Fahrenheit 9/11

[Syk3]

Wow, I'm surprised no one has started a thread about this movie yet. o.o Of course, with my luck, there probably is one already and I missed it. =_=

Assuming that there isn't a thread already, I saw the movie this past Friday and really loved it. I had only recently seen Bowling for Columbine, a previous work from director Michael Moore, and really got into it. What I had loved about Bowling for Columbine movie is the way he had actually gone onto the street to interview all of these people which pointed out the hypocrisies in gun control. He asked and attempted to answer many great questions, such as why the United States has so many more gun deaths than any other country. Immediately I assumed that this was because other countries held much stricter gun control, but soon found that in Canada you could get a gun just as easily, due in part to the large hunting sport. In Canada, however, there were only about 50 gun deaths, in comparison to the over 11,000 deaths in the US. Slowly he showed that news in the US focuses largely on crime more than anything else, and while crime itself has gone down over the years, [i]fear [/i]of crime has gone up, perhaps scaring people into buying more guns and locking their doors at night.

Alright, I'm beginning to go a little off topic, heh. I just wanted to set the stage for Fahrenheit 9/11 which was done much the same way, being a documentary, as Bowling for Columbine. There was definitely a difference, though. In Columbine, much of the movie takes to the street, and while he does so a lot in 9/11, most of the movie is contrived of news reports, statements, and interviews. Before I continue, however, I will say that the entire movie was pro-liberal and completely against Bush, for those of you who haven't seen the movie or read about it at all. Not being either a Republican or a Democrat, and not being old enough to vote, I welcomed the movie with an opened mind, unlike my dad who is a Republican and considered a lot of the movie "hogwash", lol.

Like I mentioned before, I really liked this movie, even though it was a political movie and I usually don't understand or care to understand many political issues. Moore does a great job of putting the movie into Layman's terms, and asks the questions we are wondering ourselves. In a way, I feel that he might have left a little bit of the other side out to get his point across, but with all of the evidence to support his opinion, I can't help but agree with him despite what the other side can say. So yes, the movie is a majority one-sided, against Bush, and if enough people see this movie, it could put a [i]large[/i] dent into Bush's votes with the upcoming election.

And now for the spoilers.

[spoiler]I know that I'll never be able to explain the movie as well as if you just see it, but I'm hoping that those of you who are reading this have already seen it and have the basic jist of it already. And if you haven't seen it, go see it now! Alright, so the movie explains the huge tie between the Bush's (both daddy and son) and Saudi Arabia. Apparently, they own about 7% of America by making deals with Bush and having about a [b]trillion[/b] dollars in our banks, which, if they pull the money out, would be a huge blow to our economy. They pay Bush much, much more than Bush gets paid as a president, so if you were in his situation, who would you care more about? Not only that, but this is the same country to sponsors the Taliban, which is, of course, headed by Osama Bin Laden (sp.?), the man who led the attack on 9/11. Before 9/11 occurred, the Bin Ladens invested in one of the few companies that benefited from the attack: American Defense, which means that they hadn't cut off [i]all[/i] ties with Bin Laden up to that point. After 9/11, Bush's response was weak and slow, not acting on catching Osama Bin Laden until 2 months later, and even then, not doing much to find him. Instead, Bush focused his attack on Iraq, which he claimed was the source of nuclear weapons in hiding, which we know now were never found. He was attacking a country that had never threatened or attacked the US in any way and had no connections to 9/11, the Taliban, and Osama. And then in these attacks we lost hundreds of our own people for what seems like no reason at all. In particular, there was a very touching story of a mother who had lost a son in Iraq and searching for the answer by going to Washington DC. Moore pointed out that it wasn't the children of congress, or even rich people who were enlisting to fight in this war; they were mainly from poor towns where the unemployment rate was over 50% who went in for a future. The ones who are suffering the most are the ones who have to suffer even more. He showed that because Bush was president, all of these horrible things have happened that [i]might[/i] have been avoided if Gore was elected. In fact, he presented a lot of evidence to the idea that Bush being elected was a conspiracy. That all of the news stations had believed Gore the winner except for Fox, who had said that Bush had 49% of the votes, and Gore had 48%. But wait, instead of the regular person who normally got the news, Bush's cousin was there and had announced this for the anchormen. I also recall later hearing that Gore really had won Florida if the votes had been recounted.[/spoiler]

The movie ended with a broadcast by president Bush.

[quote]I believe there was an old saying in Tenessee. Well, actually it's from Texas, but I guess they say it in Tenessee as well. Fool me once... ... ..shame on you. Fool me twice.. ... ..well, you better not fool me twice![/quote]Sounds like a good Democrat slogan. :p

[TOTALIMMORTAL]

All I can say is that I really wanna see Fahrenheit 9/11. I haven't seen Bowling for Columbine but I wanna see that too. I've seen lots of Michael Moore on tv, especially on the Daily Show, and I agree with alot of his views and opinions. Fahrenheit 9/11 is rated R though so I can't see it alone, I'm only 14. The worst part is both of my parents are [B]totally[/B] Pro-Bush so they wouldn't take me to see it in a million years. And that's my dilemna........

[Harry]

It was an alright movie. Bowling for Columbine was entertaining but it wasn't really truthful and Moore isn't afraid to add his own spin in at all. Don't believe everything he says.

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]Do you guys really think it deserved that award it won recently? Apparently, there's an argument against it saying that it was the political content of Fahrenheit 9/11 that attracted the judges to pick it and was nothing to do with the actual directional talent involved at all.[/color]

[Syk3]

[quote name='Harry']Bowling for Columbine was entertaining but it wasn't really truthful and Moore isn't afraid to add his own spin in at all. Don't believe everything he says.[/quote]I did have a small feeling that he might have been spinning it a bit, since the movies he shows are a majority one-sided. But then, if it isn't true, where is he getting his evidence? I suppose if you're anti-Moore, then you could just borrow a statement from one of his movies and say that while his evidence may be true, he chooses what he shows and tells you. Ah well, we can never know for sure. All I know is that the evidence he provides is so powerful that I'm left thinking, "do I even care if there is another side?" Which is probably what he intended to do anyway, hm.

[James]

[color=#707875]I only saw Bowling for Columbine recently, which I enjoyed. I think it's the kind of documentary that every American needs to see, because the whole gun ownership thing is a very cancerous part of American society. And I think that the documentary is very compelling in that sense.

[i]However[/i], Moore radically spins things when it comes to discussions about defense contractors. His blanket statements about American involvement in previous wars didn't tell the whole story, or even part of the story. So that was obvious from a mile away.

Regarding Farenheit 9/11...I read your spoilers, Syk3 and I can tell you right now, I can sit here and pick a million holes in those points. Why? Not because they're outright wrong (in some cases), but because they only show one side of the truth -- the side that Moore is aligned to. Unfortunately, if one were to consider much of this "evidence" as cold-hard fact...one would only be getting a very limited view of the complexities of the world.

I think that Moore is a very dishonest film maker. Whereas Bowling for Columbine was generally a very honest film (perhaps more honest than even Moore would normally be comfortable with), what I've read about Farenheit 9/11 (and even the premise of it), is anything but. So that kind of "selective presentation of the truth" is a problem, I think.

In any case, I'll definitely check it out when it's available here...in fact, I think it might even be out now. So yeah, when I see it I'll post my thoughts -- and I'd be interested to read what others have to say about it.[/color]

[Harry]

[quote name='Syk3']I did have a small feeling that he might have been spinning it a bit, since the movies he shows are a majority one-sided. But then, if it isn't true, where is he getting his evidence? I suppose if you're anti-Moore, then you could just borrow a statement from one of his movies and say that while his evidence may be true, he chooses what he shows and tells you. Ah well, we can never know for sure. All I know is that the evidence he provides is so powerful that I'm left thinking, "do I even care if there is another side?" Which is probably what he intended to do anyway, hm.[/quote]
He's only telling half truths that's why. He'll say that the Bin Laden family was allowed to leave during 9/11 making you think Bush cleared it, but won't tell you that the flight was actually cleared by a man that wrote the book about Bush's corruption in office. Also we do know for sure that he shows you only one side of the evidence, he does it all the time.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I can't see this movie, because I cannot validate any reason to give money to Micheal Moore.

Moore is a thotoughly dishonest film maker; he weaves staged scenes in with the real footage without telling you which is which. He twists satatistics and footage of interviews to prove his own point. In several cases, he simply lies. (The relatives of bin Laden [i]were[/i] stopped and questioned on 9/11. No one could go to war for oil in Afghanistan because there is no oil in Afghanistan.) He could make an honest film, but that would involve either presenting both sides of an issue, or not streatching and inflating his own information. He can't do that, though, because then there might be a chance his audience would reach a different opinion than him.

I've seen previews and read reviews of the film, and I'll address what I've seen:

First, he starts with the Florida recount mess. Does he mention that all but one recount conducted by the media came out in favor of Bush? Did he mention Gore's attempt to disenfranchise military absentee ballots?

He shows scenes of President Bush and his staff prepping for interviews and press conferences, trying to make them look vain. Does he mention that this is standard procedure for any president? Does he mntion that President Clinton spent more money on popularity polling in his two terms than all previous administrations combined?

He claims that Preseident Bush was in bed with the bin Ladens. Did he mention that President Clinton cordially recieved membners of the Taliban to the White House?

He claims that President Bush spent 47% of his pre-9/11 time on vacation. Did he mention that his statistic includes weekends? He shows a piece of footage with President Bush on his ranch, but cuts the film off just before Prime Minister Blair enters the frame.

He shows the infamous clip of President Bush golfing while discussing foreign policy. Does he show the clip of President Roosevelt doing the same thing? President Roosevelt became a media darling because of that clip.

He shows a clip of pre-war Iraq representing children happily flying kites. Yes, Iraq, not Disneyland, was the happiest place on Earth. Not once in the movie does he mention Saddam Hussein.

He staged the scene in F9/11 with the Marine recruiters. He staged several of the interviews with military personel. I only know for a fact that one of them was legitimate, because the soldier who gave an anti-Bush/anti-war opinion is under investigation for taking a political stance while in uniform. (Armed forces personel are not supposed to express any political opinion while in uniform; it's part of their code of conduct.)

On a side note, the bank scene in "Bowling" was staged.

To me, however, what spoke volumes was that Moore [i]didn't[/i] show the footage of the 9/11 attack. His claim? "The theater of the mind" creates a better image.

Bull *****. On 9/11, people were given the chance to choose whether they would like to die by smoke inhalation, burning, or plumetting hundreds of stories. Nothing I can image could compare with what actually happened, and Moore knows this. He didn't show the 9/11 footage because he didn't want to give any sort of legitamacy to the war in Afghanistan.

The abscence of the truth is a lie.

And, while I'm on the subject, I'd like to continue to rail against Moore. In his rascist, self-hating book "Stupid White Men", Moore tells his readers not to try improving your lot in life, because you simply can't. The system is stacked against you, and The Man will keep you down.

For this reason, and not his propoganda films, I call Moore un-American.

Immediatly after 9/11, Moore said that it was interesting to see america finally get a taste of the terror they spread all over the world. Moore has repeatedly told foreign audiences that the dumbest Frenchman German Britain Canadian etc was smarter than the smartest American. He told the Canadian conservative party not to adopt American-like policies, because "becoming more american is like pissing all over yourself." For this, I call Micheal Moore un-American.

Moore takes dishonest and unscrupulous tactics in his film-making. He entered members of his production team to cover the Iraq war under false pretenses, telling them to "catch the soldiers ******* up." He told the crew to keep quiet about connections to Moore, because as soon as they knew he was involve, "they'll know theyr'e ******."

Moore hired his crew to create a literal circus, complete with cheerleaders, at a man's execution in Texas. He harassed the family of the executed man's victem, and lied to the sheriff about his intentions.

Moore encouraged children to sneak into F9/11 with or without their parents.

[QUOTE=Tammy Bruce]Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Today, the system worked. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) upheld their ?R? rating for Michael Moore?s ?Fahrenheit 9/11,? a crass smear of this nation in general and President Bush specifically. The movie is scheduled for release in New York on Wednesday and nationwide on Friday.


MPAA ratings are determined by a panel of parents, who in the instance of ?Fahrenheit 9/11? found obscene language, piles of dead bodies, injured children and a beheading worthy of an ?R? rating. Frankly, it sounds to me like it deserves an X. An R at least means no one under 17 years of age will be allowed into the film without a parent or guardian.

This is what so enraged Moore and his comrades at Lions Gate Films, the distributor of the film.

Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate, argued that the rating should be reduced to PG-13 because 15- and 16-year-olds should be free to see the film on their own because they could end up in military service in Iraq in the next few years. ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040622/ap_en_mo/film_fahrenheit_9_11_rating_2[/url])

But he didn?t stop there. Here the obsession with getting to children becomes clear:

"I hope the R rating doesn't have a large impact on the box office," Ortenberg said. "I've spoken with many parents, including some on the appeals board, who absolutely said they are going to take their children to see the film. We'll just have to hope the teenagers we're encouraging to see this picture find their way in through parents or adult guardians."

While Ortenberg is being a bit subtle, his intent is clear. He makes this statement after declaring that 15- and 16- year olds should be able to see it, states they?re encouraging children to see it, and then adds, coyly, that kids should ?find their way in.?

Still not convinced? Take it from Michael Moore, who would not know subtlety even if it came on a plate, commenting on the R rating in the same report:

?Moore urged younger teenagers to go see the film anyway. "I encourage all teenagers to come see my movie, by any means necessary. If you need me to sneak you in, let me know," he said.?

I was fascinated at the frenzy of these men to have access to children. This is in part because Leftists know, in order to control the future, they must get to your child?s mind without your interference.

I sent this note to my personal e-mail list and heard immediately from David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and founder of Frontpagemagazine.com who, shed an even more frightening light on their agenda. David reminded me that a PG-13 rating also allows secondary school distribution for a film. Talk about unfettered access to a captive group of your children!

I?m sure they fantasized about thousands of DVDs being sent, at no cost of course, to high school history and civics teachers nationwide. This message would then have the legitimacy in your child?s eye of being presented in a school environment where they are to accept and ?learn? whatever is thrown their way.

The agenda of Michael Moore and Tom Ortenberg is obvious. They know adults will and do see this film as propaganda, and will dismiss it accordingly. Children, on the other hand, do not have the critical thinking skills required to understand when they?re being taken for a ride by an angry and miserable man. And children must see it without that pesky parent who might actually put things in context or even provide a running editorial with the material.

That, my dear friends, they cannot have.

I wrote a letter to Mr. Ortenberg calling his attention to the shocking nature of what he was suggesting. I wrote in part:


The rating is there so parents can determine what their children see. Your encouragement is essentially suggesting that strangers, like you and Mr. Moore, have the right to go to people's homes and encourage children to ignore their parents and disobey them. Who are you to suggest this?
You have every right to release the film. How dare you, though, suggest that parents have lost the right to raise their children based on their values? Considering your attitude, I would think you don't have children, but think about the repercussions if a stranger approached children important to you and told them to ignore your instructions? Or if strangers walked into your office and suggested your staff follow their orders and not yours?

I think that's something you wouldn't appreciate. Please consider retracting that comment, and encourage children to respect what an "R" rating is for (whether you like it or not) and that respecting their parents wishes is of paramount importance.

If you don't agree with those two principles, I think that, too, would be fascinating to Americans. Please do the right thing.

During my tenure on the Left as a leader in NOW, I recognized how, in our zeal to promote our agenda, we became indecent. Here, too, you see the results of Groupthink and Malignant Narcissism jammed together. Not only do these people believe they have sole possession of the truth, they are so convinced they also think they know what?s best for your children. Your concerns, your values, your rejection of the propaganda of that film, the maliciousness, and the hate, is of no concern to them. They know what?s best and they are determined to access your children one way or the other.

And all this for a film which has been, amazingly, endorsed by the terrorist group Hezbollah! Unbelievable? Not quite. Melanie Morgan, one of the nation?s more important radio talk show hosts, has established [url]www.moveamericaforward.org[/url], a site which shows how to fight anti-Americanism here at home and abroad. She has compiled one of the more complete information bases about Moore?s agenda and the nature of his demagogic film, including background on the Moore?s Hezbollah support. I urge you visit her site.

Here?s a newsflash to Ortenberg and Moore ? the American people may be silent a great deal of the time but they should not mistake that as us being empty vessels waiting to be told what to do by people of their ilk. We are tolerant, and care about freedom of expression, but that does not mean we will offer up our children to be guided by self-loathing malignant narcissists who, to say the least, do not have our, or anyone else?s best interest in mind.

It takes a lot for the American people to say enough is enough. Viacom and CBS provided one of those last straws with Janet Jackson and the Superbowl. Perhaps they should ask Mel Karmazin (who has since resigned from Viacom) what it?s like when we?ve had enough, what happens when the American people are underestimated by cultural gatekeepers who must think, well, we?re just a bunch of lemmings hoping for Michael Moore to lead us off his cliff.

Like the Super Bowl fiasco, Tom Ortenberg and his Lions Gate Films and Michael Moore should know we are awake, we are listening and we don?t like what we?re hearing. They can make and distribute whatever film they want, but going after children, and doing so blatantly and with complete disdain for parents in this nation, will wake up a giant they could never imagine. This is the least of the line we draw.[/QUOTE]

And, on a final note, Moore is being sued by Ray Bradbury for not asking permission before naming his film "Farenheitt 9/11".

Moore's response to Mr. Bradbury?

"Get in my belly!"

Because Micheal Moore, you see, is the original Fat Bastard.[/color][/size][/font]

[KarmaOfChaos]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink] Everything I have to say, DeathBug has already said. * salutes him * Michael Moore is an self-serving idiot who simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I can't believe he used the title to one of my favorite books for his movie. Farenheit 451 is about the government hiding information by giving them false knowledge instead. His movie is basically just a bunch of twisted lies and made up facts to make the government look bad.

So basically, he's doing the same exact thing he's trying to implicate the government of doing. Giving out biased, false knowledge to change a point of view.

-Karma[/color][/SIZE]

[Ayokano]

[size=1]I haven't seen the movie either, and won't, but I have to say something about the whole "The Bin Laden and other families with ties with terrorist put money into the Bush family's business."

I asked my father if it was true after I whatched him on the Daily Show(that's how I get my news X_X) and he said he didn't know. But my father also said that those families are large, and he said if my cousin did something wrong, does that make me guilty of it. No. So just because Osama is a terrorist, doesn't make his whole family one.

So that's what I have to say. The movie doesn't seem anything other than anti-Bush. Moore doesn't seem to add different views and opinions in the film from what I have seen also. Just his.[/size]

[Syk3]

Yikes, these posts really seem to leave me by myself in this thread. X.x

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Regarding Farenheit 9/11...I read your spoilers, Syk3 and I can tell you right now, I can sit here and pick a million holes in those points. Why? Not because they're outright wrong (in some cases), but because they only show one side of the truth -- the side that Moore is aligned to. Unfortunately, if one were to consider much of this "evidence" as cold-hard fact...one would only be getting a very limited view of the complexities of the world.[/color][/quote]Well, as you know, the only "evidence" that I'm getting is from the film. If I can't consider that "evidence" as fact even when keeping in mind that this is one side of an issue that Moore feels strongly about, then where do the lies end and the truth begin? And in those certain cases of the points being outright wrong, how would Moore get away with presenting something that's outright wrong? O_o I suppose that you'd categorize this movie under "don't believe everything you hear", and that it's only showing only one side of an argument to get a man's point across, but you have to admit that even some of the "evidence" that he provides is irrefutable, such as how we never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and how only one person in congress had a kid in Iraq.

DeathBug, I can see that you feel very strongly about this issue, but I have a few things to nitpick. :o *looks down* Well.. maybe more than a few. <.<;

[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms']No one could go to war for oil in Afghanistan because there is no oil in Afghanistan.[/quote][/font][/size][/color]
[size=2]He never said in the movie that we went to war with Afghanistan because of oil, or that we didn't go to war with Afghanistan for oil. o.o In fact, you're only adding to Moore's point about Bush going to war in [i]Iraq[/i] largely because of oil.[/size]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms][QUOTE][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]He could make an honest film, but that would involve either presenting both sides of an issue, or not streatching and inflating his own information. He can't do that, though, because then there might be a chance his audience would reach a different opinion than him.[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE][/font][/size][/color][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms][font=Tahoma][size=2][color=#000000]lol, the entire point of the movie was to present Moore's opinion, not to present both sides of an issue so that you can come to your own conclusion. If you want to do that, research elsewhere.[/color][/size][/font][/font][/size][/color]
[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms][font=Tahoma][size=2][color=#000000][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Comic Sans MS][size=1][QUOTE][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]He shows scenes of President Bush and his staff prepping for interviews and press conferences, trying to make them look vain. Does he mention that this is standard procedure for any president? Does he mntion that President Clinton spent more money on popularity polling in his two terms than all previous administrations combined?[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE][/size][/font][size=2][color=black]I only assumed that it was standard precedure. The entire clip of them prepping up was when it showed the title and the credits at the beginning of the movie, as if they were getting ready for filming. I thought it was kind of funny, actually, lol.[/color] [/size]

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=1][QUOTE][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]He claims that President Bush spent 47% of his pre-9/11 time on vacation. Did he mention that his statistic includes weekends?[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE][/size][/font][color=black][size=2]Because as everyone knows, presidents have weekends off. :p[/size][/color]

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=1][QUOTE][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]He shows the infamous clip of President Bush golfing while discussing foreign policy. Does he show the clip of President Roosevelt doing the same thing? President Roosevelt became a media darling because of that clip.[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE][/size][/font][size=2][color=black]Well Moore never said that Roosevelt [i]didn't[/i] do the same thing. Why complain about Roosevelt? He's cracking down on the person in power now, which would be Bush.[/color][/size]

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=1][QUOTE][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]He shows a clip of pre-war Iraq representing children happily flying kites. Yes, Iraq, not Disneyland, was the happiest place on Earth. Not once in the movie does he mention Saddam Hussein.[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE][/size][/font][color=black][size=2]Haha, while I do agree that it was kind of rediculous that he was showing Iraq so happy, having seen the movie I can assure you that they mention Saddam Hussein.[/size][/color]

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=1][QUOTE][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]To me, however, what spoke volumes was that Moore [i]didn't[/i] show the footage of the 9/11 attack. His claim? "The theater of the mind" creates a better image.

Bull *****. On 9/11, people were given the chance to choose whether they would like to die by smoke inhalation, burning, or plumetting hundreds of stories. Nothing I can image could compare with what actually happened, and Moore knows this. He didn't show the 9/11 footage because he didn't want to give any sort of legitamacy to the war in Afghanistan.[/font][/size][/color][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]
[/size][/font][size=2][color=black]He didn't want to give legitamacy to the war in Afghanistan? O.o If anything, his goal was to try to show 9/11 as being extremely horrifying, and then saying that Bush's retaliation was slow and miniscule in Afghanistan. This is the reason why he concentrated so heavily in the Iraq war - as if to say, "hey, why Iraq and not Afghanistan?"[/color][/size]

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=1][QUOTE][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Immediatly after 9/11, Moore said that it was interesting to see america finally get a taste of the terror they spread all over the world. Moore has repeatedly told foreign audiences that the dumbest Frenchman German Britain Canadian etc was smarter than the smartest American. He told the Canadian conservative party not to adopt American-like policies, because "becoming more american is like pissing all over yourself." For this, I call Micheal Moore un-American.[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE][/size][/font][color=black][size=2]He really said that stuff? o.o Geeze, that sucks. In his films he tries to portray himself as extremely American, by saying stuff like, "you can't be more American than by questioning those in power." But if he was saying stuff like that, either he likes to joke around and make fun of himself, or he needs to gyeeet out. :p[/size][/color]

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=1][QUOTE][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Moore hired his crew to create a literal circus, complete with cheerleaders, at a man's execution in Texas. He harassed the family of the executed man's victem, and lied to the sheriff about his intentions.[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE][/size][/font][color=black][size=2]o_o Who was it and why was he being executed? Talk about not getting the whole story! >:[ lol, jk[/size][/color]


[size=2][color=#000000]In conclusion, you should all keep in mind that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a movie presenting one man's opinion on Bush and the political issues surrounding him. Let the opposition respond with a documentary of their own.[/color][/size]
[/font][/size][/color]

[Brasil]

[size=2][quote name='Syk3][color=indigo][color=#000000']In conclusion, you should all keep in mind that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a movie presenting one man's opinion on Bush and the political issues surrounding him.[/quote][/color][/color][/size]

[size=2]Syk, you should keep in mind that Michael Moore doesn't know the meaning of the word, "opinion." He is, in the most extreme sense of the phrase, blinded by his own arrogance and sense of self-worth. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a movie presenting an opinion. F/911 is just another outlet for Moore to express his radicalist Left Wing conspiracy theory nonsense that he presents as total fact.[/size]
[color=indigo][size=2][color=#000000][/color][/size][/color]
[size=2][color=indigo][color=#000000][quote]Let the opposition respond with a documentary of their own.[/quote][/color][/color][/size]
[size=2]I've heard this phrase a few times, on various news stations now, and it still irks me to no end.[/size]

[size=2]If the opposition made a documentary of their own, what effect would it have? Moore would still live in his own little world of "The Man" holding him down, and still come out with controversial material that is a flagrant insult to intelligent cinema.[/size]

[size=2]Quite honestly, Moore needs to shut his trap, or if he's so concerned with the Iraqi people, Afghans, whatever, then he should go over there and give them a hand.[/size]

[size=2]I've never seen Bowling for Columbine, and I probably never will, but I know what Moore is about, and it's hilarious when I think about it, because he thinks of himself as some renegade filmmaker, exposing lies and doing something wholly original...but we still get the entire plot, slant, and theme in his previews, which is exactly what happens everywhere else in Hollywood.[/size]

[size=2]I don't mean to turn this into a Moore-rip, but the guy's a long-winded, pompous fat-***. I respect you, Syk, but don't fall into the fat-***'s crack.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]EDIT: Oh, by the way, just to clear things up, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, so party allegiances are not a factor for me in my criticism of Moore.[/size]

[xmystic_silverx]

[color=teal]It's interesting what everyone is posting. Some are with Moore and others are against him.

At first I was with him, but after reading DeathBug's comment on him, I must say that I have a different point of view of this man. I also read the spoiler and I could pick out many things that were left out and that Moore was hinding a lot more than we thought.

I really don't understand what Moore is trying to prove. He wants us to think that Bush was a poor selection as president, then if he wants us to believe [I]him[/I] then why is he rubbing dirt in our faces at the same time? Saying that Americans are stupid people?

I really am confused. ~.~ Why would he do that, I really don't understand the man's way of thinking. Does he not know that he is "dissing" himself? If he thinks that America is such a bad country, then why does he stay in the one place he despises most?

It makes me mad just thinking about it.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='xmystic_silverx][color=teal']If he thinks that America is such a bad country, then why does he stay in the one place he despises most?[/color][/quote]
[color=black]Because he knows that he would be shot and/or killed if he went anywhere else. America is the only place he can get a platform, because we're (check this out) [i]a free country[/i], something Moore denies.[/color]

The man is a walking contradiction, and a fat one, at that.

[MoRbIdYuLiA]

I think this movie "Farenheit 9/11 has a right to go on without controversy. People need to see how "our" president really is. It's not right to let all innocent lives suffer and families in apprehension as their loved ones are lost day by day while he sits in his House unhurt. I suggest many of you see it because it brings out the wrong in him and I am saying this because I have a brother in the military and might be sent off to Iraq even though they dont need anymore soldiers over there than they have now. I dont think U.S. has any business there anymore. They captured Saddam so why are they still there??!! I think Bush is making an excuse of being there just because he loves the idea of blood,war, and death. Of course this is only my opinion...but I am an Amerikan right?In the end opions dont matter....but WE do have a right to speak our minds despite everything. It's hard enough just trying to make it here being a Russian that I am...but heh I survived. #^_^#


-yulia

[Dagger]

I'm going to see this movie on Friday. I've been in the mood for a comedy lately, and I figure at least some parts of the film will seem mildly amusing. While I don't take Michael Moore much more seriously than people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh (both of whom are, in my opinion, certifiably insane), it's fun to find out what the most extreme factions of one's political party can come up with.

I'm not nearly as liberal as Moore, but it's safe to say I lean further left than almost everyone who's posted in this thread. I just think it's bizarre that some of you are taking Fahrenheit 9/11 so personally--if you truly believe Moore is the Jerry Falwell of the Democratic Party, then there's no reason to be insulted or enraged by his work. If you feel that he's a joke, treat him as one rather than ranting on and on about the movie... taking it seriously will only put you in a bad mood. I may harbor a secret hatred for the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh; however, hearing his radio show simply makes me crack up. It's hilarious, albeit unintentionally so.

In other words, most radicals don't deserve the energy it takes to provide a full rebuttal of their views. Your efforts might be better aimed at the people (whether Democratic, Republican or Ralph Nader) who actually have an effect on America's policies.

~Dagger~

[Onix]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][SIZE=1]Before I begin my rant, I shall say simply that I hate Bush yet I am neither Democrat nor Liberal. I am me, and that is that.

I am going to see Farenheit 9/11. I saw Bowling, and I thought it was pretty damn good film-making. Michael Moore is not the greatest human being walking the Earth, I'll admit, but I agree with him.

I've grown up in a household of cynicism and opinions. I have developed opinions of almost everything. And Michael Moor just happens to share some of my opinions.

So I should like him, right? No. I like his ideas, his opinions, and his movies. I may not like him as a person, though. I am [I]inclined[/I] to like him, just like I'm inclined to hate some members of this board or like some members of this board, but until I meet him I won't know.

So if you hate his tactics, you don't necessarily hate him. If you don't like his opinions, you still don't necessarily hate him. You hate the Michael Moore shown to the public, not necessarily the real man.

I take pride in America's freedoms. I like how people are allowed to have their own opinions. However, we need to realized that everyone has that right. Michael Moore is entitled to his opinions just like you are. So before you call him un-American, stop and think about what you are saying.

I hate George Bush. I do not hate America. I hate our government, and our current leader. I hate what he's doing, I hate the majority of what he stands for and what he's done. But I love my country. I love what it stands for.

America is a country for the people. America is not its leader, it is its people. Remember that, before you call someone un-American or anti-American, or American hating. Michael Moore needs to know that as well. He needs to realize that America doesn't suck, its current President does.

I may not like everything about Michael Moore, but I like enough about him to watch his movies and shut my trap until I meet him in person. I'm entitled to my opinion, and he's entitled to his. And your entitled to yours.

And if you don't like that, buy a small island in the South Pacific and make everyone follow you.

-ULX[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Brasil]

While the above points weren't directed at anyone in particular, I've got the urge to address them.

Dagger, I do consider Moore to be a joke. I think he is a mockery of what politics has become. Because of people like Moore (and Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, etc), our nation's politics have become a certifiable circus. Don't think I only criticize Moore or Left Wingers of his ilk. I'm tired of both sides.

ULX, there is a very important distinction here in what Moore does compared to others voicing their concern. If you want to see [i]good[/i] criticism of America, check out The Daily Show, lol. It may only be a Comedy Central program, but it's a far better news show than the majority of what you'd find on MSNBC or FoxNews, simply because it's not full of itself and is able to poke fun at everyone.

Moore, on the other hand, contrary to Jon Stewart, does not say something like, "You know, this might hurt us a bit. We should reconsider." Nowhere does he ever use any common sense in his vocalizations. He is more interested in flying off the handle, stirring up controversy, than actually doing something positive about a situation.

Look at it this way. You see a fire hazard in your school. Say, an electrical cord is about to fall. Do you scream about it? Do you scream "FIRE!!!" then attack the school admins?

You know what, I think that's a very apt description of Moore: just a little kid screaming "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

[quote]Later posted by CHW
[color=#9400d3]In conclusion, go ahead and see the movie if you really need something to do over the summer. But remember that any type of extremism is a bad thing[/color][color=black].[/quote][/color]
[color=#9400d3][/color]
[color=black]That is, of course, if the person isn't excited about The Bourne Supremacy. ^_^[/color]

[Harry]

[QUOTE=MoRbIdYuLiA]I think this movie "Farenheit 9/11 has a right to go on without controversy.

-yulia[/QUOTE]
He lives for controversy.

[Ayokano]

[QUOTE=MoRbIdYuLiA]I think this movie "Farenheit 9/11 has a right to go on without controversy. People need to see how "our" president really is. It's not right to let all innocent lives suffer and families in apprehension as their loved ones are lost day by day while he sits in his House unhurt. I suggest many of you see it because it brings out the wrong in him and I am saying this because I have a brother in the military and might be sent off to Iraq even though they dont need anymore soldiers over there than they have now. I dont think U.S. has any business there anymore. They captured Saddam so why are they still there??!! I think Bush is making an excuse of being there just because he loves the idea of blood,war, and death. Of course this is only my opinion...but I am an Amerikan right?In the end opions dont matter....but WE do have a right to speak our minds despite everything. It's hard enough just trying to make it here being a Russian that I am...but heh I survived. #^_^#


-yulia[/QUOTE]

Why should Bush go and fight the war when he isn't in the military? You know, he already has the whole president thing going on. Also, your brother must have signed up for the military, unless we had a draft(which I don't think we have), and should be willing to serve the country he lives in, because that seems what the U.S's army is about.

And we [b]do[/b] need soldiers over there. Iraq didn't have a leader after we took Sadam out of power. And when we trasfered power to the people of Iraq, we aren't going to pull out as fast as we can. It takes time to get a army out of a country.

If Bush is a nut case, and loves death and blood, and this war was started because he loves it so much, I am sure the war would be over and Bush would be out of office. Yes you do have the right to speak your mind, but Moore's film is full of lies and extremly radical ideas. He is the true nut case.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I won't go see Farenheit 9/11 out of moral issues. Like Deathbug, I can't find a logical reason to give Moore more money so he can go and make some more assinine movies while going to foreign countries and talking about how much he hates America. He seems to like it enough to live in an apartment on Park Avenue. Maybe even though the German people are willing to listen to him spew Anti-American sentiment they're not ready to deal with him as a citizen as of yet.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but Moore goes a bit too far. I'm liberal as well (no chosen party, I find I'd rather find the best person for the job rather than stick with a party) but Moore goes so far off the left wing deep end it won't be long until someone has to throw him a floatation device. That is, if his head doesn't allow him to float without one by then.

As for the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, here's my opinion. We went to war with Afghanistan because that's where the terrorists who hijacked the planes almost 3 years ago originated from. The united states and the service men and women had a clear idea of why they were over in Afghanistan. We weren't lied to for our reasons fighting in Afghanistan.

Iraq is a completely different story. As far as I can tell the only reason we're in Iraq is because George W. BUsh felt that his father was threatened back in '91 and couldn't let well enough alone even though back in '98 George H. W. Bush made a statement about hwo going to war with Iraq now or in the future would be ill advised. We sure as hell aren't over in Iraq for the oil. Don't you think that if Iraq had a large oil supply they would have bothered invading Kuwwait (okay, maybe they would have, but I can't really think of anything else). Or maybe GWB just decided to impose his views on the entire world.

Because of this over 800 men and women have died since last March for reasons unknown. Sunday a guy in my husband's unit got hit in the face with an RPG, a Marine was lured from his base and taken el knows where and then there's the case with the PVT (no clue if he was just a PVT or PFC) who may have been beheaded two weeks ago. And for what?

In conclusion, go ahead and see the movie if you really need something to do over the summer. But remember that any type of extremism is a bad thing.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='BlueYoshi][color=teal']Do you guys really think it deserved that award it won recently? Apparently, there's an argument against it saying that it was the political content of Fahrenheit 9/11 that attracted the judges to pick it and was nothing to do with the actual directional talent involved at all.[/color][/quote]
This is a good point here. Apart from the heavy-handed political slant, Moore's films are not all that different from other [i]entertainers[/i] out there today. Hell, based on what I've seen, Moore's stuff is child's play compared to Christopher Guest's films (A Mighty Wind, Waiting For Guffman, Best In Show) and Rob Reiner's This Is Spinal Tap.

Guest and Reiner are far more skilled with the documentary format, even going so far as to create mockumentaries and rockumentaries (Spinal Tap) that have been done so well and been so [i]unassuming[/i] that people took them seriously and believed Spinal Tap to be a truly real band.

Moore, in my opinion, is just a wacko with money to burn and an overactive desire to be in the spotlight. "Shame on you, Mr. Bush"? Give me a break, lol.

[MoRbIdYuLiA]

[QUOTE=Ayokano]Why should Bush go and fight the war when he isn't in the military? You know, he already has the whole president thing going on. Also, your brother must have signed up for the military, unless we had a draft(which I don't think we have), and should be willing to serve the country he lives in, because that seems what the U.S's army is about.

And we [b]do[/b] need soldiers over there. Iraq didn't have a leader after we took Sadam out of power. And when we trasfered power to the people of Iraq, we aren't going to pull out as fast as we can. It takes time to get a army out of a country.

If Bush is a nut case, and loves death and blood, and this war was started because he loves it so much, I am sure the war would be over and Bush would be out of office. Yes you do have the right to speak your mind, but Moore's film is full of lies and extremly radical ideas. He is the true nut case.[/QUOTE]


[FONT=Comic Sans MS]It doesnt matter if he is in the military or not the fact of the matter is he says ""we are gonna get em" WE? He isnt doing nothing but giving directions when all the Iraqians want him to do is get the soldiers out because they feel U.S. is interfering with their country and beliefs. Besides, they already have their own power now, their own Government why should they still remain over there when there is nothing to do?Not techniquely, alot of people are STILL voting for Bush. Carrie is winning by a couple of more percent. Moore is just trying to expose Bush because he doesnt want him in office anymore. Alot of people dont want him in office anymore including celebrities. When this war first began, people thought that what he was doing was right which he was doing something right by trying to capture Saddam. Now they have captured Saddam and they are still there and many people all the soldiers are dying for nothing when they have no use for them over there anymore. And yes, my brother signed up for the military to show his grattitude for this country but he did not wish to get sent to Iraq. He was about to get out less than a couple of months and finally be with us once again. But they chose for him to go and "serve his country" when he doesnt believe in this war anymore. I believe Bush is the real nut case. No doubt about it.[/FONT]


-yulia

[Decadence]

[color=silver] As I have not yet had a chance to see his film i can't say any thign about it.
But on the point about us needing or not needing soldiers over there right now, I think we do, untill and only untill Iraq has a stable government. Also I do not agree with the war, and i have been saying that sense before it started, yes I know Saddam needed to be taken out of power, but it could have been based on that and that alone, Saddam useing chemical wepons on his own people I think is enough to justify removing him from power. While a do think he is a blood-thirsty nut case who shouldn't have trusted with Texas let alone America, he was none the less elected (Regretably). And while, as i said, do not agree with the war, I beleave we do need to stay in there untill Iraq can support it self, and we need to fund it for the first few years.
___

Sorry if that seemed confusing,Ii just wanted to state that before i had to go.[/color]

[anime-nikki]

i'm starting to think that thi movie is just trying to change the voter's choice, i'm not seeing this movie for many reason, it's painful to me to remeber what happened that day on 9/11.