GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Did you see Fahrenheit 9/11 ? What was the most Shocking part to you ? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=325098)

Fletch XXX 07-12-2004 05:38 PM

people who put down michael moore laugh when american soldiers die.

its soooo funny to them

piker 07-12-2004 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trixie
I just saw your picture in the dictionary next to "naive".
Did you consult your 5yr old for that insult or what?

But, to consider me naive because i dont inheritently think everyone doing things i dont neccesarly agree in is lyeing to me and evil is again rediculus. Or better yet, why do people that are informed act like they are? How many people in this world really know all the information behind the decisions the president makes? I'm guessing a handful at the most. So why does everyone 2nd guess like they know more?

Trixie 07-12-2004 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by piker
To expect differnent is rediculus.
To expect you to employ critical thinking skills when you can't even spell is ridiculous. :glugglug

piker 07-12-2004 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trixie
To expect you to employ critical thinking skills when you can't even spell is ridiculous. :glugglug
You are on fire tonight with your insults. Your 5yr old must have had too much coke or something.

Tom_PMs 07-12-2004 05:43 PM

Well, theres not too much duplicity in my life. I'm pretty much a hermit.
I dont think education would have an effect on whether or not the movie was made or released, there is alot of compelling things in there. Without them, theres no material to make the movie with. I really dont think people will vote based on a movie.
I had made up my mind about which way to vote at least a year ago for example.. I would consider myself a moderate really, and I dont care which party is in office. I just care about the people in office, and I'll make fun of the next guy when he or she deserves it too, lol :winkwink:

Incidently, the distributor of the movie says that it's 100% based on fact. BASED on fact. I personally dont care to argue one way or the other on that, but they claim they are ready and waiting to fight people who outright claim something stated as fact in the movie is a lie. They sound pretty confident. Beats me.

One thing that is for sure, it got people talking and debating, which can only be a good thing. These days, people have so many media outlets that they can simple watch or listen or surf on sites that already align with their views. Thats dangerous I think..

Anywho, I'd just encourage people to be sure to think for themselves, and have a real reason or two when they vote. Dont take either sides extreme arguments as gospel truth, just use common sense and vote your mind.

Trixie 07-12-2004 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by piker
You are on fire tonight with your insults. Your 5yr old must have had too much coke or something.
You're right. Just like Bush, I have advisors who help me speak so that even retards like you can understand.

piker 07-12-2004 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom_PM
Well, theres not too much duplicity in my life. I'm pretty much a hermit.
I dont think education would have an effect on whether or not the movie was made or released, there is alot of compelling things in there. Without them, theres no material to make the movie with. I really dont think people will vote based on a movie.
I had made up my mind about which way to vote at least a year ago for example.. I would consider myself a moderate really, and I dont care which party is in office. I just care about the people in office, and I'll make fun of the next guy when he or she deserves it too, lol :winkwink:

Incidently, the distributor of the movie says that it's 100% based on fact. BASED on fact. I personally dont care to argue one way or the other on that, but they claim they are ready and waiting to fight people who outright claim something stated as fact in the movie is a lie. They sound pretty confident. Beats me.

One thing that is for sure, it got people talking and debating, which can only be a good thing. These days, people have so many media outlets that they can simple watch or listen or surf on sites that already align with their views. Thats dangerous I think..

Anywho, I'd just encourage people to be sure to think for themselves, and have a real reason or two when they vote. Dont take either sides extreme arguments as gospel truth, just use common sense and vote your mind.

Well, i assume educated people have avenues to do their own research and think for themselves. And I think there is a tendency to think everyone thinks for themselves to some level. But, I think history has proven this is simply not true. If it was we wouldnt see all the campaign ads etc. We'd just have a few debates and let the issues stand out.

Based on facts is what they say. I'm sure they can prove that thats not really saying much. Theories on how we got here are based on fact but that doesnt mean they are true.

I wish everyone would think for themselves and let the issues speak for themselves. The worst thing I can imagine is someone voting for Kerry or whoever just simply because they think Bush is a liar. Not, because they like Kerry and the way he stands on his issues etc.

Tom_PMs 07-12-2004 06:00 PM

Quote:

Based on facts is what they say. I'm sure they can prove that thats not really saying much. Theories on how we got here are based on fact but that doesnt mean they are true.
It doesnt mean the theories are true, but the fact itself is all that is being claimed as true. If a glass has 50% water and 50% air, is it half full or half empty? :winkwink:

Moore himself was the first person I saw saying it's totally slanted to his personal views. Theres no reason he has to present a "fair and balanced" view. (couldnt resist)

Anyway, dont give up on the uneducated. I dropped out of school at 16 to go to work and never went back.

Bansheelinks 07-12-2004 06:00 PM

The most shocking fact is how mediocre this is as a documentary and how untrustworthy Moore is. If you want to see a good, fact-based documentary, go to "Super Size Me." Now that was excellent............

Keep in my mind I was hoping that Fahrenheit 9/11 would sway that key undecided 10-15% of the undecided vote if they saw it. I want Bush defeated as he's bad for our industry, pure and simple. In this vein, the movie fails miserably as its partisan tripe. The "facts" are already starting to get knocked down left right and center. Its typical Moore bullshit. He's the bullshit artist of the left just like Limbaugh is the bullshit artist of the right, although I like Moore though more than Limbaugh as Rush is a piece of shit. This movie won't have any effect on the election as its preaching to the choir. There are a lot of hypocrites on this board who give Moore a free pass just because they want Bush defeated. I won't.........but I still want Bush defeated. I have taken countless poly sci courses and feel the effect of this movie is next to nothing, in the end.

Lets put it this way; the real effect of the upcoming election will be Nader. If Kerry loses a close election, its fuckin' Nader's fault.

Drop out Ralph! Now!!

TondaB 07-12-2004 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by piker
I bet you didnt know that more people die of getting hit by a train in America then in the Iraq war. I guess we should abadon the train because it's to dangerous.
Just curious, where did you find the number of Americans killed by getting hit by a train? I would be interested to know this number.

genomega 07-12-2004 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mahoney
So I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend. All the info was a bit overwhelming and i would really like to see it again and take notes to fully digest it.

I guess the most Shocking parts to me was that Bush Let Bin Ladens Family fly out soon after 9-11. That made no sense to me or the former FBI Agent interviewed.

Also, the fact that Bush Blacked out parts of His Millitary Record seemed very deceptive.

Before seeing this movie i really thought Bush had some valid reasons for going to war but now i just don't trust him.

What do you think ?

The facts in all movies are the truth.

:1orglaugh

crockett 07-12-2004 06:24 PM

The best part IMO, was when Bush had the Talibian guys visiting Texas before 9-11 and he was trying to schmooze up with them.

I really liked the part where the women reporter was giving the taliban guy grief and his reply was.. "I bet your husband has lots of trouble with you"..



LOL I crack up every time I see that part

mardigras 07-12-2004 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bansheelinks
The most shocking fact is how mediocre this is as a documentary and how untrustworthy Moore is. If you want to see a good, fact-based documentary, go to "Super Size Me." Now that was excellent............
Funny you should pick that film as an example of an excellent documentary... it too has it's share of detractors
The Supersize Me Con

marcu5 07-12-2004 06:31 PM

Like I said before, I'm amazed that people are so quick to call out Moores methods of editing and filming. But yet they don't discredit their CNN, FOX, and other moderately biased media sources. I Guess because most of you are already conditioned to feel a certain way about certain issues (politics, religion, race, etc). All Moore did was provide a second opinon on this situation. You dumbasses say you love freedom so much than why do persecute anyone who doesn't believe what you believe?


Sadly Moore is probably one of the few whites in MY time, that has been able to display the stupidity and hypocrisy of our great nation. Like Moore said on an interview on a radio station out here -- If he was Black he'd probably be dead by now. So I'm glad that he has his skin color and money keeping him alive to continue to display it!

gideongallery 07-12-2004 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by doober
regardless of how the facts are presented. Is america not a gun happy nation willing to back up their shit with bullets almost anytime?
Yes american's solve problem with guns too readily. The cause is bad gun control / registration laws.

Instead of police arresting criminal using guns they waste time dealing with stupid gun registration laws. Canada spends more money per capita on police services, and violent gun crime did not significantly increase until the liberals spent 5 billion for their new gun registration law. Getting people to register their weapons sounds like a good idea until you realize that you have to take police officer away from investigating crimes and patroling the streets to enforce the paper work requirements of this new law.


Remember the clip of Heston holding a gun and saying " from my cold dead hands" well the event that was run never had that line. The NRA dropped all their fun events (mixers) and focused their attention on documenting how if the current laws were used the killers at colinbine would never have gotten a gun in the first place.

Moore deliberately misrepresented parts of Heston's speach to make him and the NRA look like gun toting yahoos who didn't give a dam about people getting killed

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

Became "Don't come here? We're already here" spliced between the pleas of a mayor that NRA should not come to denver to make Heston sound like a jackass

Heston's message was that it is ignorant to make gun owners unwelcome in a place where murdering thugs happened to perpetrate evil with guns. Heston reached out to those angry at the very existence and presence of the NRA to not couple violent gun killers with simple gun owners, and not to demonize those you disagree with.

bad_girl 07-12-2004 07:02 PM

The fact Britney Speirs was in it. Her stupidity however, was not shocking.


BG

marcu5 07-12-2004 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bad_girl
The fact Britney Speirs was in it. Her stupidity however, was not shocking.


BG

I don't think it was her stupidity as much as her manipulating a generation of teens to follow & trust your government.

jayeff 07-12-2004 07:25 PM

The most shocking aspect of the movie was how few of the facts that it presented had received any coverage at all in the mainstream media. I had seen everything scattered through foreign media over the past 2+ years, but I had forgotten just how deliberately pro-invasion our own media had been, how much they had kept from the American public.

Of course F911 was biased: it would have been a non-event otherwise. If we had balanced media, Moore's facts would have been included in their coverage and they would have asked his questions and F911 would never have been made.

jayeff 07-12-2004 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gideongallery
Moore deliberately misrepresented parts of Heston's speach to make him and the NRA look like gun toting yahoos who didn't give a dam about people getting killed
Perhaps that is because, without any help from Moore, the NRA come across as gun toting yahoos who don't give a damn about people getting killed?

Many people, myself included, find a compelling logic in the fact that the citizens of most countries with more restrictive gun laws slaughter fewer of their number each year. But I am willing to admit I have no proof of that, so there may be another reason.

But the pro-gun lobby rarely attempt to address the reality that this is an exceptionally violent country. If the ownership of guns is not responsible for the annual death toll, what is? If removing some of the guns would not reduce that toll, what would?

And have you noticed how so often someone starts off by talking about self defense and constitutional rights, but within a few sentences is describing in detail the makes and models of what turns out to be a minor arsenal? I wouldn't just take some of these guys toys away, I would lock them up in a rubber cell somewhere...

gideongallery 07-12-2004 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mahoney
Hmmm i will check this out. I would like to see someone argue each point one at a tiime. I didn't really feel like Moore was being deceptive. I felt like he reported the facts. Give me an example of how thats wrong
Hitler propoganda films also reported the facts (they used news footage as well) they just ignored facts or took that statements out of context.

if you would like an example

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.



Dave Kopel catches more deception:

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening?before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.



The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. (Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the West coast, the early concession was widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while West coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.



At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.



Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.



CBS had taken the lead in making the erroneous call for Gore, and had taken the lead in retracting that call. At 3:59 a.m., CBS also took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, ?CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations? (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)



Moore?s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, formally speaking, false. But notice how he says, ?Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy?? The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change (?All of a sudden the other networks said, ?Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.??)



This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.


Ignore the fact that ABC was the only news agency to follow the rules and not call any state before the polls had closed.

Ignore the fact that even FOX called the Gore earlier.

Ignore the fact that the first News agency to retract the call Gore as the winner was CBS.

Ignore the fact that Florida polls close based on the registration desk and not on when the vote is cast creating a situation where registered voters (in a predominately republican area) were waiting in line when their guy was falsely reported to have lost and therefore LEFT WITHOUT VOTING FOR THERE GUY

Ignore the fact pro- republican voter groups (the counter parts to the Congressional Black Caucus ) collect signature of registered voters who did not vote (people who left early because of the false call). The ratio was approximately 1.25 for every vote that was "lost" from the gore side

Two wrongs don't make a right but fixing one wrong and ignoring another does not make things right either.

That why "Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) had previously advised Democratic senators not to cooperate" he knew the voting irregularities that favored gore exceeded those that favored bush.

The only way you could consider Gore the winner was to deliberately ignore the voting system based on the electorial college and choose to use the popular vote.

In other words ignore all election law because your guy did not win. By that standard Clinton should never have won either.

MikeHawk 07-12-2004 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mahoney
So I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend. All the info was a bit overwhelming and i would really like to see it again and take notes to fully digest it.

I guess the most Shocking parts to me was that Bush Let Bin Ladens Family fly out soon after 9-11. That made no sense to me or the former FBI Agent interviewed.

Also, the fact that Bush Blacked out parts of His Millitary Record seemed very deceptive.

Before seeing this movie i really thought Bush had some valid reasons for going to war but now i just don't trust him.

What do you think ?


.........................your new BMW.....that is a shocker and amazing at the same time....nice new car buddy....good seeing you today!
Smashbucks was visiting the Adult Lounge - World Wide Content headquarters today, good seeing you guys. !!!!!!!

MikeHawk 07-12-2004 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gideongallery
Hitler propoganda films also reported the facts (they used news footage as well) they just ignored facts or took that statements out of context.

if you would like an example

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.



Dave Kopel catches more deception:

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening?before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.



The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. (Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the West coast, the early concession was widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while West coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.



At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.



Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.



CBS had taken the lead in making the erroneous call for Gore, and had taken the lead in retracting that call. At 3:59 a.m., CBS also took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, ?CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations? (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)



Moore?s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, formally speaking, false. But notice how he says, ?Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy?? The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change (?All of a sudden the other networks said, ?Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.??)



This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.


Ignore the fact that ABC was the only news agency to follow the rules and not call any state before the polls had closed.

Ignore the fact that even FOX called the Gore earlier.

Ignore the fact that the first News agency to retract the call Gore as the winner was CBS.

Ignore the fact that Florida polls close based on the registration desk and not on when the vote is cast creating a situation where registered voters (in a predominately republican area) were waiting in line when their guy was falsely reported to have lost and therefore LEFT WITHOUT VOTING FOR THERE GUY

Ignore the fact pro- republican voter groups (the counter parts to the Congressional Black Caucus ) collect signature of registered voters who did not vote (people who left early because of the false call). The ratio was approximately 1.25 for every vote that was "lost" from the gore side

Two wrongs don't make a right but fixing one wrong and ignoring another does not make things right either.

That why "Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) had previously advised Democratic senators not to cooperate" he knew the voting irregularities that favored gore exceeded those that favored bush.

The only way you could consider Gore the winner was to deliberately ignore the voting system based on the electorial college and choose to use the popular vote.

In other words ignore all election law because your guy did not win. By that standard Clinton should never have won either.

What he said :thumbsup

piker 07-12-2004 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TondaB
Just curious, where did you find the number of Americans killed by getting hit by a train? I would be interested to know this number.
I heard it on some radio add trying to get people to be more careful around trains... I think it was 2 people every hour, or 1 person every 2 hours.. Or something of that nature. If you want the exact figure i suggest google.

Webby 07-12-2004 09:18 PM

Trixie:

Quote:

I don't know about most SHOCKING since I'd already heard about the stuff you mentioned, but hearing that Bush was on vacation 42% of the time in the months leading up to 9/11 was just disgusting to me. Also watching him in that classroom and getting the news of the planes hitting the towers and just sitting there like the fucking moron he is really disturbed me too.
About Bush sitting for about 7-10 mins in that classroom after being told "Mr President, we are under attack"...

This was a man in panic and trying to think thru stuff. Bush does have at least two "personal problems" which have "inhibited" him thinking clearly.

One is that he does have a speech impediment and this also extends beyond his ability to get words flowing out of his mouth in a coherrent manner. Associated with that is also an "impediment" in thought processing. This is common with people associated with dyslexia. Think I read some members of his family has a more "pronounced" problem like this?

The other is, - hell, I don't know Bush's "real" background, but he clearly shows the actions of a person subject to "addiction" of some kind. Watch his mouth and the ease at which he can deliver "instant blame" elsewhere, - the sign of an "addict", tho he can't make more rational statements so easily. (ie.. "It was not my fault - it was them")

I suspect what we saw in that classroom was a mind in panic wondering what the hell he should do now. Any rational person would have calmly excused themselves with the children and got their ass outta there damned fast and find out what the fuck is going on.

BTW.. This ain't no "defense" of Bush :winkwink: I know he is a born liar and no better than a common criminal who, should not be standing within 100 miles of the Oval Office, but in a courtroom standing trial.

Webby 07-12-2004 09:20 PM

PS... The "black and white" way Bush sees stuff is also the "addictive personality" showing thru...

Was the guy on coke or booze at some time??

Bansheelinks 07-12-2004 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mardigras
Funny you should pick that film as an example of an excellent documentary... it too has it's share of detractors
The Supersize Me Con

Hard to argue with actual BLOODWORK............and 3 doctors documenting this as it happened. All he ate or drank was Rotten Ronnies for 1 month.

Bansheelinks 07-12-2004 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gideongallery



This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.


Fuck, finally someone on here dissecting Moore with some intelligence instead of following him blindly like sheep just because he's anti-Bush. I'm anti-Bush, but I think Moore is disgusting. Maybe because I've helped make films and spent countless hours in the editing studio, I also see his techniques of twisting the half truths. Take BFC for instance........the most dramatic scene in the whole movie, when Heston was walking away from Moore at the end, from the interview, and Moore was calling out to him..................notice the camera angle switching to a FRONTAL shot of Moore.......the camera goes from being in behind of Moore and watching Heston walk off, to a shot of the camera being in front of Moore as Moore was pretending to address Heston...........confront him as he was walking away. It was pure theatre and pure bullshit...........Moore was really addressing NO ONE and was acting for the camera like he was addressing Heston yet still.

And you ppl who love him put your faith in someone who will, in the guise of a "documentary" (I feel you can't really call his films that), in its key moment, will basically lie to the viewer? He's dishonest at his core because HE IS A FANATIC. He, like Limbaugh, believes so deeply in his cause that he will twist facts or outright lie to make his point.

I don't put my faith in ppl such as this.

theking 07-12-2004 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Webby
Trixie:



About Bush sitting for about 7-10 mins in that classroom after being told "Mr President, we are under attack"...

This was a man in panic and trying to think thru stuff. Bush does have at least two "personal problems" which have "inhibited" him thinking clearly.

One is that he does have a speech impediment and this also extends beyond his ability to get words flowing out of his mouth in a coherrent manner. Associated with that is also an "impediment" in thought processing. This is common with people associated with dyslexia. Think I read some members of his family has a more "pronounced" problem like this?

The other is, - hell, I don't know Bush's "real" background, but he clearly shows the actions of a person subject to "addiction" of some kind. Watch his mouth and the ease at which he can deliver "instant blame" elsewhere, - the sign of an "addict", tho he can't make more rational statements so easily. (ie.. "It was not my fault - it was them")

I suspect what we saw in that classroom was a mind in panic wondering what the hell he should do now. Any rational person would have calmly excused themselves with the children and got their ass outta there damned fast and find out what the fuck is going on.

BTW.. This ain't no "defense" of Bush :winkwink: I know he is a born liar and no better than a common criminal who, should not be standing within 100 miles of the Oval Office, but in a courtroom standing trial.

Pig shit.

kronic 07-12-2004 10:52 PM

Michael Moore raises some interesting points in his "Documentaries(*1)" and there's no question that he gets people to both think and discuss the issues. Look at the number of posts and threads about Michael Moore.

When I first saw BFC I was surprised at the "Facts" he was presenting to the viewer. Much like Kevin Spacey's character in "The Negotiator", I tend to look at one side of the argument then search out and find the OTHER side of the argument. Then decide for myself what REALLY happened. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

Naturally, upon my further research, I stumbled across www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com and noticed that they take the OPPOSITE side of view of Michael Moore films.

The links section includes some very interesting things that I didn't realize.

a)The opening segmant at the bank was SCRIPTED. The bank in question IS a licensed arms dealer, BUT they keep their rifles some 300 miles away and someone opening an account, doesn't immediately recieve their rifle handed to them like portrayed in the movie. They must return to receive it and it is given to them in a BOX.

b)The NRA meeting in Littleton. By LAW, the NRA had to hold that meeting and in fact CANCELLED every other scheduled event because of the tragedy at Columbine High School.

c)The scene in which Charlton Heston raised his hand with a rifle and declared "From my cold dead hands" was in fact from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT speaking engagement.

d)Charlton Heston's appearance in Flint Michigan after Little Kayla's death was 8 MONTHS after her tragic killing. NOT days like the viewer was cleverly tricked into believing.

While there are literally dozens of clarifications as to Michael Moore's deception, those 4 stand out as crucial to him making his point in this movie.

MY point is, as I say, while Michael Moore raises some interesting points, is he so strapped for the facts that he has to mislead the viewing audience with clever editing? There are surely enough facts out there for him to make his movies that he shouldn't need to do this. Maybe, maybe not.

Perhaps he should be looking into why Ralph Nader is accepting donations from the REPUBLICAN party. What does that tell you?

The most disturbing part of Michael Moore's movies is that it seems to hypnotize what would be normally rational, intelligent human beings, into thinking that EVERYTHING that he says is the truth verbatim and anyone that attempts to, or PROVES he is being false and/or misleading, is simply a hater and ignoring the "Truth".


One quick point on the defintion of a documentary that Michael Moore likes to pass his movies off as. In Fahrenheit 9/11 alone, the scene in which he voices over footage of GWB sitting in the classroom and SPECULATES on what GWB is thinking, should have eliminated him from the category of Documentary at Cannes.


*1-Documentary

-A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

-Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

marcu5 07-12-2004 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kronic
Michael Moore raises some interesting points in his "Documentaries

Now watch Orwell Rolls in his Grave and come back to us.

spentrent 07-12-2004 11:04 PM

The whole point of this movie is to make college kids vote.

Just something to convince them that there's some value in getting that absentee ballot or planning a trip back to the folks' house.

That's the worst possible thing that could happen for the current administration.

Egads! Higher turnout be DAMNED!

And on that note, here are three uncontestable truths:

1) Voting Republican will not overturn Roe v. Wade.

2) Voting Republican will not put prayer in school.

3) Voting Republican will not make gay people disappear.

This is mandatory reading for the churchgoers; please do the world a service and flyer some cars on Sunday.

Of course, if internet porn starts to make me rich, I'll change my name to MrFreeMarket and drop Rand quotes. And the money goes offshore.

Nick 07-12-2004 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
I can't believe people still support the Bush administration in this thread.

Man you guys are in such denial.

I second that.

kronic 07-12-2004 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Webby
Trixie:



About Bush sitting for about 7-10 mins in that classroom after being told "Mr President, we are under attack"...

This was a man in panic and trying to think thru stuff. Bush does have at least two "personal problems" which have "inhibited" him thinking clearly.

One is that he does have a speech impediment and this also extends beyond his ability to get words flowing out of his mouth in a coherrent manner. Associated with that is also an "impediment" in thought processing. This is common with people associated with dyslexia. Think I read some members of his family has a more "pronounced" problem like this?

The other is, - hell, I don't know Bush's "real" background, but he clearly shows the actions of a person subject to "addiction" of some kind. Watch his mouth and the ease at which he can deliver "instant blame" elsewhere, - the sign of an "addict", tho he can't make more rational statements so easily. (ie.. "It was not my fault - it was them")

I suspect what we saw in that classroom was a mind in panic wondering what the hell he should do now. Any rational person would have calmly excused themselves with the children and got their ass outta there damned fast and find out what the fuck is going on.

BTW.. This ain't no "defense" of Bush :winkwink: I know he is a born liar and no better than a common criminal who, should not be standing within 100 miles of the Oval Office, but in a courtroom standing trial.

Can you possibly comprehend what he must have been thinking at the time?

Unless you're him or, of course, Michael Moore, I think not.

He has just been told of a devastating attack of untold and unheard of proportions in this or any lifetime upon the USA. And HE not you or I, is the "Leader of the free world". Whatever decisions he makes will be up for generations or criticism.

Perhaps he was thinking about all the money spent on his visit to Florida to promote literacy. Perhaps he was thinking about not upsetting all of the children in his presence. Remember, this date would have been remembered for the rest of these children's lives regardless of whether or not those attacks had taken place.

I hazard to guess that if he had up and left or been removed by the secret service, the Michael Moore spin would have been as follows:

-The president wasted these poor peoples tax dollars when all he was doing was preserving his OWN safely (he would have been whisked away to a safe place).

After all, the mayor and governor of NY were already dealing with the situation at hand and were on scene. GWB couldn't do anything immediately. You'd thing he'd have been able to spend 20 minutes finishing reading a book and THEN being taken away.

The sad thing about Michael Moore is not matter what GWB did or would have chose to do he was or would have been in the wrong. That's Michael Moore's agenda and his sheep believe every single word of it without looking at it objectively. That speaks for a great lack of intelligence. End of story.

spentrent 07-12-2004 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kronic
Michael Moore raises some interesting points in his "Documentaries(*1)" and there's no question that he gets people to both think and discuss the issues. Look at the number of posts and threads about Michael Moore.

When I first saw BFC I was surprised at the "Facts" he was presenting to the viewer. Much like Kevin Spacey's character in "The Negotiator", I tend to look at one side of the argument then search out and find the OTHER side of the argument. Then decide for myself what REALLY happened. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

Naturally, upon my further research, I stumbled across www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com and noticed that they take the OPPOSITE side of view of Michael Moore films.

The links section includes some very interesting things that I didn't realize.

a)The opening segmant at the bank was SCRIPTED. The bank in question IS a licensed arms dealer, BUT they keep their rifles some 300 miles away and someone opening an account, doesn't immediately recieve their rifle handed to them like portrayed in the movie. They must return to receive it and it is given to them in a BOX.

b)The NRA meeting in Littleton. By LAW, the NRA had to hold that meeting and in fact CANCELLED every other scheduled event because of the tragedy at Columbine High School.

c)The scene in which Charlton Heston raised his hand with a rifle and declared "From my cold dead hands" was in fact from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT speaking engagement.

d)Charlton Heston's appearance in Flint Michigan after Little Kayla's death was 8 MONTHS after her tragic killing. NOT days like the viewer was cleverly tricked into believing.

While there are literally dozens of clarifications as to Michael Moore's deception, those 4 stand out as crucial to him making his point in this movie.

MY point is, as I say, while Michael Moore raises some interesting points, is he so strapped for the facts that he has to mislead the viewing audience with clever editing? There are surely enough facts out there for him to make his movies that he shouldn't need to do this. Maybe, maybe not.

Perhaps he should be looking into why Ralph Nader is accepting donations from the REPUBLICAN party. What does that tell you?

The most disturbing part of Michael Moore's movies is that it seems to hypnotize what would be normally rational, intelligent human beings, into thinking that EVERYTHING that he says is the truth verbatim and anyone that attempts to, or PROVES he is being false and/or misleading, is simply a hater and ignoring the "Truth".


One quick point on the defintion of a documentary that Michael Moore likes to pass his movies off as. In Fahrenheit 9/11 alone, the scene in which he voices over footage of GWB sitting in the classroom and SPECULATES on what GWB is thinking, should have eliminated him from the category of Documentary at Cannes.


*1-Documentary

-A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

-Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Blah blah blah.

Guns and war are STILL bad.

infecto 07-12-2004 11:10 PM

The most shocking part to me is people pull in alot of this bs as fact.

kronic 07-12-2004 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
I can't believe people still support the Bush administration in this thread.

Man you guys are in such denial.

This isn't about supporting the Bush administration, it's about showing that you can take virtually ANYTHING and spin in the way you want.

Statistics have shown that statistics are practically useless unless you know who's doing the survey itself.

Bush and his administration did alot of things wrong, no question, and Michael Moore has brought some of that to our attention. Some of it we already knew of from RELIABLE news sources.

The point (in my mind anyways) is that what Michael Moore speaks is not the truth. It is a fabrication. If you can sit her and say that GWB fabricated a war, than at least admit that Moore fabricated alot of the "Facts" in his movies.

kronic 07-12-2004 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spentrent
Blah blah blah.

Intelligent response.
Quote:

Originally posted by spentrent
Guns and war are STILL bad.
I agree.

Jonathan Quarkschowski 07-12-2004 11:15 PM

I for one really enjoyed that die hard american chick that was so pround to be american and so proud to have her son in the army, 5 weeks later her son got shot and suddenly she wasn't that die hard, proud to be american bitch anymore.

It's very sad that it required her son's life to open her eyes, somehow reminds me of some die hard american keyboard warriors here.

kronic 07-12-2004 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan Quarkschowski
I for one really enjoyed that die hard american chick that was so pround to be american and so proud to have her son in the army, 5 weeks later her son got shot and suddenly she wasn't that die hard, proud to be american bitch anymore.

It's very sad that it required her son's life to open her eyes, somehow reminds me of some die hard american keyboard warriors here.

I didn't enjoy it. I thought it was terrible.

But to instantly throw her blame on the very institution that she told her children would help support them and put them through school, was so brutally hypocritical that it made her look like a fool.

I'm sure she was placing some blame on herself, and the guilt she'll live with for the rest of her life will surely drive her to therapy.

Of course, Michael Moore wouldn't show that however, or even ask the question (at least not on film).

jollyperv 07-12-2004 11:28 PM

Boy the noobs are out tonight.

bad_girl 07-13-2004 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marcu5
I don't think it was her stupidity as much as her manipulating a generation of teens to follow & trust your government.
I think for the most part teens DO NOT trust the government. She just seems like such a puppet who is unable to process any thoughts of her own. But I guess that is what happens when your name becomes a corporation and your PR reps do your thinking for you.


BG

STiNKyMeAT 07-13-2004 10:14 AM

ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE!

"A marvel of passionate succinctness...refrains from preaching to the choir"
-- Ronnie Scheib, Variety

mahoney 07-13-2004 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom_PM
Whats most shocking is that the people on the right side of the political fence think that everybody who see's the movie believes Moore is a god or something. As if once exposed to the documentary, their power to think for themselves vanishes.

It's just a movie, and it's opinion. Think for yourselves, let others think for themselves, and let the chips fall where they may.

The Bush camp says theres more facts in Shrek 2. And they also say that if they want to see a piece of fiction, they'll go see Shrek 2.

Umm.. wait a minute :1orglaugh


ok you have a point in terms o thinking for yourself but you can't deny the fact that reveals some major Dirt on Bush. Wouldn't you agree have you seen the movie ?

dready 07-15-2004 07:54 AM

Most shocking to me is how superficial it was and didn't dig up and real grit. There are so many larger issue it could have exposed... however as a general primer on the issue it was superb. Especially it's portrayal of the human element.

Tom_PMs 07-15-2004 08:06 AM

Quote:

ok you have a point in terms o thinking for yourself but you can't deny the fact that reveals some major Dirt on Bush. Wouldn't you agree have you seen the movie ?
Yeah I cant deny the fact. I tend to pay attention to news and politics anyway though, and not much of it was news to me personally. I'd made up my mind long long long before this to vote opposite. Way way way before kerry was picked.

And in 3 or 4 years if Kerry proves to be a fuckup, I'll vote him out too. Cuz I dont vote for or against a party, I vote for or against a person.

lawked 07-15-2004 08:47 AM

I find this "left" and "right" shit just a way people can feel like they're in a group. They disregard anything that goes against their idea of their group.

Fact remains, kids are dying everyday in Iraq. As are Iraqies. Where the fuck are the allies? Bush has ruined so much of what the US stands for and I can't believe he still has followers. Yeah I said followers, not supporters :1orglaugh

Kids dying everyday and Bush standing infront of rich motherfuckers making jokes.... come on you people... It's an illusion that bush cares about you. Break free from the "group" and decide for yourself.

Bush is a cocksucker... as is Cheney. I'm all for him going up on War crimes.

Won't happen with his "base" and his "have mores". They feed your brain daily with their TV channels.

How do you pronounce it ? Hi-el hit-ler?
:Graucho :1orglaugh :thumbsup

Hey, relax I'm Michael Moore.

TheSaint 07-15-2004 08:58 AM

The only shocking part about the movie is that anyone is dumb enough to watch it. Its 90% lies, crap, and distortions.

Don't get me wrong, my vote is for Kerry, but please people, use your brain. If you believe half the shit in that movie, you probably also believe the CIA killed Kennedy and Elvis is alive.

Sheesh. I knew it would play in Europe but I can't believe Americans are dumb enough to believe all this stupid crap, amazing.

An IQ test should be required to vote, IMO. Moore is an idiot, plain and simple. He helps the right because he makes the left look so nutty.

The Bootyologist 07-15-2004 09:00 AM

elvis isn't alive

is that what you are saying?

STiNKyMeAT 07-15-2004 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lawked
I find this "left" and "right" shit just a way people can feel like they're in a group. They disregard anything that goes against their idea of their group.

Fact remains, kids are dying everyday in Iraq. As are Iraqies. Where the fuck are the allies? Bush has ruined so much of what the US stands for and I can't believe he still has followers. Yeah I said followers, not supporters :1orglaugh

Kids dying everyday and Bush standing infront of rich motherfuckers making jokes.... come on you people... It's an illusion that bush cares about you. Break free from the "group" and decide for yourself.

Bush is a cocksucker... as is Cheney. I'm all for him going up on War crimes.

Won't happen with his "base" and his "have mores". They feed your brain daily with their TV channels.

How do you pronounce it ? Hi-el hit-ler?
:Graucho :1orglaugh :thumbsup

Hey, relax I'm Michael Moore.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup
Support your troops and Democracy, get Bush the fuck outta office!

benc 07-15-2004 09:42 AM

One thing I don't see from all the people that act like they know everything is a realistic, rational solution to the extremist Muslim problem.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123