Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Whats so bad about Fahrenheit 9/11...?

Hahaha, i know some hate moore and his documentaries... why do u call it propaganda? Everything the government does is basically progoganda... im not defending him, I just wanna know why most hate him...

i think he is a good apple. and has the guts to do what a good chunk of has want to do and say.

Hes against the Fuhrer, and whoever is against the Fuhrer must pay!!!!


(shows my opinion on Bush ^^)

It's propoganda because Moore insists that it is a entertainment-based film, not a documentary. Being that it is a one-sided "documentary" with half-truths and more spin than a tornado, he's lying. Just like the crap put out by Joseph Goebbels, this is propoganda.

If it were just a movie that's one thing. But he claims that it's a documentary but it's full of half truths, lies, and spin. He has also said that he intentionally made it to try and sway the election. The thing that scares the hell out of me is that people are going to see it thinking it's the truth and cast there votes this November based on the movie. It's no more the truth than The Day After Tomorrow.

Because Moore is a fat, lying, agenda-based, profiteering,liberal, smug, gun-grabbing, evil fucktard. That's why.
In Bowling for Columbine, he took statements out of context, doctored video clips and downright lied and then portrayed the whole thing as if it was a documentary.
And people think it's the truth.
He's doing the EXACT same thing with Fahrenheit 911.

He is also receiving monetary aid from the Hezbollah in order to publish his movie in Europe and other parts of the world.
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. As far as I'm concerned, that's treason during a time of war and as such, the fat fuck should be executed!

That pretty much sums up not only him... but anyone having to do with government in general. I saw the Bowling for Columbine thing a while back and I found it a bit interesting. In the end though, it boiled down to just being another political message. Propaganda has always existed and it always will (though no one will ever admit that). I might as well be bowing down to the "might" of the Reich. So really, it doesn't mattter whether or not this guy is dishing out mass propaganda... it's not like it doesn't exist everywhere else in our lives. Yeah, it should be stopped but it's not going to anytime soon.

This post has been edited by TWINE006: Jun 26 2004, 06:52 AM

moore made Canadian Bacon (Not food, the movie) and this is like a newer remake of it.

but one of moore's comments struck home, if canada is following americans, dont go conservative. Im not one for foreign politics, but if american conservatives make that much wake, knowing only one side of the story, i dont want some dumb canadian on a powertrip trying to do the same thing.

Hate to break this to ya, bub, but the liberals and democrats like Moore, are the ones that are actively trying to take away the rights that the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights was created to preserve. Not grant, because that's not what those documents are for. They don't bestow ANY rights, they are created to prevent government from steam rolling it's people. And the liberals and democrats keep trying to twist it into something else. Michael Moore or Kerry saying that the Republicans or Conservatives are infringing on our civil rights, is the Pot calling the kettle black.
Read up on it. Read the Bill Of Rights as it was written. It's in very plain language and is not open for interpretation.

Has everyone here seen this? What does everyone have to say about the way that the administration lied to the US people to gain support for the war against Iraq, and how they continue to withold information from congress?

Does anyone think that this presidency has been a success? Has Bush been a good president? Should he be re-elected, and why?

Jeezus...

Here I go breaking my own Rule #2 -> 'Thou shalt not argue politics with thy friends.' (Rule #1 involves sex, so let's leave that one alone). ;)

I'm quoting Audiyoda here, but I'm speaking to all those who rant about Mr. Moore's films, opinions, etc.

Allow me to quote from The NY Times:

"Goebbels is in fashion everywhere these days. As Mr. Moore seeks to shape the story of what happened on 9/11, so the White House, President Bush included, collaborated on a movie project with the same partisan intent, "D.C. 9/11: Time of Crisis," seen on Showtime last fall. Instead of depicting Mr. Bush as continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to second graders for nearly seven minutes while the World Trade Center burned (as the recorded video shown in "Fahrenheit 9/11" demonstrates), "D.C. 9/11" showed the president (played by Timothy Bottoms) barking out take-charge lines like "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come on over and get me — I'll be home!"

A point to consider: Goebbels propaganda was delivered from a position of power, since he was a high-ranking official of the Nazi government. Michael Moore has no such power or standing... but Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, et al certainly do.

Hmmm... Now from The Chicago Sun-Times, in response to a letter questioning the motives and/or objectivity of Mr. Moore:

<Begin Quote>
"I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News (which is so famous for telling both sides).

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

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.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.
<End Quote>

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. And before some of you start composing your cutting replies, let me explain something:

I am an American, and usually proud to be one. I am an honorably discharged veteran of the USAF who served during the Vietnam War. I am a patriot in the truest sense, but my patriotism is driven by a love for my country and its many and varied people (most of whom exhibit the love and care and compassion I admire in any human being), not by whoever happens to be President.

I've voted Democrat, I've voted Republican. I've voted Liberal and I've voted Conservative. Simply put, I don't vote 'labels', I vote for men and women who show me they care about honesty, responsibility, human rights, and the orb we live on.

Would I vote for Michael Moore? Not even for dogcatcher. His passion gives him the ability to make himself heard, but I'm usually wary of anyone who lets their passion run their life. Calm down a bit, Mike. You can tell your stories and broadcast your opinions without resorting to over-the-top accusations or downright exaggerations or lies.

On the other hand, since George W. Bush has demonstrated over and over again that he and his administration care little about any long-term vision of the fate of Planet Earth (except as it may affect the bottom line of Big Business), demonstrate a marked lack of respect for human rights (or the opinions of any person or country who has the temerity to disagree with him), and has yet to take responsibility for dang near anything (except landing a plane on a ship to promote his macho image)... I think that we can just drop the 'honesty' issue and move on.

Okay. Now you can reload and fire away with whatever weapons and ammunition you want to aim at me. Feel free. I won't be replying in this thread anymore as I don't fan flame(war)s except to save my wife and children.

And please note that I didn't feel obligated to use any profanity, resort to name calling, or to compare living men and women to long-dead fascists, or any other reprehensible excuses for human beings.

-ManX
"Live and learn, or die and be done with it"

This post has been edited by ManX: Jun 27 2004, 11:33 AM

Wow, good thread!

I haven't seen it yet, but the clip on TV I saw about Moore going up to Congressmen to get them to sign up their kids for the Army for the war in Iraq says a lot about him -- a showboat! (And I'm assuming that clip is in the movie.) Gee, let's put people in a no-win situation and see what happens. "Do you still beat your wife?"

"Will you sign up your kid for the war?" asks Moore. The answer is either "Sure" where we know the respondent is probably lying (what real parent would ever say yes to put his child in harm's way regardless of political views or how patriotic he/she is) or "No" where his constituents would see he is soft on supporting the military. It's a loaded question.

How is that a documentary???!!! It's an interesting question, but he's trying to put people on the spot -- a candid camera reality show maybe, but documentary...come on!!

Politically, we always seem to be voting on the lesser of 2 evils. Since this is an election year, this kind of stuff frankly scares me since some people will believe it. But the responses on this forum give me a little hope since most everyone here seems to see through these sleezy "tricks".

I do plan to see it at some point, though I'll probably wait 'til it's out on video. (My big-screen theater time is limited and reserved for what I consider to be genuinely interesting movies or films...not wanna be idiots with a personal agenda.)

captbics

This post has been edited by captbics: Jun 27 2004, 02:50 PM

The point he is trying to put across with asking congressmen to enlist their sons and daughters is that the government expects parents to send their sons and daughters off to war, but those who started the war would not. Both of Bush's daughters are old enough to enlist, wonder why they haven't in support of daddy?

It's ambush journalism...there is no POINT to it except the ambush !!

captbics

which is quite commonplace in the US. your point? If you've seen it, when the congressmen will actually stop to talk to him, they look at him like he's retarded for such a suggestion.

May i ask how you think that most recruiters do their work?