Fahrenheit 9/11

[Joe Matt]

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/images/f911-home-interim_03.jpg

So, who else is going to see this movie the day it comes out? Gotta love that poster too.

[Bridgette]

I'm definitely seeing it as soon as it comes out. That poster is great. :)

[Joshua May]

I'm going to see it as soon as I can, I can't wait

[Aaron Knight]

I'm gonna go see it the day it comes out :)

[LauraN]

So, who else is going to see this movie the day it comes out? Gotta love that poster too.
*crosses fingers* With luck, I will. I'll be out of school by then, but I think I have other committments lined up for that day....Grr....

Definitely the first chance I get though. (I'm still trying to find a chance to see Bowling for Columbine and I loved Dude Where's My Country....Michael Moore, maniac that he is, is great.)

[Joshua May]

I'll see it the day it comes out, if it plays locally.

[Venkatesh]

I am going to try as much as I can to go see this the day it is released. After the debacle that was "Dude, where is my country?", how could I not? =)

[Kristina]

I'm not really in a big rush to see it the first day it comes out but I'll probably go see it. I'll be in Washington, DC at the time so it will be interesting to see what the reception of the movie is there.

[Adam Y.]

I find that poster strangely appealing for some reason even though I would probably disagree with every single opinion he has.

[Joshua May]

*sigh* I just found out that F911 isn't going to be playing at any of the local theaters. And I'm guessing my parents wont go down to LA or Glendale to see the movie.

[D.J. Fluck]

I don't really care for Michael Moore or his views, but from what ive seen he appears to be a brilliant movie maker whether you agree with him or not...

I think ill go see it eventually...

[Katie Reynolds]

I don't really care for Michael Moore or his views, but from what ive seen he appears to be a brilliant movie maker whether you agree with him or not...

I think ill go see it eventually... What DJ said.

[Cory]

I'll see it as soon as I can, but I already know how I'm voting, so this will be purely entertainment for me.

Cory

[phrontist]

I'm getting a big group together to go. I'm quite excited. Maybe I should bring some voter registration forms along...

[Ryan Dognaux]

Maybe I should bring some voter registration forms along...

If your choice of candidate can be swayed by watching one movie, then maybe you shouldn't.

[Madison]

If your choice of candidate can be swayed by watching one movie, then maybe you shouldn't.

While I'm 99% certain you misunderstood what was written...

Are you suggesting that someone not vote?

[UlTiMaTeP]

Please see the movie! and then, give it a week, and I am sure there will be many reports showing you all the false facts in the movie, just as there was for BFC. I personally liked Bowling for Columbine but then, I found out about how many little facts were slanted to make his point. As Schnitt says, "He makes good entertaining crapumentary's" I personally will see it, but if its slanted to the point where it says its a conspiracy brought on by US Government (and/or George Bush) I will be walking out.

[akaria]

These movies, just like any information, have to be taken with a grain of salt. They are trying to further their views, so they are probably only going to tell one side. However, in this case, the otherside appears everyday, and Bush's administration slants what he says way more than this movie probably will, he's a politician that’s what they do, but to not want to see both sides or simply disregard one side is just an attempt to maintain ignorance, and that has never helped anyone.

[Ryan Dognaux]

While I'm 99% certain you misunderstood what was written...

Are you suggesting that someone not vote?

Maybe what I typed didn't make sense... but what I meant was, if by just watching this movie your choice of candidate will be decided, then yes maybe you shouldn't vote. People need to actually research and know their candidate before they vote for them - not just go and watch a biased 2 hour movie and then decide.

Hopefully that made more sense... :]

[Bill Gold]

Please see the movie! and then, give it a week, and I am sure there will be many reports showing you all the false facts in the movie, just as there was for BFC. I personally liked Bowling for Columbine but then, I found out about how many little facts were slanted to make his point. As Schnitt says, "He makes good entertaining crapumentary's" I personally will see it, but if its slanted to the point where it says its a conspiracy brought on by US Government (and/or George Bush) I will be walking out.
UltimateP,
As you may or may not know, Michael Moore has hired 2 prominent publicists to monitor the news wire services 24/7 and to respond to any allegations of falsifications within minutes of the accusations. In fact, at least one attempt to label Moore a liar has already been swept aside. Knowing that Michael Moore wants President Bush to follow in his one term father’s footsteps, and observing that Moore has set up this “War Room” with such reputable people as Mark Fabiani and Chris Lehane; I have, implicitly, come to the conclusion that Moore has taken quite a bit more care in his fact gathering and fact distribution tactics than Moore critics allege he has taken in his older movies.

I had no idea who this Schnitt guy you spoke of was, and after I did a quick search I’m sad to say I do now. He appears to be another rightwing talking head with a three-hour time block to himself. On a side note: with so many rightwing talk show hosts on the air doesn’t it get a little boring to hear the same static? Back to the topic at hand (or maybe I’ll take this further off topic)… This Schnitt guy is entitled to his opinion, and if his opinion is that he hasn’t liked Moore’s movies, then that’s how the cards fell. He can say whatever he wants, but he and his zealous followers have to realize that there are an equal ore greater number of people who like Moore’s films and have the right to like them, as well. For all of the “States’ Rights” and “Censorship / Political Correctness is ploy the Left to take away our rights” arguments the Right makes they sure seem to be contradicting themselves with regard to this film. I’ve seen and read dozens of interviews with activists from the Right who go out and tell people to boycott this film. In order to keep with their supposed “people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t break a law or hurt other people” ideal, shouldn’t they say something more along the lines of “People can go see this film if they want, and if they don’t like what they’ve read about it then they shouldn’t see it.” Doesn’t that sound like a better slogan for everyone involved?

You say you’ll see it but if it’s slanted against the Bush Administration you’ll walk out? Why even bother to see it, then? It’s really okay for you to wait until more reviews of the movie come out and see if they say he’s bashing Bush too much. From what I’ve observed of your comments on these boards (here’s an example) (http://www.seadawgs.com/PM.jpg) I believe that you probably wouldn’t like this movie, and I suggest that you might want to save yourself $7-10 and pass on this movie. Conversely, I would encourage you and everyone else to see this movie and help make it the highest grossing documentary in American movie history.

<edit>
I'll be seeing the movie on Friday after work with a large group of interns here in Washington D.C.
</edit>

[UlTiMaTeP]

UltimateP,
As you may or may not know, Michael Moore has hired 2 prominent publicists to monitor the news wire services 24/7 and to respond to any allegations of falsifications within minutes of the accusations. In fact, at least one attempt to label Moore a liar has already been swept aside. Knowing that Michael Moore wants President Bush to follow in his one term father’s footsteps, and observing that Moore has set up this “War Room” with such reputable people as Mark Fabiani and Chris Lehane; I have, implicitly, come to the conclusion that Moore has taken quite a bit more care in his fact gathering and fact distribution tactics than Moore critics allege he has taken in his older movies.

I had no idea who this Schnitt guy you spoke of was, and after I did a quick search I’m sad to say I do now. He appears to be another rightwing talking head with a three-hour time block to himself. On a side note: with so many rightwing talk show hosts on the air doesn’t it get a little boring to hear the same static? Back to the topic at hand (or maybe I’ll take this further off topic)… This Schnitt guy is entitled to his opinion, and if his opinion is that he hasn’t liked Moore’s movies, then that’s how the cards fell. He can say whatever he wants, but he and his zealous followers have to realize that there are an equal ore greater number of people who like Moore’s films and have the right to like them, as well. For all of the “States’ Rights” and “Censorship / Political Correctness is ploy the Left to take away our rights” arguments the Right makes they sure seem to be contradicting themselves with regard to this film. I’ve seen and read dozens of interviews with activists from the Right who go out and tell people to boycott this film. In order to keep with their supposed “people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t break a law or hurt other people” ideal, shouldn’t they say something more along the lines of “People can go see this film if they want, and if they don’t like what they’ve read about it then they shouldn’t see it.” Doesn’t that sound like a better slogan for everyone involved?

You say you’ll see it but if it’s slanted against the Bush Administration you’ll walk out? Why even bother to see it, then? It’s really okay for you to wait until more reviews of the movie come out and see if they say he’s bashing Bush too much. From what I’ve observed of your comments on these boards (here’s an example) (http://www.seadawgs.com/PM.jpg) I believe that you probably wouldn’t like this movie, and I suggest that you might want to save yourself $7-10 and pass on this movie. Conversely, I would encourage you and everyone else to see this movie and help make it the highest grossing documentary in American movie history.

<edit>
I'll be seeing the movie on Friday after work with a large group of interns here in Washington D.C.
</edit>

Just watch the movie trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911_large.html) and you can already see the things hes pulled out of context and distorted.

[Bill Gold]

Just watch the movie trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911_large.html) and you can already see the things hes pulled out of context and distorted.
Trailers, as any rational person can attest to, are made to grab the viewer’s attention. They're an effective marketing tool for movies. They do not tell the whole story; they rarely show a whole scene. By implying that because the trailer has out of context quotes (that were selected by Moore and/or the producers for either shock value or for other reasons) the movie in its entirety distorts that person’s standpoint is misinformed and to be quite honest a ridiculous statement. Neither you nor I know what’s in the movie for sure; it’s inappropriate at this time to accuse Moore of doing something in this film having not seen it yet. Wait a few days, or until you’ve seen it to start attacking it. We can have a civil conversation after we’ve both seen the movie.

[Joe Matt]

Ok, Apple hosts exclusive Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer, and just two months ago offered Al Franken's 'The Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell' for only $3, massive discount. Then Steve Jobs gives loads of money towards the Howard Dean campaign. Ok, I'm a democrat and a mac user, but dosn't that seem more odd than Moore's film? Just a thought to chew on.

[Adam Y.]

Ok, Apple hosts exclusive Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer, and just two months ago offered Al Franken's 'The Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell' for only $3, massive discount. Then Steve Jobs gives loads of money towards the Howard Dean campaign. Ok, I'm a democrat and a mac user, but dosn't that seem more odd than Moore's film? Just a thought to chew on
No. It's nothing unusual in my book. He's just trying to promote his views. I see no reason why no one should do that.

[Joshua May]

Ok, Apple hosts exclusive Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer, and just two months ago offered Al Franken's 'The Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell' for only $3, massive discount. Then Steve Jobs gives loads of money towards the Howard Dean campaign. Ok, I'm a democrat and a mac user, but dosn't that seem more odd than Moore's film? Just a thought to chew on.

Many companies, organizations, or persons do this. For example, you don't really see FOX News plugging Moore's film, and yet Ann Coulter was jolted to being a Republican celebrity through their constant plugs for "Treason", and I'm sure Al Franken was on CNN alot, so really, its not really suspiscious or odd.

[FotoPlasma]

Maybe what I typed didn't make sense... but what I meant was, if by just watching this movie your choice of candidate will be decided, then yes maybe you shouldn't vote. People need to actually research and know their candidate before they vote for them - not just go and watch a biased 2 hour movie and then decide.

Hopefully that made more sense... :]
While I agree that, in general, movies shouldn't have enough influence to change the way a person votes, I do think that facts should. If the movie does indeed contain facts about the current administration, and the viewer thinks that John Kerry would only improve the situation, then they have more than enough right to vote for him.

I seriously take issue with you saying that some people shouldn't vote. We're obviously on opposite ends of the spectrum, here, but I think that most will agree that this is one of the most un-American things anyone can say.

[UlTiMaTeP]

No. It's nothing unusual in my book. He's just trying to promote his views. I see no reason why no one should do that.


Apple hosts all big time movies, they dont just select the ones they want to host www.apple.com/trailers

[akaria]

"Ok, Apple hosts exclusive Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer, and just two months ago offered Al Franken's 'The Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell' for only $3, massive discount. Then Steve Jobs gives loads of money towards the Howard Dean campaign. Ok, I'm a democrat and a mac user, but dosn't that seem more odd than Moore's film? Just a thought to chew on."


Most likely Apple thinks there is something to be gained out of Kerry becoming president. They are most likely banking on Kerry being more for the smaller businesses, or if nothing else, at least putting caps on large corporations such as Microsoft. They know that Bush wouldn't do that given his ties to big businesses, such as Microsoft, and so this would help Apple immensely in the long run and could definitely be the reason they are donating money to the campaign. In any case, it's nothing comared to the money that Bush is accepting from the oil companies.

[Andy A.]

I seriously take issue with you saying that some people shouldn't vote. We're obviously on opposite ends of the spectrum, here, but I think that most will agree that this is one of the most un-American things anyone can say.

It may not be popular, but it is every citizens right not to vote. Voting or not voting has nothing to do with being American or Un-American, whatever that means.

I fully belive that if you don't think any canidate has earned your vote, then don't vote. I sure am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't think that anyone else should vote just for the sake of voting.

Again, it may not be popular, but calling it un-american is a little absured. It strikes me as the same as saying not owning a gun is Un-American. Afterall, if you don't own a gun, how can you defend your country?

Voting is a right. Just like all our other rights, it is our choice, as citizens, to excercise those rights. Voting is not an obligation. And those who chose not to vote are as American as anyone else.

-Andy A.

[Joe Matt]

but it is every citizens right not to vote.
I hate brining up these complaints now, but I decided to look up the definition of 'citizen'....

according to dictionary.com...

A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
Now, I know it's an option not to vote, but when the definition of being a citizen is the right to vote, it's kinda like being a chef and refuse to cook. I agree that if you don't want to vote, then don't, but don't say you are still a citizen or 'american'. You arn't a part of the process anymore.

[FotoPlasma]

It may not be popular, but it is every citizens right not to vote. Voting or not voting has nothing to do with being American or Un-American, whatever that means.

I fully belive that if you don't think any canidate has earned your vote, then don't vote. I sure am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't think that anyone else should vote just for the sake of voting.

Again, it may not be popular, but calling it un-american is a little absured. It strikes me as the same as saying not owning a gun is Un-American. Afterall, if you don't own a gun, how can you defend your country?

Voting is a right. Just like all our other rights, it is our choice, as citizens, to excercise those rights. Voting is not an obligation. And those who chose not to vote are as American as anyone else.

-Andy A.
I'm sorry. What I said was pretty out-of-line. I just meant to make the point that I thought it was distasteful for someone to say that anyone else shouldn't vote, for any reason.

[Andy A.]

Now, I know it's an option not to vote, but when the definition of being a citizen is the right to vote, it's kinda like being a chef and refuse to cook. I agree that if you don't want to vote, then don't, but don't say you are still a citizen or 'american'. You arn't a part of the process anymore.


Of course I am still part of the process. Not part of the final result, perhaps. I strongly supported the canidate I would have voted for. He wasn't able to stay in the race. So, since the only canidate I seriously considerd worthy of my vote isn't going to be running, I'm probably not going to vote. I consider it a vote of no confidence in both canidates, even if I am the only one who knows it.

I am a citizen and I am an American, regardless of how I do, or do not, vote. Don't you, or anyone else, dare try to tell me otherwise. Thats a foolish and obnoxious thing to do. I do hope you didn't mean to put it that way. Want to try again?

I do appoligze for bringing this thread off topic. I just get riled up over this topic espically.

-Andy A.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Do I dare reply to this thread...?

It seems as though, under any circumstance, there is not much we can argue as to what company supports what candidate, or what the film "Farenheit 9/11" is comprised of (facts/fiction), until we see it. It does not help to second guess. I'm not targeting individuals, I'm just saying if you aim to insult another's political beliefs by stating some position on the movie, that is very unfair.

I'm very glad the voting thing was worked out, however, I think I understand what Jim Gold was trying to say. Not so much that it may have been unamerican, but how does one define "uninformed"? I think that makes a good point. Yes, I agree with Ryan that the general citizen should be informed about who they are voting for, but then again, in the state of Indiana it is the law to have liability insurance. Does everyone have it? Not by a long shot. Those aren't totally related, sorry, but it's just a matter of an ideal situation vs reality. A post was made way earlier in the game that this movie should not prompt us to change our political beliefs, but rather to do research and learn from everything we see, not just a movie. I think what Jim was trying to say is that everyone has their own ways of deciding on a candidate, and there are some facts that would seriously discourage an individual for voting.

For example, say there was Presidential candidate C in the Independent party instead of Ralph Nader (hypothetical situation.) If I, for example, heard that this individual would say try to impose the death penalty for driver's liscence infractions, I would very obviously not vote for this candidate because I do not support that fact, and it would take a significant amount of information to sway me from this position. If an individual that may have been politically uninformed discovers a FACT in the 9/11 movie that would discourage them from voting President Bush into a second term, then that is their right, just as voting is their right.

I may be absolutely incorrect in this interpretation, and if I'm slandering someone with it, I sincerely apologize. Hopefully, this may set a couple things straight...

[Ryan Dognaux]

I'm sorry. What I said was pretty out-of-line. I just meant to make the point that I thought it was distasteful for someone to say that anyone else shouldn't vote, for any reason.

Yeah that was me, it just angers me that people will see this movie and base their entire views off of it... I wasn't implying that people should not vote, I'm just saying they should educate themselves if they're going to.

[Madison]

Yeah that was me, it just angers me that people will see this movie and base their entire views off of it... I wasn't implying that people should not vote, I'm just saying they should educate themselves if they're going to.

The founding principles of the democratic process require that one not need be educated (or white, or male, or rich, or catholic) to vote. People can exercise their right to vote in any way they choose and it seems dangerous to even suggest that people whom you feel aren't "educated" enough refrain from voting.

[Ryan Dognaux]

The founding principles of the democratic process require that one not need be educated (or white, or male, or rich, or catholic) to vote. People can exercise their right to vote in any way they choose and it seems dangerous to even suggest that people whom you feel aren't "educated" enough refrain from voting.

By educate I did not mean in the sense that you interpreted it, all I was trying to say was people probably shouldn't base their vote just from watching this movie, which we all know is going to be biased... that is all.

So now I'm done w/ this thread. And for the record, I am in no way "dangerous" and neither is what I was suggesting. Kthx.

[Lisa Perez]

Sorry guys, but can we bring this thread back on topic?..

Who saw Mr. Moore's interview with Katie Couric on "The Today Show"?

[jonathan lall]

Just a side comment... don't let me interrupt the discussion about Mr. Moore's haircut.

The founding principles of the democratic process require that one not need be educated (or white, or male, or rich, or catholic) to vote. People can exercise their right to vote in any way they choose and it seems dangerous to even suggest that people whom you feel aren't "educated" enough refrain from voting. While I agree with your reasoning in context with your message to Ryan Dognaux, in your interpretation of the word "educated," don't you think a line needs to be drawn between it and race/gender/wealth/religion? You're equating them, when education is quite simply absolutely necessary for a successful democratic government. The theory behind the process counts on it, else it would break down terribly. Of course it is not required of citizens to stay informed in the affairs of their government, but it is important to note. It's true that some governments that have tried to restrict voting rights of mentally handicapped people and inmates (e.g. Canada, the UK, and the USA, the first two of which having abolished this), hiding behind the banner of "being informed," but this example is going overboard; the fact of the matter is that education is as close to being a social responsibility as it can be without actually... err, being one. Thus, I don't think it's fair to equate guaranteed Lockean freedoms with ("the freedom to not be educated") in the way you seem to be.

[Cory]

Yeah that was me, it just angers me that people will see this movie and base their entire views off of it... I wasn't implying that people should not vote, I'm just saying they should educate themselves if they're going to.


I can guarentee you that a large percentage of registered voters are (no offense to anyone) entirely uninformed on most every issue, or office being voted on. I wouldnt be surprised if many just chose whatever the first bubble was, or voted for whoever they saw on TV. I know for a fact many people will vote for what their spouse/parents vote for, and I am sure there are studies that show this.

The average american is fairly ignorant compared to an average person from many other countries around the world. So Michael Moore's film might be a slanted form of the truth... what do you expect. You cannot denounce someone for basing their decision to vote on a film anymore than you can denounce someone for voting upon the reasons I listed above. As was previously stated, everyone who is registered to vote has the right to do so, no matter what their reasons.

Personally, I don't believe anyone should base their vote on a movie, but if it helps Kerry and not Bush, I'm all for it :-D

Cory

[Adam Y.]

Let's get this thread back on track...... In current news Ray Bradbury is now annoyed that Micheal Moore used his title without his permission.The founding principles of the democratic process require that one not need be educated (or white, or male, or rich, or catholic) to vote. People can exercise their right to vote in any way they choose and it seems dangerous to even suggest that people whom you feel aren't "educated" enough refrain from voting.
Actually..... You had to be a rich white male to vote back when the United States was first created. In fact the only attribute the United States didn't discriminate against was being Catholic. They picked on females, poor, and the uneducated. It would have been nice if the United States treated everyone equally back then but it didn't.

[Joe Matt]

All my local theaters are sold out of tickets. I wanted to get some today, oh well... also it seems that rottentomatoes.com has given it a 'fresh' raiting. Cool. This thing is going to be huge.

[jonathan lall]

Let's get this thread back on track...... In current news Ray Bradbury is now annoyed that Micheal Moore used his title without his permission.
Actually..... You had to be a rich white male to vote back when the United States was first created. In fact the only attribute the United States didn't discriminate against was being Catholic. They picked on females, poor, and the uneducated. It would have been nice if the United States treated everyone equally back then but it didn't.
While the statement itself was incorrect, I doubt that it came out quite as it was supposed to. Still, you're right; the "founding principles of the democratic process" have absolutely nothing to do with the United States or its electoral system. The word democracy basically means in Greek, "rule by many." 5th century Athens, the era of Pericles, is the origin of democracy. Athens has become the "undisputed" model for democracy, notwithstanding the fact that it embraced the concept of slavery, and policy privileges were reserved for a very select few individuals. These are the founding principles of the democratic process, and mention nothing of equality. That was horribly, terribly, off-topic.

Ray Bradbury has shown his bias toward Moore in the past, regarding his supposed sabotage of the Wesley Clark campaign. Like him or not, the name is clever. Now, I can't say I'm certain whether Bradbury has legal grounds to sue Moore, but he has every right to be angry.

[Adam Y.]

Ray Bradbury has shown his bias toward Moore in the past, regarding his supposed sabotage of the Wesley Clark campaign. Like him or not, the name is clever. Now, I can't say I'm certain whether Bradbury has legal grounds to sue Moore, but he has every right to be angry.
I woder if he would though. The title is an obviously related to Bradburys's book. According to Moore he's even go as far to say the temperature at which freedom burns which is really blatant. I just think Bradbury doesn't want his name to be associated with nothing else but the book especially since their is a movie coming out.

[UlTiMaTeP]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Slates cover story...

[Bill Gold]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Slates cover story...
Dude. Chill with this attempting to discuss the content of a movie you haven't seen, and then using other peoples' words to do your dirty work. If news articles stated it was good for the maturing process of people who go by the handle UlTiMaTeP on ChiefDelphi to jump off a cliff would you follow their instructions? I'm 100% sure I could get an article like that published in a news outlet just to prove that if you desire a specifically tailored article to be printed it can get done.

I really don't care one way or the other whether you see the movie, and to be honest I don't think you'd listen to Moore's arguments and observe his thought process even if you did attend a screening. I'm still going to see the movie on Friday.

You'd be hard pressed to find something more ridiculous than someone who wants something banned, censored, or discredited that they themselves haven't even observed. Please wait until you’ve seen the movie before you bash it anymore. I realize that’s wishful thinking on my part, but I’ll ask it again.

[David Kelly]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Slates cover story...

Thank you for posting this. This article does a good job pointing out the inconsistancies of this film and Michael Moore. It is a long read, but it points out a lot of the 'spin' that Michael Moore is good at creating.

[Joshua May]

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

I don't really get what the author of the article is trying to say here. Michael Moore supports the troops in that he wishes no harm to them, they are not the warmongers, one can still believe that their dead have been wasted in an unjust war.

[Madison]

Thank you for posting this. This article does a good job pointing out the inconsistancies of this film and Michael Moore. It is a long read, but it points out a lot of the 'spin' that Michael Moore is good at creating.

You praise an article that criticizes a movie you haven't seen, yet you encourage people to view Michael Moore Hates America to assure they are exposed to both sides of the story.

Odd that.

[akaria]

I have seen a lot of criticism of Michael moor and this movie (mostly by people who haven’t seen it yet) but even the reviewers, such as the article posted earlier, don’t say anything except that moor is full of it, they make little to no reasonable backable arguments as to why he is full of it, they just say he is and expect the people of America to accept what they say as fact, no questions asked.
Before I thought that for sue this wouldn’t work, people want to look it up for themselves and find the truth wherever it may be. But I can see that I am wrong. If you take this one person’s ranting with no proof to back it up as truth… I can’t help you. I just want to say that most of the people on this forum are smart; you should be able to cut through the rhetoric and get to the facts. You are not going to find the truth any other way.

[Adam Y.]

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etlede3862759jun23,0,3697836.story?coll=ny-homepage-promo This I feel happens to be a really good review of the movie. In fact the only thing that the guy critizes is the fact that he makes George Bush look like an idiot for no reason at all.

[Joshua May]

If it is interpreted to the way it's written it would mean that the war going on Iraq now is entirely faked. Im guessing he means information.

Didn't you get the memo, Iraq doesn't exist because the Earth is flat.

But seriously, good article.

[Yan Wang]

So far, here's my biggest objection...

WHY IS IT R??!

[Joshua May]

So far, here's my biggest objection...

WHY IS IT R??!

Yeah, I'm 17 but I don't have my Driver's License yet so I can't go see it alone, grr. But Michael Moore encouraged teens to go see it, and even sneak in if they have to ;)

[Yan Wang]

It is important for 12-16 year olds to be able to see this film and all other documentaries. At an impressionable age, it's good to view something with substance, even if it's from one viewpoint. If I had a kid, I'd rather have him watch Fahrenheit 9/11 rather than Chronicles of Riddick or Garfield! I had the same qualm when Almost Famous was rated R. That was an awesome movie for teenagers.

But luckily my extra liberal town won't care if a 5 year old goes in the theater to see this movie. So I'm really just whining. :)

[Adam Y.]

It is important for 12-16 year olds to be able to see this film and all other documentaries. At an impressionable age, it's good to view something with substance, even if it's from one viewpoint. If I had a kid, I'd rather have him watch Fahrenheit 9/11 rather than Chronicles of Riddick or Garfield! I had the same qualm when Almost Famous was rated R. That was an awesome movie for teenagers.
Twelve years old is too young. They won't understand a single issue in the movie. I think fifteen and sixteen are probably the right age.

[David Kelly]

So far, here's my biggest objection...

WHY IS IT R??!

Because there is profanity in the movie... it has something to do with somebody's mom :rolleyes:

[akaria]

Well i read a bunch of reviews on www.imdb.com and from the review thereit looks like people will either love it or hate it, big suprise there :p so far for ratings it has 63% 10s and 30% 1s but from practicly all of the reviews everyone says that it is a must see. i can't wait :) fortunately we'll know pretty soon

[D.J. Fluck]

You praise an article that criticizes a movie you haven't seen, yet you encourage people to view Michael Moore Hates America to assure they are exposed to both sides of the story.


Honestly, do you even have to see the movie? Between the fact that most people know about Michael Moore and what he stands for and both sides of the media wasting all their time covering the movie (either previewing it, praising it or criticizing it) I think most of America has pretty much seen the movie already.

Also, if you already have your opinion of Mr. Moore, it’s not like the movie is going to enlighten you or shock you....you know what’s coming.


Too much media hype isn't a good thing, ask Dean. Remember the "device that would change society” that was over hyped by the media and then left many people disappointed when they unveiled the segway? It would absolutely make my day if after all this debate and coverage; people come out of the theatres after seeing it, disappointed.

But that’s all I'm going to say on this subject. Call me what you want and say what you want, but I'm not saying anything else in this thread.

[Joshua May]

Twelve years old is too young. They won't understand a single issue in the movie. I think fifteen and sixteen are probably the right age.

I have to disagree with you that twelve is too young. I have been very political and have kept very up-to-date with politics and news since I was about 10.

[Richomundo]

well we already know that the whole movie is going to be one big spin. He's a spin doctor(propagandist), just like O Reilly or anyone else that trys to sway your opinion my misrepresenting actions, speeches, foul-ups, or successes of the government. I'ts happened since George Washington and it will happen forever. or at least until the country falls just like every other great society, like the Romans, or the Mayans and stuff.

[Yan Wang]

Because there is profanity in the movie... it has something to do with somebody's mom :rolleyes:

As long as it's pro-American or pro-government, etc., it is OK for it to have profanity, violence, and sex, or any combination of the aforementioned. Remember a couple years ago ABC showed the full unedited version of Saving Private Ryan on TV (and yet the FCC complained about a breast being shown for half a second this past year)? I loved that movie, but there's also more than enough swearing and gore. But nonetheless, it was shown during a national holiday because it embodied an accepted idea of brotherhood and sacrifice in this nation (I'm not objecting to these ideas at all). However, there'd be no way Fahrenheit 9/11 would be shown on September 11 of this year to celebrate its anniversary. It'd be too... anti-Bush-administration.

[Adam Y.]

Remember a couple years ago ABC showed the full unedited version of Saving Private Ryan on TV (and yet the FCC complained about a breast being shown for half a second this past year)?
It's neither pro-American or negative. It's just vulgar. I also believe that Jackson managed to annoy a bunch of parents watching that.However, there'd be no way Fahrenheit 9/11 would be shown on September 11 of this year to celebrate its anniversary. It'd be too... anti-Bush-administration. Nope. It wouldn't be the Bush administration's fault. It's not mainstream enough for America. Im not saying that there is nothing wrong with not being mainstream is just that most programming tends to lean that way.

[jonathan lall]

Honestly, do you even have to see the movie? Between the fact that most people know about Michael Moore and what he stands for and both sides of the media wasting all their time covering the movie (either previewing it, praising it or criticizing it) I think most of America has pretty much seen the movie already.

"I have a good point here," said the director.
"Yes, but you're Michael Moore."

Don't you think that's a little circumstantial ad hominem creeping in there? M. Krass was pointing out the absurdidty of an argument, not making one of her own for or against the movie. Any of us may or may not be Moore lackeys, but I think most of us could point that one out.

[Joshua May]

Don't you think that's a little circumstantial ad hominem creeping in there? M. Krass was pointing out the absurdidty of an argument, not making one of her own for or against the movie. Any of us may or may not be Moore lackeys, but I think most of us could point that one out.

Canadians, always the voice of reason.


Yeah, I really think we should at least see the movie before we jump to conclusions, although it may be a little too late to say (again) in this thread. I know myself and others have been defending Moore, other people attack him constantly, but we all need to chill out a bit and see the movie before jumpting to conclusions on whether its factual or not, instead of leeting articles by biased journalists tell us how factual the movie is.

[Cory]

In fact the only thing that the guy critizes is the fact that he makes George Bush look like an idiot for no reason at all.

Bush does a fantastic job making himself look like an idiot without anyone else's help.

Moore made Bush look like an idiot... Gee that's surprising... I wonder what that could be suggesting?

[Yan Wang]

It's neither pro-American or negative. It's just vulgar. I also believe that Jackson managed to annoy a bunch of parents watching that.

Hey, if you went to Europe, showing Saving Private Ryan would be vulgar and seeing the waldrobe malfunction would be ok. But my argument was not as to which was more acceptable, it was that 2 hours of gore and swearing is, imo, a lot worse than half a second of vulgarity.

[David Kelly]

Hey, if you went to Europe, showing Saving Private Ryan would be vulgar and seeing the waldrobe malfunction would be ok. But my argument was not as to which was more acceptable, it was that 2 hours of gore and swearing is, imo, a lot worse than half a second of vulgarity.

The FCC has the rights to protect children and society from such language. I'm glad they have finally started cracking down on what has been such open "say anything and do whatever you want to do"airwaves. If the rules say that movies with swearing deserve an 'R' rating, then by all means they better follow those rules for all movies, and not make an exception to Michael Moore's movie.


There IS somebody looking out for you.

[Bill Gold]

The FCC has the rights to protect children and society from such language. I'm glad they have finally started cracking down on what has been such open "say anything and do whatever you want to do"airwaves. If the rules say that movies with swearing deserve an 'R' rating, then by all means they better follow those rules for all movies, and not make an exception to Michael Moore's movie.


There IS somebody looking out for you.
David,
The FCC doesn't rate movies. The MPAA does.

[David Kelly]

David,
The FCC doesn't rate movies. The MPAA does.

Okay, so I was wrong about which ogranization rates the movies, not a big deal. FCC does the same thing to control what goes over the open airwaves.


How the movie ratings system works (http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm)

[Yan Wang]

The MPAA ratings are also just a 'suggestion'. Movie theaters decide for themselves what their policy is for admitting people into various rated movies. I know that if I don't go to the big, Regal Cinema 1/2 a mile away from me and go downtown to either of the two local places, they won't check my ID for any film.

Well, Regal won't either most of the time, but that's not my point ;)

[D.J. Fluck]

The MPAA ratings are also just a 'suggestion'. Movie theaters decide for themselves what their policy is for admitting people into various rated movies. I know that if I don't go to the big, Regal Cinema 1/2 a mile away from me and go downtown to either of the two local places, they won't check my ID for any film.

Well, Regal won't either most of the time, but that's not my point ;)

That isn't completely true anymore.....


A lot of state governments (Indiana is, I know for a fact) is stepping in and telling movie theatres that they must ID and not allow people under 17 into R rated movies.

Actually in fact, in Indiana you can't even purchase tickets for people under age 17 unless you can prove you are their parent or guardian...

[Joe Matt]

The FCC has the rights to protect children and society from such language. I'm glad they have finally started cracking down on what has been such open "say anything and do whatever you want to do"airwaves. If the rules say that movies with swearing deserve an 'R' rating, then by all means they better follow those rules for all movies, and not make an exception to Michael Moore's movie.


There IS somebody looking out for you.
Such as anything that might upset our current flow and groove of things. So explain how we are protecting children from these evil, vicious, un-Americans, by giving an R rating to a documentary that shows insite into an ethically questionable administration? It seems that it only protects the kids if that person dosn't support it.

<sarcasm>Freedome of speech, what non-American bs is that?!?!?</sarcasm>

[Ryan Dognaux]

Actually in fact, in Indiana you can't even purchase tickets for people under age 17 unless you can prove you are their parent or guardian...

Very true, although some theatres are harder on you about it than others. Point is, this movie has images that children probably shouldn't view without parental consent, I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Why don't you people understand that? I do.

[Yan Wang]

That isn't completely true anymore.....


A lot of state governments (Indiana is, I know for a fact) is stepping in and telling movie theatres that they must ID and not allow people under 17 into R rated movies.

Actually in fact, in Indiana you can't even purchase tickets for people under age 17 unless you can prove you are their parent or guardian...

You are right. I spoke too quickly and confused my 'controversies'. I was thinking of ESRB ratings for video games. My bad.

(though it is true that no one cares in Ithaca)

[Kristina]

I have the distinct honor of working in the Cannon Congressional building and outside today, there was a press conference with Michael Moore. It was outside so they could have a nice background shot of the Capitol so I sat out in the hot & humid weather with my suit on to listen. It was pretty cool because not many people knew about it so it was just me, 20 or so other staffers, and the media.

Most of the stuff was pretty old hat but I did learn some interesting things...

1. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) escorted Michael Moore to the podium, introduced him, and thanked him for this movie. They made a cameo in his documentary because (I'll try to keep it brief), back in 2000 when there were discrepencies over denying to let people vote in Florida, the CBC wanted to address the floor about this issue. To get the floor, you need the signature of one house member and one senator. Well they got a bunch of Representatives but not one (neither Democrat or Republican, he IS critical of both parties) would sign it. So as they went up the podium, Al Gore who is the President of the Senate, had to painfully gavel them to sit down because even though they were fighting for him, he had to fulfill his constitutional duties. So to people who say that we already know what Michael Moore is going to say, well...guess not. Besides all the war stuff and terrorism, it does bring up a good point about voting. I checked it out, and it did happen, and I'm still amazed (and quite disgusted).

2. This will probably unleash a can of worms for more discussion but the FEC wants to ban commercials for this movie past 7/30 because they believe that it is a corporate financed ad that can sway the election, and that's not allowed. Moore obviously says he will fight this and the Congress members who were with him said they would stand right along with him.

3. Many Congress members are having "movie screening parties" with their constituents back home and then having town hall meetings to discuss it. I thought that was really interested.

4. When it was released yesterday in NY, it had the highest gross of a movie premiere beating MIB (or something like that, it was really hot so I can't remember the exact terminology). It should be really interesting to see what the response is tomorrow. I'm going to the movies tomorrow but to see another movie...hopefully it's not too packed.

So there's my Capitol Hill report, if anyone sees me on CNN from the press conference, let me know.

[Madison]

Future Lawyer or Politician or ??

I've always aspired to be an ! myself. ;)

[Joshua May]

The movie has now premered on the East Coast, I would go tomorrow if it played locally.

[Adam Y.]

Personally I think Moore should go after link between major U.S. corporations and the Bin Laden family. Fox News reported this recently. Aparently there is about fifty family members and its hard to do bussiness in Sadia Arabia without working with a Bin Laden. Then there is the habit of the United States army reserves recruiting kids that aren't even out of high school. My friend was getting shot at with live ammo and he was a brand new senior. In fact he probably dropped out so he wouldn't have to go back. The ironic fact is that the army ended up promoting him even though he technically deserted. :confused:

[Joshua May]

Personally I think Moore should go after link between major U.S. corporations and the Bin Laden family. Fox News reported this recently. Aparently there is about fifty family members and its hard to do bussiness in Sadia Arabia without working with a Bin Laden. Then there is the habit of the United States army reserves recruiting kids that aren't even out of high school. My friend was getting shot at with live ammo and he was a brand new senior. In fact he probably dropped out so he wouldn't have to go back. The ironic fact is that the army ended up promoting him even though he technically deserted. :confused:

There's also a scandal, I can't remember where, where the Army recruiting office sent a letter of enlistment to a kid who said he didn't want to join. then they told him if he didn't show up for duty, he would be given a $50,000 fine and a jail term, and he would never get a good job in this country.

Back on topic, though, has anyone seen it yet?

Oh, and I saw the guy who wrote the Slate article on Hardball on Wednesday (he's a long-time critic of Moore, so you know that story was clearly biased), next to a friend of Clinton's, he pretty much reiterated what was in the article, however.

[Yan Wang]

Point is, this movie has images that children probably shouldn't view without parental consent, I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

See, I personally don't think any Iraqi parent affected by the war ever gave their children parental consent to see people getting shot, buildings being blown up, and cities being bombarded [by either side]... Having kids/teens see that here, even on film, would be a good way to show them why war is not cool. Might change some opinions... It's definitely better than mindless movie violence that gets a PG13 rating. And as for language/profanity, what 10 year old hasn't already learned it all from friends/family/movies/TV, etc?

[Adam Y.]

See, I personally don't think any Iraqi parent affected by the war ever gave their children parental consent to see people getting shot, buildings being blown up, and cities being bombarded [by either side]...
Unfortunately at that point the parents don't have a say in what their son/daughter does. They are grown adults. If they did that would be really really really scary. All I can think of is Principal Skinners from the Simpsons.Having kids/teens see that here, even on film, would be a good way to show them why war is not cool.
I would think that Saving Private Ryan would have more of an effect than this film. One look at the violence is enough to turn anyone away.

[Joshua May]

See, I personally don't think any Iraqi parent affected by the war ever gave their children parental consent to see people getting shot, buildings being blown up, and cities being bombarded [by either side]... Having kids/teens see that here, even on film, would be a good way to show them why war is not cool. Might change some opinions... It's definitely better than mindless movie violence that gets a PG13 rating. And as for language/profanity, what 10 year old hasn't already learned it all from friends/family/movies/TV, etc?

So true. Many kids see many worse things than a little gore and some bad language. Heck, even VP Dick Cheney used the "F-Word" on the Senate Floor (Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123710,00.html), CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy/index.html), MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5289848/)). And kids fantasize about war and being soldiers and all that, so why don't we show them the gruesome reality that is war, maybe then they won't mindlessly enlist and get killed.

[Aaron Lussier]

Saw it today... Wow is all I can say.

Moore makes alot of connections that frankly were kind of scary. Go see it... you know you want to.

-Aaron

[Ryan Dognaux]

See, I personally don't think any Iraqi parent affected by the war ever gave their children parental consent to see people getting shot, buildings being blown up, and cities being bombarded [by either side]...

No... but that's war for you. Look at all the other wars we've been in, you think civilians haven't seen attrocities? Please.

I could care less if it was was a sci-fi movie - the point is movies that have violence and language in them should get a just rating, no exceptions. Period.

I'm surprised some people weren't complaining when The Passion of the Christ got an R rating... and it's easily been the hardest thing I've watched in my entire life. Is there a reason it should have not been rated R?

Just get over the fact that it's rated R... can't change that now, considering the movie has opened... this is probably a movie young people should see with their parents anyways.

[jonathan lall]

Saw it a few hours ago; I can honestly say it wasn't saying anything new. That is, same content as what we've been fed, but interesting form (by the way, the rating is justified). This documentary/movie consists of mostly information we knew already (or are in denial of in some cases), supported by fact that we never cared to go into, all in an interesting format. It is inferior to Bowling for Columbine, but retains a lot (but not all) of the interesting style senn there. It should be noted that Moore resorts to distasteful badgering in this movie too, but of course it's very entertaining, so he gets chuckles and claps from the audience. The way he antagonizes the senior Bush Administration officials at the start is wickedly clever, and you can only truly appreciate it in a movie theatre.

In fact, as many of the Republican loyalists here will be quick to point out, it is simply a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric, much of which is founded but has no relation to the original thesis, which basically deals with the sinister and real connection between the United States' elite, economy, the Bush Family, the bin Laden family, and Saudi interests. There are a lot of specific facts that support things we already knew that go against the Bush Administration and Bush himself, but this connection should have been explored more. By the end of the movie, we are left thinking not of 9/11, but of the folly of the government. The thesis by then has abstracted to basically, "Bush sucks, here's why." Compelling, yes, but it's not a very credible documentary for that reason. It also uses a lot of images we really didn't need to see to understand a given situation, but that also goes into the entertainment/random info factor.

As is always the case with this kind of material, moviegoers at Kennedy Commons AMC Theatre 9 all witnessed someone who didn't have the personal fortitude to sit through something he didn't agree with, that was raising point after point against. If you go to see this movie, expect nothing more; some people just can't listen to a differing argument. Now about bias, my lesson is just chill. Of course it's this movie is biased! It's a thesis, with rationally developed arguments (weak though they are in some cases). But if you still put objectivity on a pedestal, you have much to learn about learning.

[NotQuiteFree]

I got to watch Michael Moore talk at Portland State University earlier this year, and I got my copy of "Dude Where's My Country" autographed. Inspiring. Simply inspiring. (By the way, he is HUGE in real life. I don't know if it is just because I was meeting him, or what).

[Bill Gold]

Saw it a few hours ago; I can honestly say it wasn't saying anything new. That is, same content as what we've been fed, but interesting form (by the way, the rating is justified). This documentary/movie consists of mostly information we knew already (or are in denial of in some cases), supported by fact that we never cared to go into, all in an interesting format. It is inferior to Bowling for Columbine, but retains a lot (but not all) of the interesting style senn there. It should be noted that Moore resorts to distasteful badgering in this movie too, but of course it's very entertaining, so he gets chuckles and claps from the audience. The way he antagonizes the senior Bush Administration officials at the start is wickedly clever, and you can only truly appreciate it in a movie theatre.

In fact, as many of the Republican loyalists here will be quick to point out, it is simply a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric, much of which is founded but has no relation to the original thesis, which basically deals with the sinister and real connection between the United States' elite, economy, the Bush Family, the bin Laden family, and Saudi interests. There are a lot of specific facts that support things we already knew that go against the Bush Administration and Bush himself, but this connection should have been explored more. By the end of the movie, we are left thinking not of 9/11, but of the folly of the government. The thesis by then has abstracted to basically, "Bush sucks, here's why." Compelling, yes, but it's not a very credible documentary for that reason. It also uses a lot of images we really didn't need to see to understand a given situation, but that also goes into the entertainment/random info factor.

As is always the case with this kind of material, moviegoers at Kennedy Commons AMC Theatre 9 all witnessed someone who didn't have the personal fortitude to sit through something he didn't agree with, that was raising point after point against. If you go to see this movie, expect nothing more; some people just can't listen to a differing argument. Now about bias, my lesson is just chill. Of course it's this movie is biased! It's a thesis, with rationally developed arguments (weak though they are in some cases). But if you still put objectivity on a pedestal, you have much to learn about learning.
I pretty much agree with what you said, Jonathan, especially about the ‘R’ rating. There was some pretty gruesome imagery in the movie, but that shouldn’t be any reason to skip it. It’s something you have to see.

Another great point that was covered in this movie was that the poor people are more likely to enlist in the military for the possible benefits (paid tuition, and just having a job period), and not middle or upper class citizens. I thought it was a very important thing for him to point out that it’s the upper class sending the lower class off to fight in their place. It’s almost like revisiting the slave owners paying a fee that the lower class couldn’t afford so that they didn’t have to fight for the Confederacy during the Civil War. I especially liked the part of the movie with the recruiters going around the low income mall trying to sign up a few stragglers.

I thought it was well worth my $7.75 student rate to see this movie. By the way, every single showing in Washington D.C. Friday was sold out, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the same thing happened today (every showing at the theatre I went to today was sold out). I also heard that a lot of shows were sold out back home in CA.

I thought it was funny that the quickest path back to my dorm room from the theatre was between the Watergate and Kennedy Center, and then past the Saudi Embassy (it looks bigger in the movie). We chuckled and made a mental note of that scene in the movie on the way back.

I can’t wait to see how much money the movie made this weekend.

[Joshua May]

I can’t wait to see how much money the movie made this weekend.

I believe it's already breaking records for documentaries, I can't remember what Friday's was, but it had already made a profit.

[MattK]

I most likely am going off to see it today with my uncle (He is a political annalist). I can’t stand body parts being blown off but I guess I will just have to stomach it.

I think its an important movie to see no matter what side of the fence you are on.

I saw a piece on MSNBC today about the movie and I think they got more facts wrong about the movie than the movie itself got wrong. That’s just my opinion though.

[Bill Gold]

According to estimates, the movie made $58 million the first day in theaters.
Can you post a link to a story? I doubt $58 million in one day. It'd be great if it made that much this weekend.

For those of you who have seen it, were your showings sold out? Do you know if a lot of showings have sold out in your area?

Thanks in advance.

[Joe Matt]

Can you post a link to a story? I doubt $58 million in one day. It'd be great if it made that much this weekend.

For those of you who have seen it, were your showings sold out? Do you know if a lot of showings have sold out in your area?

Thanks in advance.
Whoops, I heard it last knight, but it seems I was way off! I got the last number right, but it was only $8 million the first day. Sorry about that. :(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3844573.stm

[Madison]

The correct box office prediction is approximately $21.8 million for its opening weekend.

[Joshua May]

Does anyone know if it's being shown in Cinemark theaters at all? That's all we have around here, and there aren't any showings for it.

[Joe Matt]

In other news today, it seems Bush has created an attack add to minimize the Fahrenheit movie. The ad depicts John Edwards, John Kerrey, and Howard Dean speaches along with Aldolph Hitler. The uber-liberal site move-on.org also posted a similar ad on their site, only attacking Bush, which was latter removed from the site because move-on thought it was in 'bad taste'. The Bush people refuse to remove their new ad. Lets see how this plays out....

[Cory]

Bill: I couldnt get tickets anywhere in a 20 mile radius until Sunday, save for really early and late showings.

I thought the movie was really great, and Michael Moore made some good points regardless of your political convictions.

It was very interesting hearing the soldiers speaking, and the letter from Mrs. Lipscomb's son.

To the people that think Moore is directing his criticism towards our soldiers fighting, as the end of the film, and Mrs. Lipscomb's comments on the topic of protestors, you can tell that most people do not dislike the soldiers, but instead the people giving the soldiers their orders. Almost everyone I know supports our soldiers and recognizes that they joined the armed forces to protect our country.

Myself, and almost every person I know who oppose the war do so because they believe that we are not fighting for any reason worth sacrificing the lives of 800 something odd young men and women.

I will support the men and women of our armed forces until the day I die. However, I cannot and will not stand for them to be sent off to their deaths for absolutely no reason beyond a personal vendetta or some other misguided reason.

Cory
Cory

[Joshua May]

To the people that think Moore is directing his criticism towards our soldiers fighting, as the end of the film, and Mrs. Lipscomb's comments on the topic of protestors, you can tell that most people do not dislike the soldiers, but instead the people giving the soldiers their orders. Almost everyone I know supports our soldiers and recognizes that they joined the armed forces to protect our country.

Myself, and almost every person I know who oppose the war do so because they believe that we are not fighting for any reason worth sacrificing the lives of 800 something odd young men and women.

I will support the men and women of our armed forces until the day I die. However, I cannot and will not stand for them to be sent off to their deaths for absolutely no reason beyond a personal vendetta or some other misguided reason.

That's exactly how I feel. I know that these people are out there fighting for the country they love. I have no grudges against the soldiers, I certainly wish them no ill will, while I am totally against the war and the concept of war and fighting in itself. Just like Cory, I support the troops, just not what they are commanded to do.

[Mike Soukup]

I will support the men and women of our armed forces until the day I die. However, I cannot and will not stand for them to be sent off to their deaths for absolutely no reason beyond a personal vendetta or some other misguided reason.
I kept saying "don't post in this thread" and "don't get involved," but against my better judgement here it is.

We always hear about the soldiers who are opposed to the war, but what about the soldiers who believe in the cause? Sure a film maker can dig up soldiers who have bad things to say about the war, but anyone can dig up soldiers who have good things to say. My girlfriend's best friend just got back from Iraq and she's in favor of the war. She could care less that they found no WMDs. She saw bodies of innocent women & children that Sadam's people killed. She also got to interact with the families that are grateful for the US presence. She believes that the military intervention is a good thing and so do many others.

There's always another side of the story. Bush doesn't want you to hear from the disgruntled soldiers and Moore doesn't want you to hear from the proud ones.

Mike

ps Bill, you're starting to scare me. You've been in DC for so long that you sound like one of those talking heads on TV :D

[Adam Y.]

Hey all we should care about is if the Iraqis are happy and they are happy with the new government. Just not happy with us though.

[Jeff Waegelin]

I thought about going to see the movie this past weekend. However, I have an extreme distaste for radicalism in politics, be it liberal or conservative. So, I decided not to go. I consider myself a Democrat in political affiliation, and I'm fairly liberal-minded, but... the aforementioned distaste for radical politics has kept me out so far. Is this something I should see anyways, or am I going to just be irritated?

[jonathan lall]

Is this something I should see anyways, or am I going to just be irritated?
I would say so. All opinions and bickering aside, it's pretty interesting. In any case, the movie itself doesn't have anything I would call "radicalism," nor does it explicitly put forth any leftist ideas. One thing is clear; the point of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to make the viewer think about his/her ballot on the basis of "exposing" the Bush Administration. If you go into the theatre to be entertained by a political essay, then you will find it enlightening at least part of the time. Of course, if you don't want to listen to what Moore has to say, then by all means, go watch Shrek 2. :)

[Jeff Waegelin]

I would say so. All opinions and bickering aside, it's pretty interesting. In any case, the movie itself doesn't have anything I would call "radicalism," nor does it explicitly put forth any leftist ideas. One thing is clear; the point of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to make the viewer think about his/her ballot on the basis of "exposing" the Bush Administration. If you go into the theatre to be entertained by a political essay, then you will find it enlightening at least part of the time. Of course, if you don't want to listen to what Moore has to say, then by all means, go watch Shrek 2. :)

Okay, that sounds slightly more appealing. Maybe I'll go see that later, then.

[Joshua May]

Ooh, I'm so happy right now. :D :D

I just found out that one of my local theaters has started showing Farenheit 9/11. I'll either go see it sometime this week or next, I was thinking I'd have to wait until it came out on video.

And the numbers for the movie's earnings over the weekend have been updated, it made around $24 million.

[Nastay]

I just saw the movie last night at 10pm, it was s disturbing movie to say the least. its disturbing in the fact that so much of the population fell for the stuff (sorry) that was being fed to us, myself included. With the technologies that we have today there is no reason at all that there is any question about what was in Iraq, thats why i bought in. Think about it, in the 60s during the Cuban Missile Crisis we were able to tell if the soldier standing next to a missile was Russian or Cuban, over 40 YEARS ago we could tell that! The classified technologies that the govt. has at its disposal leave absolutely no room for this scale of a mistake. The only think that i learned from the movie was all of the connections between the bush family and the Bin ladens, you wonder why there is so much focus on Iraq and Sadam, rather than Afghanistan and Osama, the one actually behind it all. Fahrenheit 9/11 just amplified my hatred toward B..bush.
I am ashamed to have him as our president, but sadly i cannot vote for 2 more years, so can't vote against him.
You too should be ashamed to have this disgrace as the President of our Nation. Clinton has an affair with a woman, and comes close to being kicked out, bush sends hundreds of troops into an unnecessary war, fails to find bin laden or clean up Afghanistan before he enters Iraq because of WMD that he knew very well weren't there, and what happens to him? The whole thing angers me beyond belief, so before i break something i am done.

Sorry about the language, I didn't realize there was no filter....

[Cory]

bush sends hundreds of troops into an unnecessary war

Actually, just for the sake of clarity, Bush sent around 118,000 troops to Iraq :rolleyes:

I bet half of the movies revenue this weekend came from the west coast, and California in specific, because from what I saw, it was in far higher demand than any other movie here.

Cory

[Nastay]

well i was planning on saying something of the effect "to die", but i thought that would be unnecessary, i am not trying to sound like a politician.

And our theater here on the east coast had a special line you had to wait in for the movie, i have never seen that before for any kind of movie here...

[Joshua May]

I just saw the movie last night at 10pm, it was s disturbing movie to say the least. its disturbing in the fact that so much of the population fell for the stuff that was being fed to us, myself included. With the technologies that we have today there is no reason at all that there is any question about what was in Iraq, thats why i bought in. Think about it, in the 60s during the Cuban Missile Crisis we were able to tell if the soldier standing next to a missile was Russian or Cuban, over 40 YEARS ago we could tell that! The classified technologies that the govt. has at its disposal leave absolutely no room for this scale of a mistake. The only think that i learned from the movie was all of the connections between the bush family and the Bin ladens, you wonder why there is so much focus on Iraq and Sadam, rather than Afghanistan and Osama, the one actually behind it all. Fahrenheit 9/11 just amplified my hatred toward B..bush.
I am ashamed to have him as our president, but sadly i cannot vote for 2 more years, so can't vote against him.
You too should be ashamed to have this disgrace as the President of our Nation. Clinton has an affair with a woman, and comes close to being kicked out, bush sends hundreds of troops into an unnecessary war, fails to find bin laden or clean up Afghanistan before he enters Iraq because of WMD that he knew $@#$@#$@#$@# well weren't there, and what happens to him? The whole thing angers me beyond belief, so before i break something i am done.

I totally agree with you. And the American public was lied to by the Bush administration. We were told that there were many "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (Let me remind you that the US has more than any other country), and that there were "Winnebagos of Death" (mobile chemical weapons labs) and that Saddam posed a direct threat the the US. It would be impossible for Saddam to have attacked the United States. Yet many people believed in what they were told, my mother and sister are two of them. Now, they feel cheated that they were lied to by our administration. Sure, pretty much the only big stain on the Clinton administration is his affair. Let me tell you, many Presidents and leaders, including Thomas Jefferson, JFK, and even Warren G. Harding had affairs with women in the White House, and they certainly weren't impeached over it. If the biggest problem you can find with a man is a personal mistake, then that's not much of an argument.

[D.J. Fluck]

Sure, pretty much the only big stain on the Clinton administration is his affair. Let me tell you, many Presidents and leaders, including Thomas Jefferson, JFK, and even Warren G. Harding had affairs with women in the White House, and they certainly weren't impeached over it. If the biggest problem you can find with a man is a personal mistake, then that's not much of an argument.

Correction, he wasn't impeached for having an affair, he was being investigated for the afair and was impeached for lying under oath...which if you or I would do that in a case, you or I would go to jail for a long time.

[Adam Y.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nastay
I just saw the movie last night at 10pm, it was s disturbing movie to say the least. its disturbing in the fact that so much of the population fell for the stuff that was being fed to us, myself included. With the technologies that we have today there is no reason at all that there is any question about what was in Iraq, thats why i bought in. Think about it, in the 60s during the Cuban Missile Crisis we were able to tell if the soldier standing next to a missile was Russian or Cuban, over 40 YEARS ago we could tell that! The classified technologies that the govt. has at its disposal leave absolutely no room for this scale of a mistake. The only think that i learned from the movie was all of the connections between the bush family and the Bin ladens, you wonder why there is so much focus on Iraq and Sadam, rather than Afghanistan and Osama, the one actually behind it all. Fahrenheit 9/11 just amplified my hatred toward B..bush.
I am ashamed to have him as our president, but sadly i cannot vote for 2 more years, so can't vote against him.
You too should be ashamed to have this disgrace as the President of our Nation. Clinton has an affair with a woman, and comes close to being kicked out, bush sends hundreds of troops into an unnecessary war, fails to find bin laden or clean up Afghanistan before he enters Iraq because of WMD that he knew $@#$@#$@#$@# well weren't there, and what happens to him? The whole thing angers me beyond belief, so before i break something i am done.
Im saying this as a nerd and based on what I know. Technology is not infallible. If you think that we can solely rely on spy satelites you are mistaken. It's probably the exact opposite of what you are saying that went on. We can take a picture of one area and then we would have to wait a long time for another opportunity to take a picture of the same exact area. Long enough for people to move about. I think a perfect example would be what was shown in Iran recently. Two pictures from public sattelites of the same area. The after picture looked like the building was destroyed. Aparently, they burried the whole building. So it's fairly easy to hide anything if you really want to. We rely too much on spy satelites and do not have enough spies on the ground. Also, a lot of the technologies that you think are classified aren't anymore. I could probably buy a picture of my house from sattelites if I wanted too. It's really neat stuff and in fairly high resolution. They had a seminar at Nationals about this technolgy.

[Joshua May]

Im saying this as a nerd and based on what I know. Technology is not infallible. If you think that we can solely rely on spy satelites you are mistaken. It's probably the exact opposite of what you are saying that went on. We can take a picture of one area and then we would have to wait a long time for another opportunity to take a picture of the same exact area. Long enough for people to move about. I think a perfect example would be what was shown in Iran recently. Two pictures from public sattelites of the same area. The after picture looked like the building was destroyed. Aparently, they burried the whole building. So it's fairly easy to hide anything if you really want to. We rely too much on spy satelites and do not have enough spies on the ground. Also, a lot of the technologies that you think are classified aren't anymore. I could probably buy a picture of my house from sattelites if I wanted too. It's really neat stuff and in fairly high resolution. They had a seminar at Nationals about this technolgy.

Actually, during the Cuban Missle Crisis, U2 planes were used. Such spy planes would work much better than sattelites that aren't in geosynchronous (sp?) orbit over an exact spot.

[Adam Y.]

Actually, during the Cuban Missle Crisis, U2 planes were used. Such spy planes would work much better than sattelites that aren't in geosynchronous (sp?) orbit over an exact spot.
Ahhh.... Thanks for pointing that out. Though I really don't think the sattelites are in a geosynchronous orbit. I just checked and they would have to be in line with the equator. Intelligence encompases all feilds. I know the CIA was trying to recruit new engineers from the competition. Then again I shudder at the thought of dealing with any sensitive information.

[Joshua May]

Ahhh.... Thanks for pointing that out. Though I really don't think the sattelites are in a geosynchronous orbit. I just checked and they would have to be in line with the equator. Intelligence encompases all feilds. I know the CIA was trying to recruit new engineers from the competition. Then again I shudder at the thought of dealing with any sensitive information.

Yeah, i don't know if I worded my previous post correctly, but I meant to say that I also didn't think that they spy sattelites were in geosynchronous orbit, but the U2 would most likely be better than those anyways.

[Yan Wang]

I predicted before this movie came out that Michael Moore would make the following statement... guess he has now:

http://www.sundayherald.com/43167

Note to those who think this is legal: it's not.

[Madison]

I'm always late to the party, but I finally had an opportunity to see this film.

I didn't like it one bit. I felt it manipulative and irresponsible and, while it's no secret that I'm pretty intensely liberal, I believe that this movie represents so much of what is problematic about the political processes in this country and our participation in such processes.

Surprised? I was, too.

...someone might care, I thought.

[Tristan Lall]

...spy sattelites were in geosynchronous orbit, but the U2 would most likely be better than those anyways.Off topic, but only briefly: geosynchronous orbits are high orbits--the satellite wouldn't be able to see anything of value from about 40 000 km (where it needs to be to maintain that orbit). Also, geosynchronous orbits have the same rotational period as the Earth; only geostationary orbits need to circle the equator as well (also with the same rotational period).

I ought to eventually see that movie. Maybe I'll find a downloaded copy somewhere....

[UlTiMaTeP]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was a sad attempt at a movie. I had higher hopes for it. I loved Bowling for Columbine, but this movie, had no direction, no real meaning, and falsities. I expected more...