'Fahrenheit 9/11' Sets Documentary Record...but i dont think you should call it one.

[mental invalid]

by the way even though you dont like reading the long winded opinions, kudos to your retort of the article...

 

 

gold star for staying on target...

 

pass me the g13

[Yorick]

Originally posted by BROWNer

you know in australia it's law, you gotta vote.

that's the way it should be.

 

ps-check the inbox slut.

 

Heh, never mind that a lot of the voting-age people in this country (especially those just turning 18) have the political awareness of pond scum. Perhaps they may vote more liberal than the plague of old people we have here (especially in my state), but seriously, a lot of them don't want to vote, and can't afford not to. (the rich can just pay the fine) What benefit does a bunch of Year-10 dropouts donkey-voting on the ballot do, really?

 

As far as the movie goes, Australia shall not be graced with it's presence for another few weeks... So I shall wait and see.

 

As far as Michael Moore goes (I own all of his books, and have seen The Awful Truth and Bowling for Columbine), he's biased, he's propagandist, he's left, and he's got a camera. Shit, there's no such thing as pure equality. Take a look at your news and media there (I have). It's biased heavily to the right wing, and frankly a lot of it is pure bullshit. Many of the large networks have connections to politicos, and frankly, it's in their interests (the execs at least) for a conservative government to remain in power, because they reap all of the insane tax benefits the Bush government piles upon them. (trickle down theory my ass. What is it with Americans and tax anyway? You have one of the lowest taxation rates in the world, yet the country is renowned for bitching about it.)

 

Yeah, Mr Moore is biased, but given the political climate at the moment (hell even our PM is in the sack with Bush, and is currently giving us all kinds of benefits-but-not-really-VOTEME!!! at the moment) I think he's having a good impact. He's ripping away the facade that the Bush administration has erected, and it's probably going to benefit the country.

 

Oh, and vote Kerry, for the rest of our benefit. I'm not sure Americans realise just how much their elections affect the rest of us.

 

I'd never expect this kind of political discussion from graffiti artists... :

[seeking]

fox devotes its entire news organization to right-wing-slanted, extrmely biased views of every topic it covers, often including flat out lies, and it's just considered 'news'. moore makes a movie from his perspective, includes proven facts, and because it also includes personal oppinion, somehow its tantamount to artistic and national treason?! never mind the fact that every single day rush and oreiley spit out absolute BLATENT lies, and no one says shit. they just accept it. you want to have a discussion about media and fairness, thats your topic to discuss. why it's become acceptible for right wing media to completely fabricate facts with no regard for reality. that's a hell of a lot larger of an issue than whether or not this is actually a 'documentary'.

no documentary is ever completely unbiased. have you ever seen a history channel piece on aushewitz(sp?) that gave the perspective of the guards, or tried to get you to understand what they were feeling? fuck no you havent. is that fair? not at all. does anyone care? nope. why? because the nazi's killed a lot of people. oh, so if you follow your governments wishes in america its patriotic, but in germany its something else? enter topic two: the hipocrisy of HIS-story.

 

this movie should be argued on facts and facts alone. if the things he says are not true, then disprove them. if they are true, then shut up. if you disagree with his oppinions on bush, then write your own story about how awesome bush is and present it to the world. do not go off on some long winded tirade about how terrible moore is because it's completely fucking irrelivent. moore is not running against bush and this is not a 2 hour campain ad. it's a movie made from the perspective of it's director. moore could be a 3 foot, wart covered troll, but it does not change who bush is and the fact that roughly 80-90% of the worlds population views him largely the same way moore does. if someone came out with a documentary slamming the practice of 'stoning' women for infidelity, or female circumcision, would there be discussion about how it is biased and 'unfair'?! fuck no they wouldnt. well id be willing to wager that world wide, the percentage of bush supporters is roughly equal to the percentage of pro female-oppression supporters, so i hope you're taking a stand for those guys as well. and actually, there are probably some people in a jungle someplace in south america that are afraid to wander too far, for fear they might fall off the edge of the earth. you wight want to stick up for their right to believe in a flat planet.

 

i honestly dont know why i even bothered to reply to this shit again. i seem to be the only person trying to keep it on track. even you roe, for all your bluster, are doing nothing to shape the discussion. you throw out a half finished idea, then act like a child when people dont follow along with what you were hoping to have us discuss. lead by example, not by doctrin. if you want to talk about fairness in media, then present your own oppinions. when people chime in with their usual dumb stuff, IGNORE IT. dont insult the person for not caring to read hutchinsons 3000 word tirade against moore. you and i are probably the only people who have read that in its entirety, so wheres your oppinion on it? wheres your oppinion on anything other than the mental capacity of those that did not adhere to your wishes?

as i said man, lead by example.

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Haven't seen the film yet (doesn't arrive till July 8th here), but Hitchens seems to present plenty of good points not just against Moore the person, but the work and the presentation of facts. If you don't see them, it's because you're refusing to.

 

A principal good point, which relates to Roe's concern:

 

So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft.

 

 

 

I'll reserve my opinion until I see it. But please believe I'll be wearing the skeptic goggles.

[seeking]

again, i say, refute the things moore says, not the things he does not say. IF, the things he does not say, completely refute the things he did say, then so be it, but prove it. don't just talk about how he's leaving out a side of things, explain exactly what he is leaving out, and HOW if effects the parts he's leaving in. back up your claims, dont just cast potential doubt. right or wrong, moore backs up every single argument he makes. he doesnt just say things with nothing behind it. there is always the chance that what he does present is not 100% of the story, but again, show me anything, ever produced by anyone, ever in the history of mankind, that told the entire story of any situation. it has never happend. if there is something more to the fact that saudi's control roughly 6% of our economy, or whatever moore claims, then refute that. do not talk about how moore spliced together this or that to get this imagry. at the end of the day, that shit does not matter, the facts do. if you can not refute the facts, then what is there to talk about? i agree that things are seldom as cut and dried as they can be made to appear, but that does not make them any less true. sometimes cutting out the other side, just means cutting out the lies. i'm sure haliburton has a very 'valid' reason for charging the US taxpayers $160 million dollars for meals it never served our soldiers, or for running hundreds of empty trucks across the dessert, to rack up profits (both of which are proven. they'll say it was an acounting mistake or blame it on some person that has very conveniently been fired, but it doesnt change the fact that we are only as stupid as we allow ourselves to be. this is not an 'unbiased' view of things. if anyone saw moore on john stewart, he admitteded it was not. but it is a reasonable response to a very biased presentation of the 'facts' by the powers that be. 'facts' that have caused the death or injury of hundreds of thousands of people.

 

the movie really only makes two points.

*bush has very close financial ties to the saudi's (including the bin ladens), who have a huge hand in our economy. this is pretty much irrefutible, and as far as i know, no one has even attempted to.

*this 'war' was has been incredibly profitable for a few companies, all of which happen to have DIRECT ties to the people who pushed for it. again, this hasen't even been contested, because its absolutely impossible to. cheney is making millions of dollars of halliburton.

 

the second half of it, is purely a look at some of the people fighting the war and affected by the war. it is doesnt give any facts, it just gives a view of things that we have specifically not been shown.

 

 

this was not an attack on you mams, it was just another 'open letter' response to moore's critics. apply whatever you feel applies.

[seeking]

mams, if you give me an address, and promise to return it soon, i'll mail you my bootleg copy.

if i had known it wasnt coming out for that long there, i'd have picked up a copy specifically for you.

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Well, from what I can see in Hitchen's piece, he presents plenty of examples in which what Moore left out could cause problems for what he left in. They may not COMPLETELY 100% refute what Moore says, but they cast doubt on his point and may show that the fact is not a result of ONE course of action, but of many. You want an absolute refutation of facts, which you and I both know is not necessary to bring someone's case down.

 

If an event happens or a fact exists, and there's 7 reasons for it to have happened, and you only present 3 of those reasons in a way that makes it seems like those 3 were the ONLY reasons, you're being dishonest. There's 4 other reasons out there you're leaving out simply because they're either detrimental to your case, or because you don't personally care enough about them. Either way, you're making a faulty argument, which you an expect to be called out on, and with good reason, even if what you stand for is the correct stance.

 

Don't sweat it about the bootleg, it's gonna be here next week and I'm definitely copping premiere tickets. By the time your copy gets to me it'll just be a day or two away. Thanks for the offer though!

[Guest]

that clip of michael moore on the daily show last night was brilliant!

 

wait... did he just ambush her on her own show?

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

You know what's funny though, I'm on another, more conservative-oriented board arguing on your side. I should start some sort of inter-board discussion... copy what someone over there says, paste it here, then do the same over there for the responses it gets here.

[LaCosaNostra]

Originally posted by seeking

holy fucking ignorance!!!

 

roe, seriously dude, get your head out of your fucking ass! i honestly almost dont even believe it's you typing that shit, or if it is, that you're trying to play some ridiculous joke on us all. what dude said is completely right, you're attacking the person simply because their oppinion differs from yours. fucking ignorance, end of story.

 

i watched farenheit 911 on the plane today (canal street bootlegs represent). i also read the NETIRE hutchinson article last week, and i have to say that again, dude is doing what every single person that tries to criticise moore does; they attack him instead of the work. instead of questioning why the bin ladens were let out of the country, against the wishes of the FBI, he disses more for not criticising dick clark for giving the OK. who fucking cares? completely irrelivent. then he spends half the thing criticising moore for at one point questioning if al qaida is even involved in 911, then in the movie, just accepts that they were guilty...again, big fucking deal?!?! all he does is attack moore, and slander him personally, and the way he chose to present the film. not the points moore brings up, not the questions he asks, but moore himself. chris hutchinson, eat a dick. this isnt a documentary, but its a god damn incredible look at what is going on in america and behind the scenes. you can dislike moore all day long, but it doesnt change the fact that we're playing russian roulet iwth the world. you can hate moore 17 ways till sunday and it doesnt change that fact.

yes.

[seeking]

or just invite me over there. lord knows i need more agravation in my life.

;)

 

i agree that only showing 3 of a 7 sided argument is not necessarily the most thurough way to go about things, but i also think if the thee sides you do show are strong enough, and 2 of the remaining 4 are complete bullshit, and the other 2 are a slight of hand, then presenting them will just convolute things. if this administration has proven anything, it's that if fox news says something, it's 'true', no matter how fanciful it might be. before the 9/11 commission last week, 68% of ameircans still believed that there was a working relationship between al qaida and iraq. i'm not sure what the numbers are now, but i doubt they are much lower. even though it has been proven to the best of the worlds possible ability, that it is completely not true. but how do you prove something is wrong, when peoples reason for believing is not based on anything? if you were to try and refute every possible angle in every situation, you would never ever accomplish anything. what moore set out to do was to force bush, and america, to take a serious look at what is going on here, and how it is effecting our world. even if he just presents 3 sides, those 3 are serious enough to warrant a response. and maybe thats where i differ on things. i don't care if this is biased. i dont care if its a documentary, and i don't care if it's only telling half the story. i think the story it does tell is more than sufficent to get people more interested in finding out the truth, and taking a look at what is going on. i look at it as a hearing to determine if a 'new trial' is warranted. this movie is not going to prove that bush is 'guilty', but it does prove that shit is 'fucked the fuck up', and that we've been lied to constantly.

 

again, i would like to see an article refuting specific claims that moore makes regarding bush/saudi/bin laden connection. i would also like to see someone try and refute or rationalize the money halliburton has stolen. if someone can't argue those facts, or present another side that makes me think that somehow it is not as moore presents, then i really don't care what they say, because its semantics and opinion, and i dont care about other peoples opinions.

[CLICKCLACKONER]

Originally posted by Tesseract

seriously, i'd be feeling really good if americans actually took the huge effort to vote...i dont really care what but i'd like to see you guys take part in whats running your lifes.

 

voting does not matter... how did bush get in office?

[seeking]

50% of eligable voters, do not vote.

if they did vote, bush would not be in office.

voting does make a difference, but only if you do it.

[CLICKCLACKONER]

Seeking,

How was the bootleg. was it DVD quality or filmed in the movie theater style.

[seeking]

they're all filmed in the theater. china town steeze.

quality sucks, but whatever. i aint mad.

[CLICKCLACKONER]

i got columbine on canal and that shit was movie theater style, it was tolerable. but i got luck with lord of the rings... that shit was straight dvd quality.:)

[Guest]

Originally posted by seeking

50% of eligable voters, do not vote.

if they did vote, bush would not be in office.

voting does make a difference, but only if you do it.

 

 

here's a point to consider.... low voter turnout generally means political apathy but that can be a good thing. Imagine if there was a public vote on a tax raise of 300%. Every single voter would turn out to vote against that tax raise. If there's no polarizing issue then it isnt always bad to have low voter turnout. It can be a reflection that times are okay and people are generally satisfied.

 

Look at France durring their last elections.

They had a huge voter turnout mainly because people were so scraed that Le Pen would come in from the far, far right and take control. They all went to the polls to stop him. By contrast look at the shit turnout for the bush/gore election. People were feeling good and most voters didnt show because they couldnt really get behind either of the candidates.

 

rambling now...

[seeking]

that doesnt exactly apply to america, because there is always voter apathy here. more than in any other democratic country in the world. people don't vote because they dont think it matters, not because they dont care. they feel that no matter what they want, the rich will get their way, and they [the average person] will wind up getting screwed. which, historically speaking does tend to be the case. they don't realize that voting is the ONLY way it will change. that they need to vote out politicians that are dishonest, and vote in ones that aren't.

[CLICKCLACKONER]

it's just different masks homie... they are all dishonest.

[seeking]

thanks 'homie', i'm familiar with politics and how they work. they are dishonest because we do not hold them accountable. because we dont even know what the fuck they vote for, so they can do whatever they want. half the people dont even understand how senators and congressmen affect politics, and how voting in local political races does greatly effect the larger pictures. there are a ton of things that have achieved by small groups, at local levels, that had a huge effect on stuff. the only reason we even had a 911 commission, was because a group of survivors and widows, bitched and complained until the govt. finally caved in and granted one. if a couple hundred people had not been adamant about finding out what happend, none of that would have taken place.

as soon as people hold their officials accountable, and are not deceived by shiny appliances and even shinier lies, things will change. there actually are a lot of decent politicians, they just never get things accomplished because the shitty ones are allowed to have all the power.

[Guest]

Originally posted by seeking

people don't vote because they dont think it matters, not because they dont care.

 

I think it's because they dont care.

 

One rich dude from the south or another rich dude from the north?

Who cares? Neither of them represent my interests.

 

 

*P3

[Guest WREK]

what would happen if the inner city youth was educated properly??

 

crackers would shit their pants, thats what.

 

 

 

stay in school.....

[seeking]

Originally posted by <KEY3>

I think it's because they dont care.

 

One rich dude from the south or another rich dude from the north?

Who cares? Neither of them represent my interests.

[/color]

 

what is it with people i usually respect completely assing out lately? kerry is not a 'rich dude', and if you can't see how he will be different than bush, you are completely blind, and lying to yourself just so you can wallow in nihilism. it makes a WORLD of difference. we would not be in iraq right now if gore had been (allowed to be) elected. i think that is pretty unarguable.

 

if people do not care, it's because they think it doesn't matter what they say. if people felt their voices made a difference, they would care (and they would vote).

[Guest]

actually I was thinking more about the bush-or-gore vote.

 

and my comment was probably what most americans were thinking in November 2000.

There was no 9/11 at that point, no concern in Afghanistan and Sadam was a bad guy from the past. There was nothing to polarize them into voting like their life depended on it. Clearly this year... it just might depend on it.

 

dont worry seeks.... even as a canuck, I can see just how important this election will be.

Did you see just how important our election was yesterday?

[seeking]

you had an election yesterday?

sorry, i was in NYC buying shoes. somehow i must have missed it.

:(

 

 

seeks/social commentary through unfortunate honesty

 

 

oh, and i think we're arguing opposit sides of the same coin. i agree that people dont care, but i think its because they dont think caring will make a difference. if they felt their vote did matter, they would cast it. think about bar room politics; just about everyone has an oppinion on just about every matter, but that doesnt mean most will ever make it into a ballot box. ask any drunk guy on the street what he thinks about bush, or the war, and they will have an oppinion.

[Guest]

yeah... same coin.

 

There was an election in Canada that was one-of-a-kind. I saw Michael Moore on US tv talking abouthow Canadians cant vote for Harper. Luckily we didn't... mostly.

 

 

a thread I made about it

[seeking]

moore said 'most americans'...i am willing to bet that 95% of americans could not tell you who the PM of canada and the president of mexico are.

i know mexico is vicente fox, but i have no clue on canada. which is hillarious, considering i'm 10 minutes from it, and had dinner there last night.

 

 

 

so who won?

[Guest]

our old PM is our new PM.

 

long story short....

Crazy Old Jean Chretien retires and leaves Paul Martin in charge.

Turns out Jean had some scandals that hurt his party.

Paul Martin is attacked by every other party.

Out on the West, there's a bunch of crazed creationists.

They somehow managed to infiltrate a respected party (the PC's)

Their leader accused the PM of being soft on child porn.

 

It's like voting for a knight at medevil times.

 

Here's the 4 main parties:

Liberals - who everyone thinks are dishonest

Conservative - who would rather be americans

NDP - who are the leftist hippies

Bloc Quebecois - by Quebec, for Quebec

 

yeah... our situation is really interesting compared to yours.

[seeking]

you guys still have a slant towards socialism?

it's interesting that the liberals would be seen as dishonest.

why is that?

and which party is martin in?

[Guest]

Paul Martin was appointed head of the liberal party by Jean Chretien. Paul Martin just won the last election and gets to keep his position as Prime Minister (even though it's over a minority govt this time) In Canada there are 301 seats and the 'prime minister' is the leader of the party with the most seats. We dont vote specifically for someone to be PM, just for the person in our local riding and the party they represent.

 

the scand had something to do with old guys under Chretien giving big advertising contracts to their buddies companies in montreal. Something like $100mil was spent 'without any benefit to canadians'. So Paul Martin got left that nasty bit of scandal to fight.