blike Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-06 I have asked them to show it just once, perhaps the night before the election. So far, no deal. But I haven't given up trying. What do you guys think about that?
bloodhound Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 i dont see anything wrong with it. with all the negative campaining in america now. Kerry has got enough damaged with the swiftboat ads. Maybe this will somehow slap their wrist.
Thales Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Good, lets hope it affects some change. Bush is a moron and I will refrain from extending that comment to those who blindly support him...
J'Dona Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Certainly not! It would take attention away from the real issues, like Kerry's Vietnam record. To quote Dave Barry: ...whose record [John Kerry's] during the Vietnam era, to judge from the amount of media scrutiny, pro and con, it has received in the past few weeks, is the most important single issue facing Americans today.Actually, that's a joke. I don't see any harm in airing Fahrenheit 911 at any time up till and after the elections; if there's a single American left by November 2nd who doesn't know the issues and is still swayed by political propaganda - from either side - then god save America, and hope he blesses the side which bought your vote. EDIT: Sorry about that... I got emotional.
blike Posted September 8, 2004 Author Posted September 8, 2004 What about airing: An hour of 9/11 clips (planes crashing, suicide jumpers, towers collapsing, etc.) Followed by GW's speech. Followed by images of those beaten, raped, and tortured by Saddam. Followed by Kerry saying he is an anti-war candidate.
J'Dona Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Sounds good to me; if F911 airs that night on the same channel, the left-wing propaganda might cancel out the right-wing propaganda, and people could make their vote based on what they feel rather than what they've been told to feel. Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude above or in the last post, and I'm certainly not calling images of September 11th and the atrocities which occured under Saddam's reign in Iraq "propaganda". I was just trying to say that those who have chosen their party through informed personal decision aren't going to swing their vote on the day before the election due to some sensationalist movie released months earlier, and so makes no odds. If those late-changers actually affect the election result in the end, it's a rather sad state for fair democracy.
r1dermon Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 what about airing an hour of 9/11 clips followed by the man who allowed it to happen followed by statistics of just how bad the country has suffered since bush got elected followed by police reports, military documents, and images confirming what bush was doing while kerry was serving his country nobly in a war that was not ours.
pulkit Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 I really wish that people are influenced by it and do not re-elect Bush.
blike Posted September 8, 2004 Author Posted September 8, 2004 I hope that anyone does not feel that I am making a connection between any of the events listed in my post. I just feel that airing emotionally charged material the night before an election could have devistating results on a general election (in either direction, depending on the material). Any sort of emotional portrayal of one candidate over the other seems a bit unfair. And while the actual events may have been factual in the TV show I presented, somewhat like F911, the emotions which are stirred by the events because of the manner in which they're shown would assuradly cause at least some voters to swing on emotion alone. I don't know if that's fair play. Manipulation of the mob is an easy thing, which is why we are a federal republic, not a democracy.
bloodhound Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 both parties have made the use of 911 for their own political gains. some more than others maybe. The RNC for example.
5614 Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 to blike post #9, thats propoganda, possible-to-be-presidents will air that kinda stuff just to try and get a few extra votes, no matter how wrong it could be. they are desperate for the job.
jordan Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 What about airing: An hour of 9/11 clips (planes crashing' date=' suicide jumpers, towers collapsing, etc.) Followed by GW's speech. Followed by images of those beaten, raped, and tortured by Saddam. Followed by Kerry saying he is an anti-war candidate.[/quote'] Sounds fair to me. When I was on the home page and clicked on "New Posts" just a few minutes ago, I don't think this thread was on the list. I'm glad I did see it. blike has a very good idea there.
Mad Mardigan Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 i dont see anything wrong with it. with all the negative campaining in america now. Kerry has got enough damaged with the swiftboat ads. Maybe this will somehow slap their wrist. Kerry put that out there for free game, now that the truth is out there, he hates it. The pun intended is not to brag about something you cant back.
budullewraagh Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 truth? what is that? so many veterans can and have vouched for him. the more important thing to note is that bush evaded the draft. nomatter what you say about kerry's military record, you can never call bush a more loyal soldier
jordan Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Why do you put so much on who's a better soldier? That doesn't really have much to do but with a single area of the government. Who's a better soldier is more or less irrelevant in the, say, social issues.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 If Bush is a bad soldier, does that mean he is a bad politician? That he has the wrong views on key issues? Or if Kerry is a good soldier, and a Vietnam veteran, does that mean he can handle terrorism correctly? Their military service is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is the views on issues, their skills in politics, and so on.
budullewraagh Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 i don't, but if the republicans want to make an issue of it, they should at least have good grounds to base their argument on.
jordan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Am I wrong, or was Kerry the first person to attack saying Bush was a draft-dodger?
budullewraagh Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 actually, the republicans attacked kerry first on this issue
john5746 Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 I haven't seen the movie, but I doubt it will make a difference. After watching him at the RNC, he has really improved as a politician. He had tears in his eyes while talking about the soldiers dying, etc. I'm not saying he wasn't sincere, but he really has but Kerry in a no-win situation. If violence subsides, Bush is winning, if it escalates, we need him. If they found a character flaw, like him being gay or having an affair would have a bigger effect. Its ok to screw up on a war, but don't do the intern!
jordan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 actually, the republicans attacked kerry first on this issue What was their claim? I honestly don't remember who started it.
Mad Mardigan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Hollywood just needs to stay out of politics, plain and simple. If people would take what they say on tv for truth and did research themselves, it would be an educated vote and a better system. Me personally, Im not going to vote for Bush or Kerry, I will vote for Ted Nugent. I dont think the right person for the job will run for pres. Nixon was a good president who got caught at the ways things really get done. You have to make deals and meet behind closed doors to get things accomplished. Back to my original point, politics, hollywood, and the general public dont need to mix.
Thales Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 If violence subsides, Bush is winning, if it escalates, we need him. What a sad state of affairs if you honestly believe that. Bush is a right wing puppet who pleads to the evangenical right and his political doctrine on issues of both foreign and domestic policy have already isolated the American public from the global community to a sad extent. If he is re-elected then it doesn't bode well for the rest of the world's opinion of you and your country. Although I guess that doesn't matter as long as you have a 'strong' leader at the helm. Please wake up and smell the shit your shovelling.
budullewraagh Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 What was their claim? I honestly don't remember who started it. kerry wasn't AS cool as the records show
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now