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)

[hybrid]

Not I. er... I'm not really into documentaries.

[*tweeak*]

i havent seen it, but i read about it in the paper and they had anohter word for it, rather than documentary, but i cant recall what that was

[StarryEyedSurpri...]

nope i havent seen it...

[T00000]

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.

[xHalf nHalf]

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.

of course Bush is guna retaliate to terrorist attcks. do you expect us just to sit back and relax like sitting ducks waiting for more of our own innocent people to be killed? and as for sending young boys to die..Buch didnt force them to go fight. i mean, there wasnt a draft. those people went on their own free will, for the same reason Bush got us into the war, and thats to defend our country. and just because Moore isnt running against Buch in the election doesnt mean he didnt put that movie out for personal motives. For all we know he could simply want to make Bush look like a jackass just because he agrees with nothing Buch says or does. And frankly, she can bitch about whatever she wants. who are you to tell her what she can or cant talk about just because you dont agree? cause we all know about our right to free speech.

[JlIaTMK]

theres already a topic on this....

im sorry but if its his opinion, then hes not going to care to put in anything about the other side.... think about it.... if its ur movie.... and ur really against something, then y would u want to include that opinion....

THANK U TBOLTZ....

an xhalf.... if we all have the right to speech than y is it taken away from us so often.... and if we have the right to the different amendments then y r those taken away from us so often too?!?!.... if Micheal Moore has his right to speech then y r some ppl bitching about it?

[xHalf nHalf]

an xhalf.... if we all have the right to speech than y is it taken away from us so often.... and if we have the right to the different amendments then y r those taken away from us so often too?!?!.... if Micheal Moore has his right to speech then y r some ppl bitching about it?

im not too sure when our freedom to speech is taken away..and ppl are bitching about his movie because just like him they have their own opinions and they have the right to, haha. ppl that dont agree arent trying to take away his right to speech, theyre just giving their own input...

[T00000]

of course Bush is guna retaliate to terrorist attcks. do you expect us just to sit back and relax like sitting ducks waiting for more of our own innocent people to be killed? and as for sending young boys to die..Buch didnt force them to go fight. i mean, there wasnt a draft. those people went on their own free will, for the same reason Bush got us into the war, and thats to defend our country. and just because Moore isnt running against Buch in the election doesnt mean he didnt put that movie out for personal motives. For all we know he could simply want to make Bush look like a jackass just because he agrees with nothing Buch says or does. And frankly, she can bitch about whatever she wants. who are you to tell her what she can or cant talk about just because you dont agree? cause we all know about our right to free speech.

iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. and more people are being killed in iraq than if they werent there in the first place.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

Wait, Bush lied to the country? I wasn't aware of that. And he is gaining from this, publicity, as well as money.

[xHalf nHalf]

iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. and more people are being killed in iraq than if they werent there in the first place.

oh yeah thats right, good point...iraq was the country with the threat of nuclear weapons and again, its not Bush's fault people choose to fight and then are killed. he isnt forcing anybody to join against their own will

[rnrn897]

yea it was over-exaggerated.. and a whole mess of it is made up
but hes a bush hater along wit many other people out there ._.

[T00000]

oh yeah thats right, good point...iraq was the country with the threat of nuclear weapons and again, its not Bush's fault people choose to fight and then are killed. he isnt forcing anybody to join against their own will

maybe we should go to war with north korea, because they have a threat of nuclear weapons. oh wait, they actually have weapons, so let's rethink that

[xHalf nHalf]

that wouldnt be very smart..N Korea has one of the most superior military. just look at the border of the North and the South, its the most heavily militarized/gaurded areas in the world. And anyways, Kim Jong-il wouldnt be as half as easy to terminate as Saddam was..

[Mini]

Kim Jong-il needs to die. i havent seen the movie but im not really against bush going to war, but for some reason i just hate that man.

[xHalf nHalf]

Kim Jong-il needs to die.

lol, i strongly agree

[*kryogenix*]

maybe we should go to war with north korea, because they have a threat of nuclear weapons. oh wait, they actually have weapons, so let's rethink that

no. we can still discuss peace with them. unlike iraq, who contiually tries to deceive the rest of the world.

lol, i strongly agree

I agree too. he's just so..so...there are no words to explain!

[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.

[T00000]

that wouldnt be very smart..N Korea has one of the most superior military. just look at the border of the North and the South, its the most heavily militarized/gaurded areas in the world. And anyways, Kim Jong-il wouldnt be as half as easy to terminate as Saddam was..

Doesn't that make them a greater threat...?

"Sexi" Surfette, you can't justify that the debt has been steadily rising. When Clinton left the office, we were, for once, NOT in debt. NOW look at us. Second, that isn't personal gain, it's gain for the entire nation. You'll see . Just wait, Kerry will win.

[XxKrNqTcUiTyxX]

ni i havent, but im planning to sometime this week

[Spirited Away]

Doesn't that make them a greater threat...?

"Sexi" Surfette, you can't justify that the debt has been steadily rising.  When Clinton left the office, we were, for once, NOT in debt.  NOW look at us.  Second, that isn't personal gain, it's gain for the entire nation.  You'll see  .  Just wait, Kerry will win.

I think you're confused about something.

America has always been in debt since the World Wars and Clinton did not changed that.

The proof: Here are the National Debt figures from the entire Clinton administration.
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

Do you see a reduction in the debt? I don't either, I see nothing but increases.

The source: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

I think you meant that when Clinton was in office there was a "surplus" instead of deficit in federal budget.

Erm, back to topic... no i haven't seen this movie.

[*Kathleen*]

Just wait, Kerry will win.

Yes, but Kerry's just going to do the same thing Bush is. He openly said that he wasn't going to pull the troops out. He even voted for the war. Hrm...*Scratches head* But yeah, back to the topic...I think I'm going to spend my money on something I'll enjoy, like The Notebook.

[xHalf nHalf]

Doesn't that make them a greater threat...?

yeah it does, thats why it wouldnt make sense to try to instigate with them when they have not made any personal attacks to the US like Saddam did..

through all of this ppl have been bashing our Pres. and have not acknowledged the positive things hes done during his time in office..have we forgotten about the capture of Saddam?

[SexiSurfette]

"Sexi" Surfette, you can't justify that the debt has been steadily rising. When Clinton left the office, we were, for once, NOT in debt. NOW look at us. Second, that isn't personal gain, it's gain for the entire nation. You'll see . Just wait, Kerry will win.

HAHA OK... Ummm actually you’re wrong. There has always been & will always be a debt. All countries have them. Its impossible to function on such a large scale within budget. See...

I think you're confused about something.

America has always been in debt since the World Wars and Clinton did not changed that.


QUOTE 

The proof: Here are the National Debt figures from the entire Clinton administration.
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66


Do you see a reduction in the debt? I don't either, I see nothing but increases.

And about this...

You'll see . Just wait, Kerry will win.

That may be but the fact still stands: the world has always & will always feel hostility for America b/c we are the most powerful & they want to support their home country. Kerry can't change that. The only country that DOES fully support us is England & that’s b/c they are the ancestors of America. This person is right...

Yes, but Kerry's just going to do the same thing Bush is. He openly said that he wasn't going to pull the troops out. He even voted for the war.

If Kerry were elected the war wouldn’t suddenly stop & the country would not suddenly be in peace. That's a naive dream & it will never be a reality. American troops would still be there & there would still be Americans dying. May I remind you, Americans are not dying b/c Bush is the president. They are dying b/c the violent radicals have taken over after killing all of the peaceful leaders we have placed there. Kerry being president wouldn’t change the murderous people of that country. Kerry has no more controll over their actions than Bush does.

through all of this people have been bashing our Pres. and have not acknowledged the positive things has done during his time in office. Have we forgotten about the capture of Saddam?

This is true to ^^^. You’re so busy trying to bash our president (rather than being supportive) that you've forgotten the original reason for war in the 1st place. After 9/11 Bush vowed to fight terrorism. Although there was not a direct connection of Saddam to Osama, there were many connections with other terrorist groups. Therefore, going after Saddam was a logical move. Saddam Hussein was a modern day Hitler. He killed thousands of his own people weekly. And I don’t mean just by shooting them. No he was torturous. He put live people through giant meat grinders if they refused to cooperate. And like I said earlier, he didn’t just kill his own people. He plotted w/ terrorists (and was unsuccessful) to kill Bush senior when he was in office & other American politicians. That’s a direct threat to America. Saddam was a murderer & America brought him to justice. Bush brought him to justice. The war was not pointless.