Click here
Some of the stuff is a stretch and I am still researching some of it, but if you read some of this carefully, Moore is very crafty on how he put his own slant on this movie.
Printable View
Click here
Some of the stuff is a stretch and I am still researching some of it, but if you read some of this carefully, Moore is very crafty on how he put his own slant on this movie.
Well after reading all that, I know I'm convinced,... NOT! :bor:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—George W Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
More quotes here
I've read many of the component articles that make up that diatribe. It does appear to be accurate. Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda, we know this. Examine Webby. He doesn't care at all if the article has any factual basis, he just knows he doesn't like Bush and Moore happens to be like minded. His critical thinking is stalled at that intersection.
My eyes hurt from reading alot of that. It just supports what I feel about Moore. This is the last post I will make on this subject.
I just found this interesting and of course wrbby could only come back with Bush Quotes. I have posted quotes here from the other side and I dont feel like looking for them or reposting them.
Moore was against the war in Iraq, that is for sure. But you have Bush and Kerry on the ticket this year, and Kerry asked for the invasion of Iraq. So whats the big deal about Bush on this subject? Both parties wanted to invade Iraq.
That article was just something for wrbby and techs to chew on while they are holding hands in my happy world of the "ignore list"
And boy oh boy was there a lot of "something to chew on" with that link. Hey,.. btw,.. how IS that whole ignore list thing working out for you? I could've sworn you already put me on your ignore list a few days ago. I guess I must be mistaken. Well anyway,.. good luck with all that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Larommi
So uh,. Jaeger, can you please do me a favor and explain to me how words posted on www.davekopel.com are supposed to be 100% guaranteed truthful? In other words, your argument is that I am assuming that what is said there is wrong because I hate Bush. Yet, you are assuming that what is written there is factual because of the love you have for your hero.
And also,.. how come you guys are so defensive about me quoting your hero in my post above? :confused:
No sodding clue who David Koppel is, however, the majority of that link is just a collection of sourced observations from other recent articles. I have confirmed those articles to a reasonable degree. I would have given the article a day or two of research had I not already read many of its components.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
It isn't really that amazing that you are more than willing to take Moore at face value, but denounce other pundits because they have an obvious bias. That Moore is a registered Democrat who has announced the goal of this movie is the removal of Bush from office while working under the pretense of filming a documentary is laughable at best, but from my cynical point of view it sounds a death toll for the major release documentary. The goal of a documentary is to teach or record, nothing else. With Moore's stated goal, this is a campaign commercial you pay to watch.
Bush does say some amazingly stupid things. I happen to do something similar when improvising in public debates and speeches if I don't concentrate on slowing myself down and sticking with one line of thought until completion. Sometimes I will garble a sentence halfway through, occasionally even garble a word. I imagine if I had reporters recording my every uttered word, a convincing case could be made for me being a moron.
So again,.. you are just going to assume that what David Koppel has to say is accurate. Ok, thats cool. Just checking.
Again you assume something,... that I take Moore at face value. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are saying by that. Do I really need to delve into the mind of Michael Moore to know that George W Bush is a proven jacka$$? I think not. George W Bush proves it to the world every time he starts talking.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the film is not a documentary, but more of a video retrospect of the last 4 years of GWB's bumbling idiocy. Whatever you want to label it,.. the important part is that it's out for the public to view as they wish. This is what we call, "freedom of expression".
Also,.. yes indeed. We do pay money to watch his film. His job is to make films. Thats what he gets paid to do. And yes this movie has an agenda to point out the flaws of our current president and the mistakes he has, and is making. And?? Your point is? I mean,.. pointing out obvious irrelevant facts seems kinda pointless imo.
Yes, I understand Moore is a Democrat. Is this supposed to be a bad thing or something? He can call himself independant, liberal, whatever. I really don't care. The label doesn't matter to me.
These are all superficial arguments you guys are making. Moore points out real things that affect real people in this real world. Did you guys watch the movie? And if you did not, then there is really no point in carrying this argument any further.
Btw,.. Here is a definition of "Documentary" from Dictionary.com. You can teach, record,... whatever you want to do with it. A documentary is simply a compilation of documents based on facts. Nothing more. What one does with it is ones own business.
doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
And this is exactly what Moore did. I don't understand the problem you have with this?
So then by this definition, Bowling for Columbine was NOT a documentary. Did Moore take the same liberties with this movie? I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
Sorry guys Webby is right ... Until you see the movie then you don't know.... PERIOD... Anything else is just regurgitation of someone else’s agenda...
And one other point of fact there is ALWAYS point of view in reporting... It is imposable to not place ones own thoughts into any reporting media...
Has it occured to anyone that maybe his film is meant to stir up your thoughts and force you to look at the facts yourself and not rely on biased media broadcasts? I personally believe he inflates everything just to get people to think on their own. Like getting a gun at a bank? come on... I don't think anyone is THAT stupid...
My wife and I both saw the movie and we both thought it was entertaining, but neither one of us accepted it on face value. I rated it above Van Hesling and the dreadful Day After Tomorrow, but not as good as Shrek 2 and the latest Harry Potter (Spidey 2 is on the to do list when I get back home on 7/14). I can tell ya that there were no standing ovations and very few laughs and giggles (it stems that it was a fairly conservative crowd...as it is with Eagle River - huge military presence). I am not a Bush supporter but I KNOW because of past references and perusing that at least 8 of the deceipts are correct. And I have no doubt in my mind that several of the others are too.
The movie is about as much a documentary as was The Blair Witch Project! A documentary is supposed to based on facts and even if one fact is in error it ceases to be a documentary.
Moore's Roger and Me was excellent, but to be honest his latest works are not nearly as good in the genre for which they are marketed. I took Bowling For Columbine with a grain of salt and accepted for what it was...a pseudo-documentary that actually entertained. I was somewhat surprised it won an Oscar, but I ceased trying to figure the Oscar's out years ago (my wife still maintains to this day that The English Patient is the worse movie she has ever seen, but what does she know she also HATED Titanic). F 9/11 is much in the same vein. Like arch0nmyc0n wrote it is a movie to "stir up your thoughts and force you to look at the facts yourself".https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2006/04/1.gif
I thought you worked in IT? :confused: :pQuote:
Originally Posted by arch0nmyc0n
The average person is lazy, opinionated and prefers to have his news predigested in the form of TV reports since he reads at a grade 4 level.
Well put. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Escape_Driver
Sigh. I guess the measly standard of verifying and crosschecking sources isn't enough for some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
Like I said, as long as it bashes Bush and fits into your preconceptions, you'll support it no matter the factual basis.Quote:
Again you assume something,... that I take Moore at face value. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are saying by that. Do I really need to delve into the mind of Michael Moore to know that George W Bush is a proven jacka$$? I think not. George W Bush proves it to the world every time he starts talking.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the film is not a documentary, but more of a video retrospect of the last 4 years of GWB's bumbling idiocy. Whatever you want to label it,.. the important part is that it's out for the public to view as they wish. This is what we call, "freedom of expression".
Michael Moore is a successful businessman. He has found his niche and will continue to provide what his market demands. Lucky for him, what this market demands also falls in line with his personal bias. He is providing a certain brand of entertainment to this market, but not one based on objective facts, because that isn't what his audience wants.Quote:
Also,.. yes indeed. We do pay money to watch his film. His job is to make films. Thats what he gets paid to do. And yes this movie has an agenda to point out the flaws of our current president and the mistakes he has, and is making. And?? Your point is? I mean,.. pointing out obvious irrelevant facts seems kinda pointless imo.
Yes, I understand Moore is a Democrat. Is this supposed to be a bad thing or something? He can call himself independant, liberal, whatever. I really don't care. The label doesn't matter to me.
These are all superficial arguments you guys are making. Moore points out real things that affect real people in this real world. Did you guys watch the movie? And if you did not, then there is really no point in carrying this argument any further.
Moore can either be an objective film maker creating documentaries or a biased film maker creating propaganda. It is pretty self evident where he stands as he might as well be the film version of Rush Limbaugh.
Two more definititions for you:Quote:
Btw,.. Here is a definition of "Documentary" from Dictionary.com. You can teach, record,... whatever you want to do with it. A documentary is simply a compilation of documents based on facts. Nothing more. What one does with it is ones own business.
doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
And this is exactly what Moore did. I don't understand the problem you have with this?
fact Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
ob·jec·tive Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar.
1. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
2. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
Have you seen the movie ???
Then how do you know ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Escape_Driver
I'm going to see it tonight.
How lame...
Do you have to be....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jediab
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jediab
To quote yourself?
This is how lame you have to be to quote yourself...Quote:
Originally Posted by imaeditedbysowulo
So I saw the movie tonight, there were only about 50 people that came to see it but it got a round of applause when it ended. Kinda strange.
The best part was when he was trying to get congressmen to sign their sons up for military service. He even had a brochure for each branch of service for them to look over.
It doesn't really matter tho, I think everyone has had their minds made up for awhile now on who to vote for.
Apparently you feel the same way about Michael Moore as Michael Moore feels about George W Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaeger
I have an idea,.. if you feel that Michael Moore is wrong by making this movie, then why not write HIM a letter instead of wasting your time arguing the superficial points of this topic with me?
Funny how stupid Mooreon shows to be when one of the congressmen he asked about this didnt even have any children.Quote:
Originally Posted by imaeditedbysowulo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jediab
There's like 465 congressman or some crazy high number like that. I wouldn't expect anyone to even recognize half of them let alone know within 5 seconds of seeing him if the guy had kids. Most of them ran as soon as they saw him, so he was lucky to even be able to ask a question to any of them.
I'll have to go see it again to be 100% sure, but I think he had asked them if they had children first, then proceeded to talk about the brochures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
But of all of the people that Mooreon asked or attempted to ask, how many of them were Democrats?
exactly, maybe its kinda a "Andy Kaufman" thing where it's just funny to him. But I think he's just poking people in the face and seeing how many people blinding believe and how many are outraged and how many people see it for the poke in the face it really is. I feel it's more like a "where's waldo" thing; find all the "stuff I made up" sort of deal. Slap a "documentary" label on it to confuse the masses... next thing you know he'll put in a video of a film reel breaking just so people get mad at the theatre...Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
If Michael Moore came running up to you with a camera crew and that "I'm really going to stick it to you" look on his face, you'd run too... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by imaeditedbysowulo
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n...rris070604.htm
It's an interesting view.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraflyer
Question for you. As a libertarian do you follow the party line which would to be to remove us from world politics? This is where I have one of my largest issues with the libertarian party. Do you feel it's a good idea for the US govt. to remove military from bases around the world and for us to stay out of foreign affairs to the extent that the party would like to do?
Turn the bases over to the host countries, then ASK if our presence is warranted anymore. If not, then pull out. If yes, then come up with a "contract" with said host country, with option to review/change or altogether drop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetheusers
Some world politics are OK; what voting Libertarians don't trust is the UN. And given the corruption within that ivory tower recently, perhaps their view is correct. The ideals of national sovereignity and self-rule come foremost, and the UN is all but that.
ITLU though the question was to paraflyer I'd like to give my 2¢. I've been a confirmed, card carrying Libertarian for many years now. When you look at our Platform I wholeheartily agree with 95% of it. There are a few things I do disagree with, but that can be said with any party "platform". Where I disagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetheusers
I don't know if that answered your specific question but hey I gave it a shot. :D
- Pollution - It is a simplistic stance that does not work. I am an environmental professional within industry (I have 10 years of regulatory experience too) and have been one for going on 25 years now. Industry does not have a good legacy of being great stewards towards environmental concerns. It would be great if the tenet - "Thou shall not pollute lest thou will go to the hoosegow and pay mega bucks for damages" - was all we needed but it just ain't so. Believe me I could go on for several pages on my view on this subject, but I will not.
- OSHA - see above. The same principles apply. There is a reason for OSHA & MSHA and unfortunately they are still needed today.
- Military - I do agree with a large portion of our platform, but not all of it. To keep this KISS I do not agree with our Transitional portion of the Military Policy in re to the withdrawl of all of our military personnel stationed abroad.
- Finally I have some disagreement with portions of our Resource Use stance, but it's nothing major.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraflyer
I feel the same way but that's not how the party feels.
Kong - I see where you are going too. Thing is, if that's what the party wants then that's what you are voting for. I understand that no party is going to meet with my views eye to eye. Still, the views the part espouses are often times rather extreme at times. The no funding for public schools for instance... I'm not ripping Libertarian politics, I'm actually for most of what Libertarians want and feel they have the most informed and brightest views on most subjects.
ITLU - you make a excellent point that I was remiss in pointing out. There are portions of the Education Policy that I do agree with, but I don't agree with the complete separation of education and State. I do agree with the elimination of the Department of Education (it's a multi billion $$$ boondoogle) and I agree with the elimination of compulsory education laws. I agree with doing away with forced busing, but I do not agree with the elimination of corporal punishment.
Your statement..."if that's what the party wants then that's what you are voting for"...is not necessarily true as a whole. There are individual candidates who do "stray" from the party platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetheusers
I've come to the conclusion it's no longer picking the right candidate, it's now down to picking the guy that will do the least damage... It's like choosing between getting infected with Necrotizing Fasciitis or Tuberculosis... Many people say if you can't vote you can't complain... my position is I refuse to take part in a "choose the best liar" vote which we'll end up worse than before... specifically education here in Canada, we have issues and as much as money will benefit the school system, you should realize that anyone who wants to learn will learn in any environment... but I'm just babbling...