthought



Moore reminds me of a P. T. Barnum of documentarists...

P. T. Barnum's dying words - "What were tonight's receipts..."
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #67 of 407
6/3/04 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Is he a whacko filmaker? A quirky artist? Or is he a serious political voice?

Pick one.

Maybe he's a serial killer. Go start a geocities website about it and add it to your list above.

If you need some help, try this.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 407
6/3/04 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Why waste your time on some filmmaker when you have the most powerful government in the world doing it in ways that actuall matter on a global scale? There are vastly more important places to direct such criticism than some entertainer.

Then go start yet another anti-Bush thread and if its compelling enough, maybe I'll jump in. As for this one, Moore just bugs me and I feel like bagging on him. Is there some problem with staying on topic for once?

Quote:
Then again, wannabes obsess over "It's Good to be Britney Spears" yet don't bother to learn the actual economics, marketing tactics and internal workings of the music industry. Apparently they have their counter-parts in the political "audience."

Again with the veiled personal attacks? Are you deliberately trying to de-rail this thread? Drop the Coke... now.
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #69 of 407
6/3/04 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
Is there some problem with staying on topic for once?

If criticism of moore is on topic, than criticism of criticism of moore clearly is too.
Quote:
Again with the veiled personal attacks? Are you deliberately trying to de-rail this thread? Drop the Coke... now.

No personal attack involved. It's an attack on a level of discourse, aka, POV or argument. I know nothing about you as a person.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 407
6/3/04 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Then again, wannabes obsess over "It's Good to be Britney Spears" yet don't bother to learn the actual economics, marketing tactics and internal workings of the music industry. Apparently they have their counterparts in the political "audience."

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Maybe he's a serial killer. Go start a geocities website about it and add it to your list above.

If you need some help, try this.

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
If criticism of moore is on topic, than criticism of criticism of moore clearly is too.

No personal attack involved. It's an attack on a level of discourse, aka, POV or argument. I know nothing about you as a person.

Time for this again I suppose...Mr. giant, how do you "resolve" calling someone a wannabe and pointing them to a "dummy" book to not be a personal attack?

And so it goes....

giant's idea of debate is to declare everyone, all their sources and ideas that disagree with his to be ignorant.

There is already plenty of proof if this. Don't argue with him. giant has his blinders on and everything you post is just ignorant nonsense to him. He will you tell you so repeatedly. He will also insult your intelligence, question everything about your background, make repeated claims about you with regard to ignorance, racism, hatefulness, etc.

Just take this post and make it a sticky. Whenever you see giant demonstrating one or all of these above, just ignore him. You can't discuss with someone who is wearing blinders. It isn't debate, it is attempting to argue someone through their own ignorance.


Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #71 of 407
6/3/04 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Bush uses a lot of self-deprecating humor. What is wrong with being able to tell and enjoy a joke? I mean regardless of party, we should be able to hear a joke from whoever is president. Many speakers open with a good joke to gain interest.

Nothing wrong with having a sense of humor...but the events of the last couple of years have rendered Bush's joking about what a dumbshit he is (while applying for what is probably the most important job in the world no less) a little too close to the bone for me to find it particularly amusing.

Besides, self-deprecation works best when you're actually good at something.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 407
6/3/04 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX the weak minded worship at the feet of the great exposer.

That can be applied to Bush and your love for him. Ironic.
Quote:
He is shown to be a blatant fact manipulator, and the answer the swooners give is "He is just a filmmaker, an artist expressing himself." So why is he on every political talk show? Why is he a political player?

This is the US. He is an entertainer. Just one with a self admitted political agenda(especially with this movie). Nothing new there is there? And he's on every political show because controversy =ratings and being the current flavor of the month, everybody wants him on. Again, nothing new there?
Quote:
Is he a whacko filmaker? A quirky artist? Or is he a serious political voice?

Let me guess. To you he's a whacko, pinko, commie liberal traitor who hates America?
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 407
6/3/04 at 5:41pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Artman @_@
Moore reminds me of a P. T. Barnum of documentarists...
P. T. Barnum's dying words - "What were tonight's receipts..."

And in this great land known as the USA....how is this news? It's capitalism.
Just be happy he's not throwing religion into the mix ala Robertson or the other worthless idiots who prey and profit on the religious beliefs of the "weak minded".
Quote:
Originally posted by InactionMan The document with Bush's name on it is some sort of military document ordering the suspension of GWB from flying status effective immediately! Not quite as damning as the trailer makes it seem.

Thanks for the pic. So we don't know exactly what the document
is right? I'll wait and watch the movie and see in what context it was used. A trailer is really meaningless to me at this point.
At that particular time, I think the president must've been aware of anyone who was being allowed to fly when everybody else wasn't.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 407
6/3/04 at 5:49pm
The documentary looks pretty good, actually. From what I've read, the film looks interesting enough to actually see it when it comes out. This is coming from someone who has neither read any of Moore's books nor seen his movies. I bet the local 20 screen movie theater will show it-- although they recently devoted 10 screens total to Troy and Shrek 2.



Whatever maximizes profit, I suppose. *shrugs*

I think I'll rent The Fog of War, Elephant, and In America tonight.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 407
6/3/04 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
That can be applied to Bush and your love for him. Ironic.
This is the US. He is an entertainer. Just one with a self admitted political agenda(especially with this movie). Nothing new there is there? And he's on every political show because controversy =ratings and being the current flavor of the month, everybody wants him on. Again, nothing new there?
Let me guess. To you he's a whacko, pinko, commie liberal traitor who hates America?

I could care less what he does or believes, I think he is an attention hungry guy with a camera and some imagination. He seems like an eccentric opinionator.

Good for him. i really have no problem with him. I have a problem with the people that put any stock in him as a serious political figure. And even then, i think they are just blindly accepting made up facts.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 407
6/3/04 at 6:01pm
Regardless what you think of Moore, weither he's right or not, that documentary is going to cost Bush the presidency.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 407
6/3/04 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Oh Naples, wrong yet again... Here, let me recapitulate
"I feel this was a slightly off color remark and though funny may not have been the best move for a politician--especially one running for president."

This is very true. I'm sure there is going to be a lot of "out of context" remarks made by Bush, but that's not the point - the remarks he usually makes are not appropriate REGARDLESS of context - especially now that he is the president.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 407
6/3/04 at 6:14pm
Well, from the little that I've read....Moore has a response(point for point) for every one of those whacky sites that claim to debunk Moore's research. Or "research".

Frankly, I never cared enough about this topic to do the due diligence, but I find it amusing to see the neocons so up in arms and so concerned about this documentary BEFORE it even comes out. I love it.

Even if they were made up facts, maybe we should be more concerned about our own Government's possibly made up facts from Iraq to WMDs and not about a bloody documentary. It's called perspective.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 407
6/3/04 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
... Thanks for the pic. So we don't know exactly what the document
is right? I'll wait and watch the movie and see in what context it was used. A trailer is really meaningless to me at this point.
At that particular time, I think the president must've been aware of anyone who was being allowed to fly when everybody else wasn't.

Just to clarify, I'm not taking sides in this debate, just provided the pic. My assumption is that the document is from Dubya's dubious military record. As fair as the context in the trailer, it was just a clever edit.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 407
6/3/04 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Well, from the little that I've read....Moore has a response(point for point) for every one of those whacky sites that claim to debunk Moore's research. Or "research".

Frankly, I never cared enough about this topic to do the due diligence, but I find it amusing to see the neocons so up in arms and so concerned about this documentary BEFORE it even comes out. I love it.

I don't see anyone here that is "up in arms", do you guys?

I think most are predicting it to be a bunch of clever edits and lies based on his past works. I don't know if that quite qualifies as "up in arm".
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11 (general discussion - merged)