Fahrenheit 9/11

[Annessa]

Hello all,


I've been waiting for this movie to be released on DVD and originally it was scheduled to be released in late November/ beginning of December but Michael Moore is a genius. By him moving up the release date to October 5/04 I KNOW it will change the outcome of the upcoming presidential election.

I'm still trying to process everything I saw and learned from the movie/documentary because I was sooo shocked and their is ALOT to process at what I was seeing and hearing. But one thing I do know that I don't need anytime to process is BUSH IS A PIECE OF SHIT. and no better then Saddam and Osama if not worse. He lied to an entire nation but more then that the entire world and soilders/people died only for greed.




Your Cheetah Girl & Humanitarian,
Annessa
XOXO

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Please keep in mind that Moore has never purported to be a journalist.

There are many viewpoints on the movie.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59387&highlight=Fahrenheit
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57782&highlight=Fahrenheit

 

[BiggieE]

Since this thing was in theatres not all that long ago, why would the DVD release have any more effect on the election than the theatrical release?...

 

[Flower]

Yes, Bush is EVIL!

I felt that Michael Moore did a great job ... except that the movie is too long. There would be a greater impact if Michael left out the half hour or so of tying in Flint, Michigan to Bush.

While nothing new was revealed, the film presented the "evidence" in a smooth, direct manner. I watched and listened to others in the theater and was surprised that many were "shocked" at what was being shown. How could American's not realize what's been going on is beyond me.

Just my two cents ~

 

[ocean976124]

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

 

[MuffinMuncher]

I lose all respect for anyone who uses a completely fictional movie as the basis of his/her political argument. This movie is a documentary of the Bush Presidency to the same degree that Stripes is a documentary on the US Army.

Perhaps you may want to read one of the many different blogs devoted to exposing each one of Moore's fabrications through his story.

 

[Annessa]

Since this thing was in theatres not all that long ago, why would the DVD release have any more effect on the election than the theatrical release?...

Because not evenone like myself had the chance to see it in the theatre. Now it's out to ALL the public. That's why.



Annessa
xoxo

 

[Flower]

Alas, I laughed at Stripes!

I lose all respect for anyone who uses a completely fictional movie as the basis of his/her political argument. This movie is a documentary of the Bush Presidency to the same degree that Stripes is a documentary on the US Army.

Perhaps you may want to read one of the many different blogs devoted to exposing each one of Moore's fabrications through his story.

I'm not defending Michael Moore but say that movie is "fabrication" is not true.

I can dig up hundreds of anti-Bush articles and I'm sure that you can dig up hundred of pro-Bush articles.

Bush is not a laughing matter for me.

I would recommend at site such as http://workingforchange.com over blogs.

 

[langeweile]

I am in the customer service business.
My goal is always to please as many customers as possible. While I do have my own political opinion I would not disclose them in the context of my business.
Unless my intention is, not to do business with a certain segment of the population.

 

[booboobear]

Hello all,


I've been waiting for this movie to be released on DVD and originally it was scheduled to be released in late November/ beginning of December but Michael Moore is a genius. By him moving up the release date to October 5/04 I KNOW it will change the outcome of the upcoming presidential election.


Your Cheetah Girl & Humanitarian,
Annessa
XOXO

People should be able to think for themselves. It was obvious George w was lying I don't need Michael Moore to tell me that.
MM is a self serving individual. We should have our own opinions not rely on people like Moore to tell us what is right.

 

[danmand]

After seeing Bowling for Columbine, Moore struck me as a harassing, no respect for fellow man anti american. For the feeling I got from the first film, I refuse to support Moore by seeing 9/11.

Although I can't comment on a film as I didn't see it, I totally agree with MM. Unless your watching raw footage on the History channel, don't take any movie as the gospel.

Hollywood has a way of adding propaganda to all 'based on a true event' film. An example would be Pearl Harbor.
But Moore, a man with a hardon for Bush < hehe
Do you not think he too would stray from the truth?

I wouldn't just watch the film and base an opinion without looking here.
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/C18/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

GWB is no angel, most leaders are not. But I still support him at a 60-40 ratio, and don't believe a film will change the election.

Kathleen

Nobody should expect serious analysis from a movie. Movies are entertainment, and as such I found Moores movie entertaining.
If you think it is a lousy movie, don't see it, but IMHO it is a mistake to not see something because you disagree with it. I am sure you can make up your own mind based on the facts. I read the National post every day, even if I hardly agree with it's views.

 

[The Shake]

I lose all respect for anyone who uses a completely fictional movie as the basis of his/her political argument.

Oh, please, Muffie.

There are many flaws & deceits in F 9/11, but describing it as a "completely fictional movie" makes you sound like a frothing idiot (which you're not) and undermines any legitimate criticism (which there's a lot of) of the movie that you might have.

F 9/11 is a biased polemic that plays far too loose with the facts. It also contains some very legitimate points/themes that are worth discussing and analyzing.

 

[The Shake]

After seeing Bowling for Columbine, Moore struck me as a harassing, no respect for fellow man anti american.

Hmmm, you're dead on with the harassing part, questionable on the second, and out to lunch on the third.

Moore has made his career via harassment of unwilling targets. Whether that's a morally good or bad thing seems to depend more on your opinion of the targets then the tactics. If harassing a greedy HMO boss or a stupid politician actually accomplishes some grass roots changes (as some of his pre-Bowling TV work did), then I'm not convinced that its a bad thing. That said, I felt that his "interview" with Heston (which I assume is one of the things that bothered you) certainly crossed the line, and for no reason other than being a bully.

No respect for fellow man? I'm not sure I understand your point there. He certainly has a tendency to treat individuals whom he doesn't like with an utter lack of respect. In his mind (and perhaps in reality), however, he sees the policies/actions of such people as truly having "no respect for fellow man", and I think that he has more of a point than you. To wit, who has less respect for their "fellow man" - the greedy businessman who exploits his workers, or the belligerent jerk who harasses him for doing so?

The "anti-American" comment, however, is just plain stupid. Moore disagrees with certain policies of his government. He holds his government - and his country - to what he believes is a higher moral standard. Contrary to what the hard-right would like us to swallow, that doesn't make him anti-American. Indeed, some would say that makes him an incredible patriot. There are many, many anti-Americans in the world, but Michael Moore isn't one of them. Its one thing to disagree with someone, but don't be so arrogant as to suggest that your opinions about policy are the only acceptable ones. (Side note - This is a trick that Liberals in Canada use to demean Conservatives, constantly implying that different opinions about specific policies like health care are somehow un-Canadian.)

For the feeling I got from the first film, I refuse to support Moore by seeing 9/11.

Well, that's certainly your right, but I think that this "secularization" of opinions is a disappointing trend. Too many people only want to read/see opinions from those whom they perceive to share the same political viewpoint. I think that winds up harshening our general political discourse and leads to ignorance and block headedness. For example, I read the Star & the Post daily and own books by both Moore & Ann Coulter (shrill as she may be). Why? Because only hearing what you want to hear leads to a dull mind.

 

[Flower]

A few quick thoughts!

Well, that's certainly your right, but I think that this "secularization" of opinions is a disappointing trend. Too many people only want to read/see opinions from those whom they perceive to share the same political viewpoint. I think that winds up harshening our general political discourse and leads to ignorance and block headedness.

I agree, I know that I can be totally block headed on certain issues.

When I ask a question I want the truth (even need the truth) but at the same time, I can also fear the truth, but in the end, I want the truth.

There is no one truth when it comes to politics, there is too much back pedaling.

Moore is certainly not anti-American! I like him because he has the courage to speak what he preceives to be the truth. Right or wrong, he follows his heart.


Even documentaries are biased to a degree ..

Even comedies have been known to hold truths ..

 

[MuffinMuncher]

OK... its not a COMPLETELY fictional movie... it was actually made by a horse's ass named Michael Moore, so that part is true.

A true documentary presents impartial facts to let the viewer/reader make up his/her own mind about the events in question. The danger is that uninformed or naive folks (not naming names) will see this mockery of the facts and believe that the events actually happened as depicted on screen. Too many people blindly accept what they see as truth, and Moore exploits this weakness to promote his agenda.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Didnt MM do a movie about the auto industry?

Roger and Me (1989)

 

[danmand]

OK... its not a COMPLETELY fictional movie... it was actually made by a horse's ass named Michael Moore, so that part is true.

A true documentary presents impartial facts to let the viewer/reader make up his/her own mind about the events in question. The danger is that uninformed or naive folks (not naming names) will see this mockery of the facts and believe that the events actually happened as depicted on screen. Too many people blindly accept what they see as truth, and Moore exploits this weakness to promote his agenda.

And isn't it terrible if propaganda is not a monopoly of the government!!! Try to see this in perspective: It is a couple of cheap movies by Moore, versus a daily barrage from the government.

 

[BiggieE]

Ok...let me get this right...DVD realease = Availability to the general public

vs

Genreal realease in Theatres = NOT available to the general Public

I think someone has to fill me in on this one..

$7-8 to see at a theatre vs $25 to buy a DVD...

I'm still confused...It's like the difference between hardcover and paperback...the same garbage is between the covers....

 

[Cardinal Fang]

$7-8 to see at a theatre vs $25 to buy a DVD...

I'm still confused...It's like the difference between hardcover and paperback...the same garbage is between the covers....

Why do you assume she bought the DVD? She could have rented it.

 

[red]

not sure why certain members get upset that moore's documentary is slanted. most documentaries, excluding hinterland who's who, are slanted - they are arguments done in film.