Home | Forums | What's new | Resources | |
Fahrenheit 9/11 |
it290 - Jun 29, 2004 |
1 | 2 | 3 | ... | 12 | Next> |
racketboy | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
My opinion: Michael Moore is an idiot. I'll leave it at that. But I have heard (even from liberal media outlets) that this movies was deceiving and full of crap. |
it290 | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
Hmm, okay. But honestly, I think you might get a kick out of it even if you're a Bush supporter. |
Quadriflax | Jun 29, 2004 | ||||
You and everyone left voting for Bush in November. :flamethrower: |
crystalmethod | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
Well, I saw this movie, and I've never had to wait in line to get into a theatre before as I have for this one. As a political science student, Moore intrigue's me, as does the whole situation you Americans have on your hands. Although I am not a fan of Moore, I watched Bowling for Columbine and must say was much more impressed with that movie than this one. It just seemed to be more polished and entertaining. This movie did not startle me as anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past 3 years would have had at least some exposure to some of the claims and conspiracy theory-esque content of the movie. With that said, the movie did nothing but reintroduce tried and true attacks onto Bush. Albeit in a mildly entertaining manner. Oh well, I"m sure the masses loved it because they felt as if they've unearthed some huge conspiracy. |
Caelestis | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
If I took things out of context too, I bet I could make a 2-3 hour documentary about how my friend Jim thinks potatoes are the same thing as onions. In other words, Moore is a skilled editor with a political agenda, but that doesn't make the movie worth bollocks. |
it290 | Jun 29, 2004 | ||||
Well, nonetheless, the movie has gotten favorable reviews all over the place; it's highly accurate if sometimes misleading, but you can't knock it for its entertainment value (which is high).
Yes, of course he has a political agenda. Does that make it a bad film? No. Have you seen it? Because if you haven't, your opinions about taking things out of context aren't worth bollocks either. |
Caelestis | Jun 29, 2004 | ||||
If the political agenda is aimed at putting the democrats in power, I can safely say that it's a bad movie, entertainment value or no. |
it290 | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
Wow, I marvel at your open-mindedness. BTW, the film is rather harsh on the Democrats as well, particularly Tom Daschle. But you're right. I've gone so far as to read Ann Coulter books.... now THAT's entertainment value. |
Runik | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
This movie won the "Palme d'Or" in Cannes film festival last month ... |
Caelestis | Jun 29, 2004 | ||||
You should try Al Franken. It seems he thinks he's still writing for SNL. Truth be damned, he's gonna be funny. |
it290 | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
Yup, I'm not a huge fan of Moore, and I'm certainly not a huge fan of Franken. Regardless of that, however, it's safe to say that Moore's movie is more accurate and more truthful than a great number of statements that have been made by the President and his cabinet over the past two and a half years. |
Sundance_2 | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
Moore's movie has an obvious slant (and an adjenda), but he seems to have taken a comical approach and makes no excuses about the what the purpose of the movie is (unlike certain nationally syndicated radio hosts and authors). Some people will hate it, and they'll hate it because Moore shares the same hatred for republicans as republicans do for him (regardless of the focus of the movie). You see this is evident when your average conservative 'net reviewer rips apart "Roger and Me" which whether you agree with him or not on current issues, it a very poignant, funny and excellent film (Still probably the highlight of his career, for better or worse). I haven't seen the film itself (and probably won't unless it pops up on TV) so I won't comment on it. After all, it's just a film and isn't going to send shockwaves through me or what my political beliefs are. |
ExCyber | Jun 29, 2004 | ||||||||||
I'd like to see it (though probably not in the theater) just out of curiosity about how Moore presents it. Everything I've read about the movie says that it's factually very solid for the amount of spin that's in it - about the only thing I've seen resembling a solid claim of deception is that Moore pulls a Bush/Fleischer/McClellan and weasel-words/edits a sequence to make people think that a group of rich Saudi nationals was allowed to fly out of the country when airspace was closed. I have yet to hear of another claim that sounds remotely credible (i.e. a claim by someone who saw them movie and was clearly paying attention). This isn't surprising, since the movie is said to rely predominantly on stuff that's been in the news for ages. By all accounts I've read, anyone who follows media with an actual liberal/Democrat bias (IMO most media in this country is more centrist than liberal, but to today's Republicans centrism apparently looks like radicalism) has heard this stuff a hundred times already.
I've never heard of Franken being discredited on facts (I have heard him called an unfunny idiot, but so long as liberals reserve the right to say the same of e.g. Dennis Miller* I don't think there's any real harm there). Care to point out some examples? I do like to know when I'm being lied to.
Ann Coulter is so ridiculous that I think she's faking it. She's like a caricature of the stereotypical "right-wing bigot". I mean, come on:
And this is me wondering who pays her to write this stuff. *: I haven't seen any of Miller's recent material, so I can't comment on it. I'm not a politically-motivated humor bigot - I find Colin Quinn funny, for instance. But lately I hear a lot of Miller-bashing, so I figured it was an appropriate example. |
Caelestis | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoul...c2001... I'm not debating how ridiculous Coulter can be. While the circumstances and opinions she presents are usually valid, I honestly can't be sure if she wants to attack France or not... that in itself is enough to scare me away from using her as a tool in my debates. As far as the general bias of the media, something like 25% of the newscasters consider themselves conservative and 39% liberal, with the rest declaring 'independant' status. I can't remember the exact numbers, but liberals certainly lead. Ironically, the much-maligned Drudge Report was just ranked as one of the most central news outlets. I imagine if you're actually talking about politics, you know about the Drudge Report... or else you probably have no business even voting (hey, I still believe people should have to take tests to be allowed to vote). Anyways, back to Franken. His facts typically aren't disputed (though the validity of the sources sometimes are). The problem lies with the 'conversations' he likes to quote in his book. A lot of people have claimed he faked interviews with them. While it's certainly possible a few of them are lying, or just don't remember it correctly, I'm inclined to not believe him so much when so many people have problems with his interpretations of events. |
ExCyber | Jun 29, 2004 | ||||
I've read very little of Franken's writings, but it sounds like he's doing spoof interviews... |
it290 | Jun 29, 2004 | |||
It really depends on what you consider to be liberal. I agree with ExCyber that the majority are certainly fairly centrist for the most part. Many people consider the New York Times to be a fairly liberal institution, yet they also showed a lot of support for the war in general. Most of the so called 'liberals' in this country have really tended towards the center a lot in the past several decades, and certainly would not be considered very far to the left in most parts of the Western world. Personally, I feel that it's time to throw out this political tactic, as it has probably cost the Democrats more than a few elections. As for Coulter, I kind of agree with you... it almost seems like she takes things a little TOO far. She has also been known to make herself look ridiculous. But hey, Rush does the same. Obviously, those tactics are good for business and publicity. |
mtxblau | Jun 30, 2004 | |||
NYC isn't Gotham. Yes, it's completely unrelated, but it bugs me. I don't particularly like Michael Moore. But nothing in that movie is new news. And it certainly wouldn't have been as popular had the right wing shut their traps and let it go as is. They gave it much more publicity than warranted. However, I think this movie was very important in the grand scheme of things - the voting populace has been particularly apathetic about government and policies. Moore's movie will at the very least get people thinking about politics again, and god forbid they might see the movie and start questioning or validating their beliefs. People might even vote! I'm an unabashed liberal, but I must say that I would prefer that a person vote Republican than not vote at all. Ann Coulter is a loon. What really irks me about her is her supercilious manner. She's always haughty when doing interviews, as if the questions being posed to her are ridiculous, and anything that challenges them are ludicrous. And the best part is, she never really answers any questions! Her books are just cliches strung together. Yet she's gotten popular in that regard. (How? Why?) I guess it's true what they say about blondes... I thought the same about Rush Limbaugh (land votes??) but it turns out he was/is a raging drug addict, and it finally all makes sense. Dennis Miller is unfunny. That is, at first blush you would think that what he said was funny, and technically, should be funny - but it isn't. The more you wonder, the more you try to figure out how he got a job in the first place. |
1 | 2 | 3 | ... | 12 | Next> |