Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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...

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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

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

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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

Slates cover story...

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
 

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.