Has anyone seen Fahrenheit 9/11??? Options

[SexiSurfette]

It is propaganda. It was on the news the other day. They said the fact that it's even being called a documentary is very misleading to audiences. Michael Moore did not show the full truth or even a balanced view of what really happened. Look, this first quote is from a Christian news site while the other is from a secular news site. Moore uses incorrect information to present a skewed view to the masses in hopes of swaying the public for his personal motives.

"There is very little here that anyone who has followed the politics of the past four years would consider new or revealing; for the most part, Moore's film is a merry, occasionally sentimental summary of every anti-Bush opinion column ever written.
Moore is much less interested in plumbing the ambiguities and ironies of American political life than in doing whatever it takes to manipulate his audience's sympathies.

The most striking thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is not what Moore puts into the film, but what he leaves out.

The problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 is not that it is one-sided, per se; it is that Moore barely acknowledges there even is another side. The problem is not that he fails to give the other side equal time or equal validity; it is that he shows virtually no interest in what that other side might be, and in how he might best deal with it. Inevitably, this weakens Moore's own arguments—or it would, if he was all that concerned about making any. Moore's appeal is more emotional and visceral than intellectual; in his own way, Moore is a fearmonger, and preying on the ignorance of his audience just as he accuses Bush of doing" - Peter T. Chattaway (Christian Movies Today)

"The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque."

- Roger Ebert (Chicago Suntimes)

[SexiSurfette]

Chill out sweetie, maybe you shouldn't have watched it if you are FOR bush. He won't change the minds of hardcore pro Bush voters, so seriously chill out. Also, Bush lying to the country, sending us into war, sending young boys to die for his warped views, and getting us into debt... those are by faaar more atrocities than one guys making a movie based on his views. And how can the movie be made for PERSONAL gain? He isn't running against Bush in the next election. Believe it or not, there is some truth to what he says. Maybe you should write a letter to Michael Moore telling him why that movie was bad. Otherwise don't bitch about a movie you don't like.

Hey no need to get hostile "sweetie." I have the right to speak my opinion whether you think it's "bitching" is besides the point. Bush isn't "sending boys to die." He is calling in the promise that was made by those who joined the army. It is their responsibility to protect their country from threats. Why join the army if you aren’t willing to do what being in the army entails??? Bush doesn’t want this for the American people. What purpose would it serve him? Quit putting the blame of all of Americas problems on Bush's shoulders. The problem of the national debt was here way before Bush was. It had been steadily rising since 1957:

The only way to stop the debt would be to rise taxes drastically & change the way Americans live. It would take hundreds of years.
Also the issue of the war in Iraq... Saddam Hussein’s involvement w/ Bin Laden is nonexistent b/c of their religious differences, however, Saddam Hussein’s involvement w/ terrorists is a FACT. He hired terrorists to kill many American political VIPs including Bush senior when he was in office. Luckily, our intelligence discovered the plan & got the United Nations to put a strong hold on Saddam.
Although this strong hold may have dulled Saddam's threat to our nation, he will still hurt us the minute he gets a chance. He is like a time bomb. Why should we have waited until he really did some damage? Also the United Nations may have had Saddam HIMSELF under control but he still had radical followers willing to do anything for him.
And did you reeeally ask HOW this is personal gain for Moore??? HOW IS IT NOT? He is trying to rally voters (based on partly true manipulative propaganda) to have the same political opinion as him to sway the election, thus, supporting his political cause. Moore knows what he's doing and I don’t feel its necessary to waste my time writing to him to tell him. I'd rather speak to people that are uninformed to tell them the truth.