Fahrenheit 9/11

[lazysmurff]

i keep reading these articles you post about michael moore, and all i see is "he's a fat slobby trouble maker" and nothing actually proving anything he says wrong. as much as these articles bitch about a lack of substance in the movie, there seems to be a lack of substance to their criticism.

and no, i dont think this movie will have a huge impact on the election. theres no reason it should. bush supporters who see it will simply cry "foul" while everyone else will say "told ya so" and then we are right back where we began.

all it did for me was make me feel even more right in voting third party

[TexasF355F1]

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

They were discussing this article on Ferrari Chat. The guy who found the article mentioned that the author of this article, Christopher Hitchens, is a socialist liberal. Which makes the article that much more interesting.

[DGB454]

I read that one. Good article.

[werwolf-23]

The thing that strikes me about it all is that nobody from BushCo has actually said "hey, that's not true!" about a single thing in the movie. This makes me very afraid. And I'm going to go see that movie the day it's in one of the local theaters.

[Pick]

If you want to waste $7.50, be my guest. I will never let any of my money go towards that egotistical fat-ass.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Pick

If you want to waste $7.50, be my guest. I will never let any of my money go towards that egotistical fat-ass.

Do you have any other type of post in these political forums, besides these emotional, primping, responses, that have no meaning politically, whatsoever?

EDIT: I'm probably not going to pay for Moore's movie either, but that's because I've read-up on his subject matter these past couple of years, and he has nothing to tell me that'll shock me that much.

[Pick]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Do you have any other type of post in these political forums, besides these emotional, primping, responses, that have no meaning politically, whatsoever?

EDIT: I'm probably not going to pay for Moore's movie either, but that's because I've read-up on his subject matter these past couple of years, and he has nothing to tell me that'll shock me that much.

I'm not going to see it because I've also read up on what this movie's detail is and I already have enjoyed reading about the many fallacies in the movie. Is that good enough for you, mister "conservative" man?

[TexasF355F1]

Originally Posted by werwolf-23

The thing that strikes me about it all is that nobody from BushCo has actually said "hey, that's not true!" about a single thing in the movie. This makes me very afraid. And I'm going to go see that movie the day it's in one of the local theaters.

It's not that the things aren't true. It's the fact that they're taken out of context and misconstrued into something its not.

[taranaki]

LOL.....which is badsically the argument against invading Iraq....So it's OK for Bush to 'misconstrue' intelligence for his own gain,but not for Michael Moore to do it?Maybe if Michael Moore had killed a few more women and kids as a result of his twisting the truth,the Bush supporters would like him better.....

[Flatrater]

I'm getting tired of hearing the same shit over and over again isn't about time to find something new to say.

Everyone acts like George Bush is everywhere and everything, that he is working alone. WTF he has a cabinet, advisors, the congress to help steer him. Could it be that Bush wan't the only one to make a mistake? He was the only one to take the rash of shit being dealt his way. Do ytou reallt have any hard proof that Bush knew he was lying and not just some liberal trash web site?

Can anyone post a good review of Moore's film? I know I posted several against it. Instead of finding fault with what I posted prove me wrong! Show me!!!

[taranaki]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/la...ndex.php?id=32


A whole swag of them,from people who have actually seen the film,not people who hate what it stands for.

And Bush carries the can for his administration's foulups.You were quick enough to blame Clinton for his administrations' poor intelligence,it would be a double standard not to expect Bush to occupy the same position of ultimate responsibility.I have seen no news of Defence advisors being sacked,despite piss poor work,so I must assume that Bush is prepared to support their inadequacies.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by taranaki

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/la...ndex.php?id=32


A whole swag of them,from people who have actually seen the film,not people who hate what it stands for.

And Bush carries the can for his administration's foulups.You were quick enough to blame Clinton for his administrations' poor intelligence,it would be a double standard not to expect Bush to occupy the same position of ultimate responsibility.I have seen no news of Defence advisors being sacked,despite piss poor work,so I must assume that Bush is prepared to support their inadequacies.

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by werwolf-23

The thing that strikes me about it all is that nobody from BushCo has actually said "hey, that's not true!" about a single thing in the movie. .

There are more important things to worry about than what Moore thinks about you or writes about you.

[taranaki]

If that be the case,why is he one of the biggest political commentators in the world at the moment?

Originally Posted by Google

Results 1 - 10 of about 261,000 for "Bowling for columbine".

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260,000 for "fahrenheit 9/11". (0.21 seconds)

Compare those two figures.How many years has Bowling For Columbine been out there?Already Fahrenheit 9/11 has 5 times the coverage that its predecessor has achieved.


Results 1 - 10 of about 2,530,000 for "michael moore".

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,550,000 for "John Kerry".



The man is generating as much publicity as John Kerry.Tell me please that Bush's campaign advisers don't pay any attention to him, I'd be delighted to know that they're as useless as his defence advisers.

You seriously think that Bush's campaign wouldn't throw the film back in Moore's face if they could find a single untruth in it? Seriously? Any pissant can criticize the style of his films,or his demeanor or hell,let's even mock him because he doesn't dress as smart as GW, but ........

I've yet to see anyone in the know dare stand up and call him a liar.

[DGB454]

So if you were president.(Yes,I'm having a hard time saying that with a straight face) You would bother to deny or even acknowledge Moore?
You wouldn't see that as a mistake? That's like giving credibility to what he says.