I am looking forward to this movie...

[makisushi]

link (http://www.fahrenhype911.com/)

I am not a big fan of michael moore, so I think I will like this movie.

[wdlove]

I have no interest at all. If I were sent a free copy, then I might take a look.

[makisushi]

I have no interest at all. If I were sent a free copy, then I might take a look.
What about this movie? (http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/)

[jackieonasses]

I would watch that movie for sure.

[Vector]

If you throw one or two facts into a movie it is more accurate than a Michael Moore 'documentary'.

[munkle]

I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore either, I think he does a great service to the documentary genre. If you want real docus check out the works of Errol Morris, another interesting one is 'Control Room' by Jehan Naujim.

Anyway here's a couple of links that fits in with this thread and might be of interest to some, moorelies.com (http://moorelies.com/) and moorewatch.com (http://moorewatch.com/).

Personally I think he's already had more attention and coverage then he deserves.

[Vector]

I like errol morris' work. Fog of War was a very interesting documentary.

[munkle]

It's amazing how he brought to life the abstract and what was basically an hour long sit down interview. Think it has more to do with Morris than the Interrotron ( :eek:) though!.

The most disturbing thing about the film is how vividly it demonstrates the fallible nature and frailty of our leaders. I hope somebody in the White House watches it, and learns something from it.

[Frump]

I think most people miss the point of what Mr. Moor is trying to say.
Look at it this way, if I said big corporations where running this country and left it at that. Who would listen! You have to know how to play the game and that is what Mr. Moore does very good. He plays the politicians at their own game. They are full of **** and have an agenda and so does Mr. Moor. The only difference is that Mr. moor's agenda will have a less of an impact on you and your family. Big business is only there to make profit off the backs of poor people and if it take a few twists of the truth then so be it.

Or maybe not! let's just believe what the politicians and large corporations are telling us. After all they have our best interest at heart, don't they?
Mr. moore has an evil agenda because he uses the same tactics as the politicians and the corporate whores who are looking out for us!

Frump.

[makisushi]

I think most people miss the point of what Mr. Moor is trying to say.
Look at it this way, if I said big corporations where running this country and left it at that. Who would listen! You have to know how to play the game and that is what Mr. Moore does very good. He plays the politicians at their own game. They are full of **** and have an agenda and so does Mr. Moor. The only difference is that Mr. moor's agenda will have a less of an impact on you and your family. Big business is only there to make profit off the backs of poor people and if it take a few twists of the truth then so be it.

Or maybe not! let's just believe what the politicians and large corporations are telling us. After all they have our best interest at heart, don't they?
Mr. moore has an evil agenda because he uses the same tactics as the politicians and the corporate whores who are looking out for us!

Frump.
This is exactly what makes these movies so interesting....Michael Moore is at all very different from the people he tries to expliot. I also think it is very funny that Michael Moore is a proclaimed anti-capitalist, yet he promotes the hell out of his movies in order to make money. I am sure he isn't turning down the millions Farenheit 9/11 made.

[Vector]

I have nothing against Moore's agenda. He is free to say whatever he wants. My problems with Moore are the tactics that he uses to get his point across. I don't like the fact that Moore creates what he calls 'documentaries' when they are not documentaries. His films are simply his opinions expressed in the most sensationalist way that he can come up with (i am not saying they are only his opinions). I realize that he does this because no one would pay any attention to his messages otherwise, but for many people it takes what credit there is away from his movies.

It is not that people don't get Michael Moore or understand his messages or what he is trying to do, but rather that they either don't like his message or don't like his methods of getting that message across.

Feel free to discuss Moore, but lets not let this thread digress into a political discussion.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I have nothing against Moore's agenda. He is free to say whatever he wants. My problems with Moore are the tactics that he uses to get his point across. I don't like the fact that Moore creates what he calls 'documentaries' when they are not documentaries. His films are simply his opinions expressed in the most sensationalist way that he can come up with (i am not saying they are only his opinions). I realize that he does this because no one would pay any attention to his messages otherwise, but for many people it takes what credit there is away from his movies.

It is not that people don't get Michael Moore or understand his messages or what he is trying to do, but rather that they either don't like his message or don't like his methods of getting that message across.

Feel free to discuss Moore, but lets not let this thread digress into a political discussion.

at the risk of sending this to the Political Forums, does it matter that the current administration is using their tools to influence the public? The way I look at it documentarians on both sides are battling the RNC and the DNC for the truth. A number of documentaries have shown me even further that Bush & Co. are corrupt and self-serving in the war in Iraq.

Bush & Co, point to the safety of the US since 9-11. and i pint to Lisa's Tiger Rock as to the reason we are safe since 9-11. It protects against tigers and terrorists attacks.

[Frump]

This is exactly what makes these movies so interesting....Michael Moore is at all very different from the people he tries to expliot. I also think it is very funny that Michael Moore is a proclaimed anti-capitalist, yet he promotes the hell out of his movies in order to make money. I am sure he isn't turning down the millions Farenheit 9/11 made.

Mr. Moore is no different in his methods than those he opposes. He has an agenda. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Yes he makes loads of money on the side but I don't think that is what he is aiming for. Although it is a nice side effect for him. It is just like all of our heros in the movies they usually get revenge with the same weapon that was used against them.
Come election time you will hear a lot of bull from both sides of the campaigning parties. They are allowed to to sell crap in the name of their cause and people don't get to upset about it. Do you really think that if Mr. Moore was to portray the whole situation in a total bland and non sensationalist way, he would be heard. I think not. Documentaries are not the holy grail we would like to think they are. The majority have something to say. They are not an observation of how things are. They reflect the vision of the film maker. I doubt mother Teresa could have made a totally non biased documentary.

[scem0]

I agree with above posters.

He does what he has to do, and I don't think he does it for the money or fame. It would not be fair to assume that, however it is still a possibility.

As for the movie, I'd never see it.

And to whoever mentioned control room, I thought it was a great film.

scem0

[Vector]

Its politics, each side uses whatever they can to influence the public. I am not saying that Michael Moore is the only one spouting sensationalist rhetoric. Both sides are doing this, it is just that the republicans don't have someone that came out with a well-backed movie that had a studio advertising the hell out of it.

Nice reference to the tiger rock. :)

[munkle]

Moore is a great pamphleteer, not a great documentarist/film maker/hero to the people.

My biggest problem with Michael Moore is his dubious editing methods, which merge and collide scenes together. Moore's method is to fit smaller truths into a larger system of debatable truths. And despite what Frump is trying to argue, it's just not right to make stuff up no matter how honourable your intentions (again very debatable with Michael Moore). As Gandhi said, 'You must be the change you wish to see in the world'.

[Frump]

Its politics, each side uses whatever they can to influence the public. I am not saying that Michael Moore is the only one spouting sensationalist rhetoric. Both sides are doing this, it is just that the republicans don't have someone that came out with a well-backed movie that had a studio advertising the hell out of it.

Nice reference to the tiger rock. :)
The studio tried to kill it at first and refused to promote it. Which in turn only helped the movie. You can sit on the fence and point at both sides but you will eventually feel the full force of the side who wins. Sitting on the fence does not make you immune!

[Vector]

Do you really think that if Mr. Moore was to portray the whole situation in a total bland and non sensationalist way, he would be heard. I think not. Documentaries are not the holy grail we would like to think they are. The majority have something to say. They are not an observation of how things are. They reflect the vision of the film maker. I doubt mother Teresa could have made a totally non biased documentary.

I understand why Moore has to make his films so sensational, but that does not excuse it. Of course documtarians are biased, everyone is, but most of them do not intentionally try to create a sensationalized documentary to get their point across.

Errol Morris' films are not over-the-top, they try to show his vision as a director while being neutral. In Fog of War, Morris did not go easy on McNamara, nor did he try to make him out to be the cold, calculating, and unrepentent man that some think he is. Morris asked him questions, and let him talk. Morris pressed McNamara on certain issues, but was not overzealous about trying to show McNamara in any certain way.

[Vector]

The studio tried to kill it at first and refused to promote it. Which in turn only helped the movie. You can sit on the fence and point at both sides but you will eventually feel the full force of the side who wins. Sitting on the fence does not make you immune!

I know that, but then the Weinstein bothers of Miramax bought the rights from Disney and set up their own company to produce it. Disney has been pissed at Miramax for years because it doesn't represent disney's corporate values.

[Frump]

Moore is a great pamphleteer, not a great documentarist/film maker/hero to the people.

My biggest problem with Michael Moore is his dubious editing methods, which merge and collide scenes together. Moore's method is to fit smaller truths into a larger system of debatable truths. And despite what Frump is trying to argue, it's just not right to make stuff up no matter how honourable your intentions (again very debatable with Michael Moore). As Gandhi said, 'You must be the change you wish to see in the world'.
A very good point but unfortunately film making is not some sort of sacred ground. just like the truth it can be shaped and shifted to fit the desired result. If you are smart enough to see through the manipulation then you can get to the truth. Do you think that George Bush has been absolutely truthful with America and the rest of the world! I don't think so. Mr. Moore does not think so. Many leaders and highly educated people don't think so.
Many poor and under educated people don't think so. Mr. Moore is not an Island.
I believe it is easier to argue the cool "i can see through your agenda" stuff than to actually try to see what somebody is trying to say.
Take away the sensational and all you are left with is just another 5 second blot on the journalistic landscape. In other words not interesting. Do you really think that is the best way to get your point across.

Frump.

[mymemory]

Politics is a business, no mater if you are right wing or left wing... everybody there is for the money. You would have to be very naive if you think the leaders are there for you.

Remember this words: Bush is going to winn the elections again, it is so obvious that the deal is already set between the two parties.

A lot of money is manage in this war and Bush have to resolve the problem some how, he is so deep in to crap that he is the only one who can manage what he has done.

[munkle]

A very good point but unfortunately film making is not some sort of sacred ground. just like the truth it can be shaped and shifted to fit the desired result.

Wow that makes me sad. The truth can be molded to what you want it to be, a bit of an oxymoron don't you think?

If you are smart enough to see through the manipulation then you can get to the truth. Do you think that George Bush has been absolutely truthful with America and the rest of the world! I don't think so. Mr. Moore does not think so. Many leaders and highly educated people don't think so.
Many poor and under educated people don't think so. Mr. Moore is not an Island.
I believe it is easier to argue the cool "i can see through your agenda" stuff than to actually try to see what somebody is trying to say.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. George lies so it's OK for Moore to follow suit, whilst condeming George for doing it? That lies don't matter, as long as the message gets across? I really am confused.

I'm not arguing the efficacy of Moore's methods to be 'cool'. I just happen to think it's dishonest.


Take away the sensational and all you are left with is just another 5 second blot on the journalistic landscape. In other words not interesting. Do you really think that is the best way to get your point across.

Frump.

You wrongly assume that only sensationalist journalism is interesting. If this is the case just stick to watching Jerry Springer everyday. It is possible to create documentarys with integrity, which are entertaining. Just look at examples like, The War Room, Capturing The Friedmans, The Thin Blue Line, Spellbound etc, etc. Remember fact is often stranger than fiction.

Sometimes a difference of opinion is deducible to a difference in taste. You seem to admire Moore for his 'ingenious' methods of getting the point across. I dislike him for it. It is not the messages he is trying to portray which rile me, it is his methods, which I feel undermines the potency of the message.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Politics is a business, no mater if you are right wing or left wing... everybody there is for the money. You would have to be very naive if you think the leaders are there for you.

Remember this words: Bush is going to winn the elections again, it is so obvious that the deal is already set between the two parties.

A lot of money is manage in this war and Bush have to resolve the problem some how, he is so deep in to crap that he is the only one who can manage what he has done.

You have a point. Why else are the DNC and RNC trying to protect their pockets? It is sort of the along the "anti-union" training that I went through. One point that stuck with me, why do they dress and drive better cars than I or you do?

[MattG]

A lot of money is manage in this war and Bush have to resolve the problem some how, he is so deep in to crap that he is the only one who can manage what he has done.

That made absolutely no sense. George W. Bush lied to us and got our country into a huge mess, so what makes you think that he has the ability or the brains to get us out of it???

Anyway, the people that are making these anti-Moore movies are making them because they don't want to face reality. Bush lied, he's going to lose this election, and the Republicans are scared.

[Vector]

Now there is a banner at the bottom that links to a poll that asks whether you think Fahrenheit 911 was fact or fiction.

[rickvanr]

I'd be willing to bet that this movie doesnt do as well in Europe as Farenheit 9/11, considering its a movie for pro- bush southerners. haha

[blackfox]

I don't have much to add, except I find it interesting that (2) movies have been made about another movie and it's director. I guess it must have hit a nerve.

Agree or Disagree with Moore's message and/or methods, it has gotten a visceral reaction from the American Public - on both sides. I think that is a good thing. Is Moore's work sometimes sensationalist and polemic? Yes. He is smart enough to know that that is what the people respond to these days...

Don't shoot the messenger.

I am overcome by the Irony.

[taeclee99]

That made absolutely no sense. George W. Bush lied to us and got our country into a huge mess, so what makes you think that he has the ability or the brains to get us out of it???

Anyway, the people that are making these anti-Moore movies are making them because they don't want to face reality. Bush lied, he's going to lose this election, and the Republicans are scared.

How exactly has George Bush lied to us? The fact of the matter is that the everyone believed that there were WMD's in Iraq including former president Clinton, Senator John Kerry, FBI Director Louie Freeh (put there by Clinton), NATO and the rest of the UN. The fact that no WMD's were found just means that the intelligence was probably flawed. This does not make Bush a liar. Lying is a willfull misinterpretation of facts. What the President used as his rationale for war does not fit that criteria because he acted in good faith. Granted the situation in Iraq is not that stable and I am not happy about that. Im just not convinced that Kerry will do a better job handling Iraq than Bush.

Most polls conducted today including zogby, gallup, cnn show bush ahead by 8-9 points among likely votes and up 12 points among registered voters. It looks likely that the President will win re-election. It is the Democrats who are running scared.

Fact: Bush is tied with Kerry in traditionally liberal NJ where dems outnumber reps by 200,000 voters

Fact. Bush is only down by five points in NY where republicans are heavily outnumbered.

Fact. Most battleground states won by Bush in 2000 has Kerry trailing. In the battleground states won by Gore in 2000 has Bush either tied with Kerry or trending toward Bush.

Fact. The Kerry campaign is pulling advertisng from Arizona and other battleground states.

Fact. The Kerry group has no clue how to run an effective campaign. They replaced veteran Bob Shrum with a couple of former Clinton press secretatries, Joe Lockhart and Mike McCurry. Press Secretaries know how to spin...not run winning campaigns.

The problem with Kerry is that he has not articulated a clear vision on why he wants to be president. Just being "not George Bush" is not good enough.

[virividox]

i enjoy michael moores documentaries because they entertain me, i dont put much stock in them, and i doubt te documentaries against him are that credible either its just a lot of mudslinging

[absolut_mac]

I think most people miss the point of what Mr. Moor is trying to say.

I honestly don't think so.

Mr. Moore, a brilliant film maker and master manipulator, tells us outright lies, distorts the facts and generally tries to confuse his audience with misinformation and opinion presented as facts.

America is a free country, so of course he is entitled to his opinion. The main reason that most Americans dislike him and his movies is because he disingeniously presents his opinions as facts - i.e. ONLY Michael Moore has a handle on the true facts, the rest of us plebs have to make do with the *all knowing, all intelligent one* enlightening us.

We refuse to allow this liar to belittle us :mad:

[flashfil]

[QUOTE=taeclee99]How exactly has George Bush lied to us? The fact of the matter is that the everyone believed that there were WMD's in Iraq including former president Clinton, Senator John Kerry, FBI Director Louie Freeh (put there by Clinton), NATO and the rest of the UN. The fact that no WMD's were found just means that the intelligence was probably flawed. This does not make Bush a liar.

Actually thats wrong. The US government went to the UN to present thier case to try and make it seem credible to everyone - not for permission to go into Iraq and not because anyone else thought it was viable. After Gulf War I it was well known that Sadam was not a threat and many of the surrounding states were trying to integrate Iraq back into the reigon. Having lived in Iraq and Turkey for a short time it was rather shocking to see all this comming out. We knew it was all BU**SH** but then we don't get a voice.
95% of the Turkish population (that voted) were against going in (I was there at the time). The US came down on them with a scathing report and many people in Turkey were scared of the US and what they might do.

Im not a massive Moore Fan either, but at least his movies don't look like they were made on a £300 budget.

[pseudobrit]

Michael Moore is a proclaimed anti-capitalist,

Really? Have you read his books? Watched his shows? I've never heard him denounce capitalism.

The ratio of ************ noise to fact in this thread is astounding.

[Mantat]

Moor isnt againts capitalism, he is againts abusive capitalism.

And of course, you complain about him making millions while you have no clue what he is doing with that cash... Some of it went to environnemental organisation, some to anti-bush contest, etc... Of course he has made money with it but I dont think he will sit on his cash stack, he will keep investing it to denounce exploitation of the population by corporations. Btw go see the movie 'The Corporation', its excellent!

Moore objective with F911 was to give the Americans a wakeup call. Before Bush the US were respected in loved in most country of the world. Now most of Europe (and Canada) has a negative view of US because of him. I swear that I cant walk more than 1min downtown in Montreal and not see an anti-US graffiti, something that wasnt present a few years ago. Think about that...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Really? Have you read his books? Watched his shows? I've never heard him denounce capitalism.

The ratio of ************ noise to fact in this thread is astounding.

You have a point. He seems to be against big business, yet his movies are part of big business.

In the end, if his movies cause to think even for a moment as to what is wrong in the American society, then he has done some good.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Moor isnt againts capitalism, he is againts abusive capitalism.

Thank you for saying what I was trying to say....

[Chip NoVaMac]

Any documentary film or series of photographs, sees the truth in the eye of the director/photographer. The same "stretching of the truth" can be said about the Party in power at any given point in time. It is up to us as viewers to read between the lines in order to get close to the truth.

The danger is that given our attention spans, that there are many that will take what ever is fed them as gospel. Given the financial success of F911, I would hope that the networks see a need to get back to reporting everything they know about a topic in-depth. That they have a responsibility to go beyond the 15 second sound-bite.

What I see from the members here is that we are not the norm. It appears to me that we are well read on both sides of the coin. That we are willing to open our minds to alternative voices. And in some cases be willing to change our opinions (or maybe heaven forbid, FLIP-FLOP).

It takes a good person to admit that their position was wrong. Too bad we don't have more in politics that are willing to admit that they were wrong. The reason they don't is that there is too much money at stake.

[flashfil]

Moor isnt againts capitalism, he is againts abusive capitalism.

Moore objective with F911 was to give the Americans a wakeup call. Before Bush the US were respected in loved in most country of the world. Now most of Europe (and Canada) has a negative view of US because of him. I swear that I cant walk more than 1min downtown in Montreal and not see an anti-US graffiti, something that wasnt present a few years ago. Think about that...

It's not just Canada too - When Bush came to the UK there were huge protests and the London Mayor called Bush the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen". The US is hugely disliked in the middle east and even Iraqi's who were very pro bush to start with have turned. Fact is Bush has gone a long way to making sure a lot of people hate you. That fact is undeniable.

[solvs]

The problem with Kerry is that he has not articulated a clear vision on why he wants to be president. Just being "not George Bush" is not good enough.
Actually, for many of people, it is. And I think that's why we don't know more about Kerry than we should. He doesn't want to lose what little he's got. Don't know if it's enough, but George Bush has pissed off a lot of people, including me. And Michael Moore. So he made a movie about it. If you've seen some of his other movies and shows, it was not his best. But it was effective in it's point. That's why he calls it an editorial.

That's right! It's not a documentary. Moore says so himself. That's why he doesn't want it in the Best Doc category for the Oscars.

I'm no GW fan (I actually liked McCain, then Dean), but to be fair even I roll my eyes at Moore sometimes. I mean, he thinks OJ is innocent. He's not right about everything, but he sees something wrong (like the media demonizing people who they think commited a crime before they have proof in the case of why I think he says OJ isn't guilty) so he goes after them with the only tool at his disposal - his camera.

It might have been a better documentary if it was more balanced. If there was less editorializing. But it wouldn't have been as effective. I don't think he outright lied (and for those of you who haven't seen it, you can't really complain until you have), but he used a lot of half truths. It's still the truth, but it neglects the opposing sides' views. Leaves a lot of stuff out. Which is exactly what politicians and the media do to sway your opinion.

Which is exactly what he did, and exactly why he did it.

Edit: oh, and anyone who says he hates America because he disagrees with the current administration, doesn't know anything about him. He loves America very much, and tries his hardest to make it a better place when he sees injustice. He made a lot of money pointing out the things wrong with the system in order to make it better. And, much like Nader, puts it to good use.

To make a film against a film he made is just stupid. They have every right to, but nobody cares if he's an idiot. He's not a leader of the free world, responsible for all of the stupid things the people in power are. He's just a guy who made a movie about a guy that pissed him off by doing some very stupid things.

[Vector]

That's right! It's not a documentary. Moore says so himself. That's why he doesn't want it in the Best Doc category for the Oscars.


I pretty much agree with what you have said.

That isn't the main reason that more doesn't want it in that category. Moore wants to show the movie on network tv before the election, or he did a few months ago, and you cannot do that and enter it in the running for that category. There is some kind of time limit that you have to wait to pass if you want to show it on tv and still be eligable for that oscar. Moore decided that he would rather try to show it on tv and not get the documentary oscar (which he has already won, and wants someone else to win), but he would still be eligable for best picture which is what he really wants.

[solvs]

That isn't the main reason that more doesn't want it in that category.
You're right. I should have said one of the reasons.

But he still likes to make the point that it is an editorial, not documentary. And yeah, wants someone else to win Best Doc. Plus it gets him even more pubicity and credibility (so to speak). Make no mistake, he wants you to see the movie more than he wants your money.

That's why he tells people to download it. Well, that and the street cred. :p But it will hopefully be on non-pay TV so people who say they won't pay to see it will have no more excuses.

[Vector]

But it will hopefully be on non-pay TV so people who say they won't pay to see it will have no more excuses.

I am glad that he makes a point of calling it an editorial, i had never heard or read that he did that.

I am skeptical that it will be on network tv at this point. Moore would love it to be, but i think that most of the networks realize that to put such an inflammatory piece on so close to an election would be irresponsible. The FCC might also have a problem with it since they were not even sure they were going to allow commercials for the movie when it came out.

[solvs]

I was thinking PBS, but probably not.

Maybe some Turner station (does he even run those any more?) if it has to go cable, with no (or few) commercials. You know Sponsored By or something. Be funny if it were on Comedy Central. Then people would really criticize it. "See, it's a comedy! It's not real". Take a lot of balls though. Get more respect than UPN. :p

As for the editorial thing, yeah, it was the Daily Show or something. He kept saying it was his opinion, it was an editorial... like the news (BURN!). Might have been Jon Stewart covering something he said on some morning show. He's said it a few times, but he doesn't as much anymore.

Like I said, I think he's going for more credibility now since people are twisting opinion to mean lie.

[Thomas Veil]

How exactly has George Bush lied to us?
You're kidding, right?


The fact that no WMD's were found just means that the intelligence was probably flawed.
The New Republic reported, "Senators were outraged to find that intelligence info given to them omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war." - The New Republic, 6/30/03
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03]
Fact: Bush Administration Knew Claim Was False
In March 2002, both the CIA and State Department learned that evidence linking Iraq to Niger was unfounded. In October, CIA Director Tenet personally intervened with Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor to have the charge removed from Bush's speech to the nation. Rice herself was sent a memo debunking the claim. In January, just days before Bush uttered the false charge CIA officials tried again to remove the language, but the White House insisted it remain -- with added the caveat that they had received the information from British sources. [Bush State of the Union, 1/28/03; Time, 7/21/03 Issue; Hadley/Bartlett Gaggle, 7/22/03; New York Times, 7/13/03; Washington Post, 7/20/03; NPR, 6/19/03]


The ratio of ************ noise to fact in this thread is astounding.
Amen. If Moore's film is full of "lies", they're certainly well-documented ones (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/).

[Vector]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/deadline-finke.php

Networks refuse to air Farhenheit 911 commercials this close to election.

[homerjward]

sounds awesome! i hate michael moore. not just because he hates bush, but because it's blind hate. if we'd never gone to war he'd be bitching about that. no matter what bush does michael moore's gonna hate him. if michael moore made an honest documentary i'd watch it, but for now im sticking to facts like this movie.

[rickvanr]

sounds awesome! i hate michael moore. not just because he hates bush, but because it's blind hate. if we'd never gone to war he'd be bitching about that. no matter what bush does michael moore's gonna hate him. if michael moore made an honest documentary i'd watch it, but for now im sticking to facts like this movie.

you honestly think micheal moore would have made a movie about bush not going to war in Iraq? Why do you hate Moore? Is it because of your view on america with Bush at the top, and when you shows Bush to be the idiot he is, it somehow makes you feel like an idiot? im not attacking you.

[pseudobrit]

Can you possibly comprehend the irony in the disparity between the following sentiments?

sounds awesome! i hate michael moore. not just because he hates bush, but because it's blind hate.

and

...if michael moore made an honest documentary i'd watch it...

[homerjward]

Can you possibly comprehend the irony in the disparity between the following sentiments?



and
what i mean is if he made a documentary not about his blind hate towards bush. if it was based in truth as opposed to blind hate i'd watch it

[solvs]

what i mean is if he made a documentary not about his blind hate towards bush. if it was based in truth as opposed to blind hate i'd watch it
You should watch it then. It is based in truth. One side of the truth, and a lot of editorializing. But truth, non-the-less.

You don't actually think he just made stuff up, do you?

[blackfox]

what i mean is if he made a documentary not about his blind hate towards bush. if it was based in truth as opposed to blind hate i'd watch it
I would assume you are not voting for Bush then...as his public statements and media bites are not based in Truth either?

Or that you are not voting entirely, as most political advertisements claiming truth are actually biased?

[homerjward]

I would assume you are not voting for Bush then...as his public statements and media bites are not based in Truth either?

Or that you are not voting entirely, as most political advertisements claiming truth are actually biased?
not voting cause im under 18. but when i start voting im going write-in candidates all the way. start with like my dad or something and when i turn 35 vote for myself. all politicians are bs artists and liars. i dont like bush and i dont like kerry and i dont like nader or anyone. im not pro-bush im anti-moore okay?

[sushi]

You don't actually think he just made stuff up, do you?
Just like statistics. Editorializing can create any story that you want.

Reminds me of the joke where a fellow in a bar tells another that half his family is bad. The other fellow says that you better say something nice, or I am going to kick your butt. So the fellow says, okay, half your family is good.

Yeah, I know. Don't quit my day job.

The point being, is that you can take snippets and create just about any view that you want. Michael Moore presents a very one sided biased case in 911 and tries to pass it off as a factual work.

Already I see where there are three videos in the making exposing his lies/half truths/etc. It will be interesting to see what happens when they come out.

Sushi

[blackfox]

not voting cause im under 18. but when i start voting im going write-in candidates all the way. start with like my dad or something and when i turn 35 vote for myself. all politicians are bs artists and liars. i dont like bush and i dont like kerry and i dont like nader or anyone. im not pro-bush im anti-moore okay?
Well then, you forfeit your right to complain imo...I'll grant you it's a bitch of a world sometimes, but that doesn't mean writing it off...

Btw, congrats on your impending Avatar.

[iJon]

not voting cause im under 18. but when i start voting im going write-in candidates all the way. start with like my dad or something and when i turn 35 vote for myself. all politicians are bs artists and liars. i dont like bush and i dont like kerry and i dont like nader or anyone. im not pro-bush im anti-moore okay?
I beg you please forget to send in your voter registration form. What's daddy going to do in office, take us all out for pizza?

jon

[flashfil]

I'd like to quote Al Franken. I think his comment here is very relevant.

"They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her Mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who critisizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in thw world."

Quite fankly releasing a movie called Moore "Hates" America just goes to show the childish attitude thats rampant in the right wind media. Grow up guys.

[sushi]

IQuite fankly releasing a movie called Moore "Hates" America just goes to show the childish attitude thats rampant in the right wind media. Grow up guys.
Then again, for the same reasons that you state, maybe this is considered part of the adult love that Mr. Franken discusses. :eek:

Sushi

[kuyu]

It's strange. When people are vehemently opposed to one party or the other, they wind up sounding EXACTLY like their sworn political enemy.

The Bushies railed F911 for being a sensationalistic video editorial set to music. The Anti-Bushies applauded it for asking the tough questions and being anti-bush.

These two new films are the same thing, just backwards. Bushies will applaud them for asking tough questions and being pro Bush. The antiBush crowd will say they're sensationalistic video editorials set to music.

See what I mean... In life, we see our own faults in other people. If you can't stand the "other sides stupidity" across the spectrum of issues, look in the mirror and greet your enemy.

[pseudobrit]

what i mean is if he made a documentary not about his blind hate towards bush. if it was based in truth as opposed to blind hate i'd watch it

Ugh
No, no, no, you missed it.

You said *you* hated Michael Moore because *he* has blind hate, then admitted you hadn't even seen the movie you were basing your hate on.

You honestly don't see the irony there?

[pseudobrit]

These two new films are the same thing, just backwards.

I don't see that at all.

I see Fahrenheit 9/11 pointing the cannon at Bush, then I see the retort pointing at Moore. ???

The opposite of Fahrenheit 9/11 would be a film positively portraying Bush, right? What's so hard about that?

[Thomas Veil]

I'd like to quote Al Franken. I think his comment here is very relevant.

"They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her Mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who critisizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in thw world."

Quite fankly releasing a movie called Moore "Hates" America just goes to show the childish attitude thats rampant in the right wind media. Grow up guys.


Couldn't have put it better myself. (Except for the misspellings. ;) )

[Chip NoVaMac]

Couldn't have put it better myself. (Except for the misspellings. ;) )

The point is that "mommy: is not always right. Neither the DCN or or RNC holds the trump cards.

[rueyeet]

There was an article in last week's Time called "Blue Truth, Red Truth" about how Americans pick their news sources to reflect their political opinions. If you think Bush is a cretin who waged a war of choice in Iraq that has completely destroyed our international reputation, you refer to Farenheit 9/11. If you think that Bush is the only one who can protect our country against the threat of terrorism and Kerry's a flip-flopping pinko Commie liberal, you watch Fox News. Just like Mr. Moore, people are cherry-picking the bits and pieces that support their own point of view, and mistaking it for the entire truth.

To paraphrase, my own opinion is that there are three sides to every political story: the Red side, the Blue side, and the Truth; and I don't think we're getting that third side in ANY media anymore.

[homerjward]

Ugh
No, no, no, you missed it.

You said *you* hated Michael Moore because *he* has blind hate, then admitted you hadn't even seen the movie you were basing your hate on.

You honestly don't see the irony there?
come to think of it, i do...i should think before posting...

[sushi]

To paraphrase, my own opinion is that there are three sides to every political story: the Red side, the Blue side, and the Truth; and I don't think we're getting that third side in ANY media anymore.
Well put!

As someone who has seen source data and the resulting news, it is quite interesting to see the slant(s) by the news services.

Sushi

[kuyu]

The opposite of Fahrenheit 9/11 would be a film positively portraying Bush, right? What's so hard about that?

Isn't that what this film does? I heard a pro-Bush comment in the trailer.

The opposite of F911 is the 911 Commision Report. It's the truth, no slant, about the events relavant to that day. Farenheit911 and Hype911 are different sides of a the same slanted coin.

[solvs]

The point being, is that you can take snippets and create just about any view that you want. Michael Moore presents a very one sided biased case in 911 and tries to pass it off as a factual work.

Already I see where there are three videos in the making exposing his lies/half truths/etc. It will be interesting to see what happens when they come out.
Actually, he doesn't pass it off as "truth". In everything I've seen him in (including the film itself) he does present it as an editorial. As I've said, even I rolled my eyes at some points in the movie, and I'm not exactly the biggest Bush fan. It's completely one sided, and he never disagrees when people say that. Moore himself says this is not a documentary, but people seem to keep forgetting that part.

There is a difference between lies, and half-truths. And making a movie about a guy who made a movie about a guy that pissed him off is a lot dumber than just making a movie defending the guy that's pissing people off or simply trying to debunk Moore's theories. Saying "Michael Moore Tells Only Half The Story" isn't as sexy as "Michael Moore Lies", or even better "Michael Moore Hates America", where if you actually watch the movie and know the man, you know that's not true. And that's pretty dirty. That's what pisses me off. Just because I have a dissenting opinion, I suddenly hate America?

Since when did this become Nazi Germany?

The opposite of F911 is the 911 Commision Report.
Actually, after seeing both, I'd say the 911 Report would compliment F911. Some of it suppliments what is left out of F911, and very little contradicts it. That would be like saying the 911 Commision is the opposite of the Bush administration, and even I wouldn't go that far.

[solvs]

Apparently, according to this (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=18534), it's actually a pretty fair and non-partisan film.

The title is just to get people's attention. Sound familiar? I still think Moore wouldn't have gotten as much attention if he was as fair as he could have been. And that was the point, to point out Bush's weaknesses at all cost. But I admit, it would have been a better documentary. Just not as good as an editorial (not that we really needed Moore to prove Bush was a moron).

Even Kerry said tonight that he respected GW, and that he knew that the Bush administration loved America and only wanted to do what they thought was right.

Edit: Though I didn't get the impression that this movie was going to be any good based on the Daily Show segment. Walking around asking people if they want to be in a movie. Trying (and failing) to talk to Moore. Didn't look too professional. There's indie, and there's cheap.

[flashfil]

Well put!

As someone who has seen source data and the resulting news, it is quite interesting to see the slant(s) by the news services.

Sushi

Europe has a press that is less inclined to "do as they are told" than in America and is one of the reasons why thier press has a more open and honest approach to the facts. It's worth checking out thier angle. If you look into the news sources of networks such as Fox then your going to recieve a right-wing bias. That is not speculation it's FACT (and I'll source it if you want). After the 9/11 incident the right wing media such as the Fox network set straight out to blaming Clinton of all people for 9/11 - how looney is that !! Moore's film is his own words on how he feels the terrible way the Bush admin stole it's way in and has handled Iraq. Let alone the fact that the US has the highest percentage prison population in the developed world, has a deficit thats sky rocketing and has a corporate crime record thats quite sickening. (But we don't want to talk about that for fear of upsetting everyone).

The US has a history of going in and ******** up other countries unjustly (remember Vietnam, Nicuagura to name a few) and when they went into Iraq the first time did we say no.... we pretty much kept our mouths shut. This time someone has put forward a voice that represents how MILLIONS of people feel and the one's backing Bush need to listen to it.

Moore is entitled to his free speech like anyone else so let him put it across. Do you disagree with EVERYTHING in his movie? if you do then take a look at the way you decide stuff.

[flashfil]

And just to show that Im really in touch here's where I get most of my RELIABLE and UNBIASED news:

http://www.bongonews.com/layout1.php?event=1241

;)

[absolut_mac]

The US has a history of going in and ******** up other countries unjustly (remember Vietnam, Nicuagura to name a few) and when they went into Iraq the first time did we say no.... we pretty much kept our mouths shut. This time someone has put forward a voice that represents how MILLIONS of people feel and the one's backing Bush need to listen to it.

Like all countries, and everybody on this planet for that matter, the US makes mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are made because of ignorance - a lack of better (covert) intelligence - or a failure to fully understand the local dynamics. Sometimes those mistakes are a result of mistakenly backing the lesser of two evils.

But to ignore the fact that YOU and the rest of Europe are free thanks to the enormous sacrifices of the USA in general and their soldiers in particular is downright deceitful, dishonest and to be an out and out ingrate.

The UN and Europe discuss genocide and massacres in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan etc, but nothing ever gets done in these situations until the USA gets involved. Why is that? And yes, I'm sure that you already know the answer if you're honest with yourself.

Yes, the USA is not perfect, but we do try and we are by far the most generous nation on the face of this earth as many free people can attest today :)

[flashfil]

Like all countries, and everybody on this planet for that matter, the US makes mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are made because of ignorance - a lack of better (covert) intelligence - or a failure to fully understand the local dynamics. Sometimes those mistakes are a result of mistakenly backing the lesser of two evils.

But to ignore the fact that YOU and the rest of Europe are free thanks to the enormous sacrifices of the USA in general and their soldiers in particular is downright deceitful, dishonest and to be an out and out ingrate.

The UN and Europe discuss genocide and massacres in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan etc, but nothing ever gets done in these situations until the USA gets involved. Why is that? And yes, I'm sure that you already know the answer if you're honest with yourself.

Yes, the USA is not perfect, but we do try and we are by far the most generous nation on the face of this earth as many free people can attest today :)

Well again that depends on your veiwpoint. It's easy to generate words like these and sound very popous about how "free"and "generous" the US is but by looking at the facts you'll see this isn't actually the case.

For example there's fact that the UK is the biggest donator of cash to the African countries you mentioned and is currently ready to "drop the debt" that these countries owe - hardly "doing nothing". The US is by far the biggest debt collector in places such as Africa and the the way the the US uses its influence inside the World Bank and enforces so called "free trade" has caused terrible poverty in a string of countries.

I wouldn't ever state that Europe or anyone else is "better" than the US. Im just critical of thier actions so that we LEARN from our mistakes. The world bank ADMITS it makes mistakes.... This is the point that we seem to have drifted off. Be critical of your leaders and proud of your country.

[flashfil]

Yes, the USA is not perfect, but we do try and we are by far the most generous nation on the face of this earth as many free people can attest today :)

Actually acording to the World Bank the following is the case:

USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest.

Whilst the US may donate the second-largest amount in terms of actual money given, in terms of their GNI/GNP they only give 0.1% (one-thousandth) of what they make. This puts them last in terms of the proportion of their income that they give in aid. (This source is a few years old but shows the case)

Thanks for being SO generous. Can we get back to the Michael Moore issue.

[Thomas Veil]

Apparently, according to this (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=18534), it's actually a pretty fair and non-partisan film.
Interesting. I had the impression this was going to be a lying hatchet job on Moore, but if it's as fair as it sounds in that interview, I'm very open to seeing it. I'm not above seeing an honest critique of Moore's work.

[solvs]

Interesting. I had the impression this was going to be a lying hatchet job on Moore, but if it's as fair as it sounds in that interview, I'm very open to seeing it. I'm not above seeing an honest critique of Moore's work.
Yeah, I was pretty surprised too. Shame that Moore didn't talk to him, it could have been interesting. I'm thinking I might watch it, just because. But from what I've seen, it is very amatuer.