Fahrenheit 9/11-What's your opinion?

[Sayonara]

I`ve not seen it yet' date=' is it any good?

I`ve seen "shooting for columbine" and that was pretty hard hitting, even though a little biased perhaps. I`ve yet to see this new one though.[/quote']

The problem with BFC was that it kept unintentionally sliding off-topic.

 

People attack the film because they quite like having guns. But the question Moore was actually asking was "WHY does America have such a poor gun-death to guns-owned ratio?", not "what are we going to do about all these guns?".

 

If you remember, in the film he made a point about being an NRA member himself.

[YT2095]

sorry yes, "Bowling for..." my bad

 

the stats were astonishing though!, I grew up in Canada when guns were legal, even for a 12 year old on his dads farm!

almost every home had one (or more) and yet the only shooting deaths I rem were hunting accidents!

 

MM tells a good story though, and his reporting style is quite a "gripper", but I think I`ll wait untill it comes on TV

[Mad Mardigan]

source?

 

Sorry I forgot the source, but someelse posted it afterwards.

[blike]

So he's not on *active* duty in Iraq.

ay, as i said above he was not in iraq, and if he was going anywhere it was kuwait

He is in Iraq. See here.

[Sayonara]

That article only says he was ordered to Iraq, and "His artillery unit is expected to be deployed in the heart of Iraqi rebel territory".

 

It does not confirm that he went, and it does not say when he was expected to arrive.

 

If Hunter was in Iraq after Moore filmed that scene, it's not really Moore's fault, seeing as the scene was discussing events in the past from his perspective.

[blike]

He was deployed that month, plenty of time for Mr. Moore to change his the word "one" to "two".

[blike]

Anyhow, I'm obviously nitpicking, but when someone states that Michael Moore had a team of people check all his "facts" and they were all true, it only takes one untrue statement to nullify it.

[r1dermon]

moore might be biased, though he denounces both right and left-wing politics, but he is nothing, compared with the "fair and balanced" FOX news. surprisingly, o'reilly has lightened up on his bias, but sean hannity is the most partisan right wing biased moron i've ever heard. he calls an 18 year old kid who doesnt want to get drafted "not a good american" but then turns around and praises all his right wing pricks as being "truly great americans" all because of the way they vote...now thats fair and balanced, let me tell you...moore has to project a point, his point wouldnt make a very good movie if it was boring, thats why his style is to take things out of context and show them on film....many of his so-called facts are actually true...go figure...like the fact that bush has taken 6 months of vacation during his 4 years...thats a fact, his cabinet travels with him...sure...thats so that its not called a vacation...but its still a vacation...would you believe that its actual work when BUSH tells you it is? a coke head, a drunk driver, a very poor example of a soldier...? he lied about that drunk driving thing in ME, "the reason he was pulled over is because he was driving...too slowly..." WTF???? too slowly? who gets pulled over for driving too slowly...it was like this, he drank way to much in kennebunkport, drove home, hit about 60mph on a 30mph road and then crashed into a bunch of hedges...moore couldve put so much more stuff in that movie...like the FOIA(freeedom of information act) this is so that the people know what their money is being spent on...but wait, now we need a legitimate reason to see these documents, which mostly are being classified now...we also have to give our name and an abundance of other crap...and for the typical reason..."terrorists"...not one bush speech can go by without bush mentioning terrorists and 9/11, not one....its his and FOX's mission to keep the american public scared....exploding bouys, poison pen darts....etc....and then when a legitimate attack does occur(washington sniper) its certainly not the work of terrorists, just serial killers....where do you draw the line of distinction?

[blike]

with regard to your first point, one cannot say that the number of protesters determines the originality of the situation.

 

So just what DID Moore mean? It was obvious that he was talking about a sizeable protest to the president's inauguration.

 

with regard to your second point, bush scrapped the majority of his walk, so the statement was mostly accurate. one block makes little difference.

 

"Mostly accurate" or "partly inaccurate"? It's only tradition to walk the last block, though some presidents walk the last mile. The Clintons only walked the last half-block. The tradition is to get out and walk, and GW Bush did so. Michael Moore said the plan to have Bush get out of the limousine and walk was scrapped, and it wasn't.

 

with regard to your third point, richard clarke's decision represented the white house.

 

Fair enough, I will give you that point. It is not 'factually incorrect'. But it is contextually incorrect especially since michael moore implies that the Saudi's connections with Bush bought their ticket out of the country.

 

Moore: 'Cuz $1.4 billion doesn't just buy a lot of flights out of the country, it buys a lot of love."

 

The point of all my posts is that Michael Moore is deceptive throughout the whole film.

For example:

MOORE: In the days following September 11th' date=' all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded.

 

VOICEOVER: The FAA has taken action to close all of the airports in the United States.

 

VOICEOVER: Even grounding the President's father, former President Bush, on a flight forced to land in Milwaukee. Dozens of travelers stranded, among them, Ricky Martin, due to perform at tonight's Latin Grammy awards.

 

MOORE: Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens.

 

(video of airplane leaving)

 

SEN. BYRON DORGAN: We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia; transport them out of this country.[/quote']

 

Now, as a member sitting in the audience, Michael Moore made it seem to me like the bin ladens were leaving when no one else, not even ricky martin or GHBush, could fly. That's what I thought while I was sitting there. Only later do I find out that they left when many flights were reauthorized. It's clear that Moore was intentionally leading you down a false line of thought.

[blike]

moore might be biased, though he denounces both right and left-wing politics, but he is nothing, compared with the "fair and balanced" FOX news. surprisingly, o'reilly has lightened up on his bias, but sean hannity is the most partisan right wing biased moron i've ever heard.

That's not FOX News, thats the opinion of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, which are OPENLY CONSERVATIVE. The point is that they're OPEN ABOUT THEIR BIAS. If you don't like it, turn it off. They're not trying to disguise themselves as something they are not.

 

The reason you hate Hannity so much is because he is right, and that makes people like you angry. No, it makes you frothing at the mouth furious. Oh, and I see no mention of Hannity's counter-part Colmes, who happens to be a liberal and sitting right next to Hannity the whole time.

 

he calls an 18 year old kid who doesnt want to get drafted "not a good american" but then turns around and praises all his right wing pricks as being "truly great americans" all because of the way they vote...now thats fair and balanced

WRONG. He calls anyone that votes a great american. And if you'd like to provide a source for Hannity lambasting a kid for "not wanting to be drafted", I'd be glad to take a look. He was probably chewing into someone for saying they'd avoid the draft. Anyone who is honest with themselves does not want to be drafted.

 

let me tell you...moore has to project a point, his point wouldnt make a very good movie if it was boring, thats why his style is to take things out of context and show them on film....many of his so-called facts are actually true...go figure...like the fact that bush has taken 6 months of vacation during his 4 years...thats a fact, his cabinet travels with him...sure...thats so that its not called a vacation...but its still a vacation...would you believe that its actual work when BUSH tells you it is? a coke head, a drunk driver, a very poor example of a soldier...? he lied about that drunk driving thing in ME, "the reason he was pulled over is because he was driving...too slowly..." WTF???? too slowly? who gets pulled over for driving too slowly...it was like this, he drank way to much in kennebunkport, drove home, hit about 60mph on a 30mph road and then crashed into a bunch of hedges...moore couldve put so much more stuff in that movie...like the FOIA(freeedom of information act) this is so that the people know what their money is being spent on...but wait, now we need a legitimate reason to see these documents, which mostly are being classified now...we also have to give our name and an abundance of other crap...and for the typical reason..."terrorists"...not one bush speech can go by without bush mentioning terrorists and 9/11, not one....its his and FOX's mission to keep the american public scared....exploding bouys, poison pen darts....etc....and then when a legitimate attack does occur(washington sniper) its certainly not the work of terrorists, just serial killers....where do you draw the line of distinction?

So basically FOX News is a horrid, wretched entity for being biased, but it's cool if a liberal is a little biased. Typical liberal.

[r1dermon]

ahahahaha, no, wrong, hannity is not right, he is outwardly biassed, along with the rest of fox news, any idea who rupert murdoch is? maybe you should look into THAT, and then get back to me...they are not outwardly biased, they mask it, and lie about it, they say they are FAIR and BALANCED, however, you yourself agree that they are biased...also, if you can get transcripts from last tuesdays hannity radio broadcast, then you'll find what im talking about. he doesnt call anyone that votes a great american, he failed to acknowledge any left wing person for being a great american because they vote, but he was all too happy to tell it to the NYC firemen and policemen. also, half of his people surveyed were not even of legal age to vote..."this is what we are up against" he said...BAH, ok pal, i can find just as many conservatives who are just as uninformed...but, i bet, the conservatives i find, will actually be over the age of 30 years old...just to show you how stupid your entire base is. my problem doesnt come with a little bias, liberals have like...3 outlets to be biased from....republicans push their agenda through a lot more public outlets. 75% of the radio stations in america are owned by clearchannel, an openly bias coorporation, fox has how many sibling stations with which to spew right wing crap out of? count em....around here there are 6, find me a nationally syndicated "liberal viewpoint" radio show, go ahead, find me one, that i and many millions of other americans can tune into...and dont use liberal like its a bad word, im proud to be a liberal. you typical conservative....hah, i bet i insulted you...

[Sayonara]

He was deployed that month, plenty of time for Mr. Moore to change his the word "one" to "two".

 

Anyhow, I'm obviously nitpicking, but when someone states that Michael Moore had a team of people check all his "facts" and they were all true, it only takes one untrue statement to nullify it.

Yet you are saying that if Moore claimed Hunter was not in Iraq on the 15th, and Hunter then arrived on the 16th (for example, I don't know what the exact dates were), then Moore should just change the commentary to say "only two were here on the 15th" and - despite being factually incorrect - that would be okay with you?

[blike]

Sayo, no, but if he had time to he should have. Obviously it was an oversight. Two congressional children in Iraq is not going to change his point, however, facts are supposed to be factual, and if moore had the time he or cared enough about being factually correct it would have been changed. The most likely explanation is that when he researched it he was correct. I've already admitted to nitpicking, so I will back down from my position on this one.

[blike]

dont use liberal like its a bad word

 

Anyone with an opinion is inherently biased.

 

Liberal is a bad word, which is why democrats want nothing to do with the term. I'll address the rest of your post later, I've got micro lab in 30 minutes.

[Sayonara]

Sayo, no... and what have you

Ah right. The whole issue was a bit confused and I wasn't sure if you had some angle on it I'd completely missed.

[r1dermon]

ah yes, the terrible term liberal, thats YOUR bias telling you its a bad word. news is not supposed to have an opinion, its supposed to be news, thats the point. news is factual, not slanted either way. it theoretically CANNOT be politically biassed if its news. thats the point of news...of course however, the US does not have a good NEWS source. only partisan private groups pushing others agendas, and that goes both ways, left-wing OR right wing.