• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are you going to go see FAHRENHEIT 9/11?[POLL]

no / liberal (registered independant)

Moore's films tend to annoy me. Not because of the politics, but because of his sophomoric and amature means of getting his points across.

I'm pro-gun restrictions and anti-NRA, but I thought that Bowling for Columbine was trash. I can't imagine 9/11 being much better.
 
could u add socialist to that political spectrum list, thank you.

also, I have seen bowling for columbine, and sometimes more just goes over the line hell, i'm a socialist (so quite left) (call me a left liberalist 😉) but his viewpoints are sometimes so extremely left that I say jeez, WHAT are you hammering on NOW, and sometimes I think he puts some extreme links, such as putting responsibility for the school shooting at lockheed martin etc (but I tought he had some personal grudge against them wasnt it ?) but it's really hard to get the facts from the fiction. an interview is hard to fake, what that person said was said, but the context in which it was shown also matters.
 
Yes I will see it and I am an independent. While I thought Bowling for Columbine took several cheap shots and had a liberal slant, it was well worth seeing, sort of like watching Fox News on occasion.
If you watched the 60 Minutes interview with Michael Moore, he claims to hate what he does because as an introvert it causes him a great deal of stress, but he thinks, for lack of a better phrase, it's "his calling".
 
over the line is the only way to get most ppls attention these days, unfortunately...that's how Rush succeeded, O'Reilly too, in a way. Moore is doing his part to educate Americans, albeit in a loud way.
 
Originally posted by: Bonesdad
over the line is the only way to get most ppls attention these days, unfortunately...that's how Rush succeeded, O'Reilly too, in a way. Moore is doing his part to educate Americans, albeit in a loud way.
Click to expand...

but like Rush and O'Reilly, he's making the party look bad to the other side.

I don't see Moore's films as attempts to sway public opinion. They're more like left-wing circle jerks (same goes for the pundits on the far right).
 
"One of these things is not like the others."


Why is Liberal an option alongside two political parties? Why not make the poll a list of political parties *or* ideologies, not a mix of the two.


Either way, I shall not be wasting my $$ on this film.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Bonesdad
over the line is the only way to get most ppls attention these days, unfortunately...that's how Rush succeeded, O'Reilly too, in a way. Moore is doing his part to educate Americans, albeit in a loud way.
Click to expand...

but like Rush and O'Reilly, he's making the party look bad to the other side.

I don't see Moore's films as attempts to sway public opinion. They're more like left-wing circle jerks (same goes for the pundits on the far right).
Click to expand...

Agreed on both ends; I find that a good litmus test for blind/emotionally-driven partisanship is to gauge one's opinion on Moore/Coulter/etc (whichever pundit leans the same way he does). Any rational person or someone who cares more about truth than an agenda would try to distance himself from the rhetoric and disinformation; the people who tend to support them tend to be rabid partisans, and this can be seen in how zealously (to the point of espousing a cult mentality) many Moore/other pundits' attack anyone who tries to point out flaws or misinformation in their arguments.
 
Originally posted by: BonesdadMoore is doing his part to educate Americans, albeit in a loud way.
Click to expand...

Educate Americans HA !!
You mean lie, desecrate and destroy everything this country is based on.
He my friend is sack of horse sh*t.
 
i'm sure the 9/11 the movie would seem right-wing compared to the posts on P&N.

why woudl i want to waste my money seeing a movie made by that obese slandering cretin.
 
Originally posted by: eriqesque
Originally posted by: BonesdadMoore is doing his part to educate Americans, albeit in a loud way.
Click to expand...

Educate Americans HA !!
You mean lie, desecrate and destroy everything this country is based on.
He my friend is sack of horse sh*t.
Click to expand...

Kind of ironic you say that, considering Moore isn't the one holding the highest office in the US. 😕

Oh pipe down.

I don't see any rightwingers calling drug addicted, money luandering, lying hypocrite Limbaugh names. Nor Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, or Ann "crazy" Coulter. These people are worse liars than Moore could even dream to be.
 
I don't like michael moore, but his films have some powerful moments. The biggest problem his films have had, however, are the moments where he inserts himself in front of the camera. He comes off (and probably for good reason) as an abusive, egotistical, self-serving boor.

In BFC, the KMart scenes were almost unbearable. He dragged the kids - who looked like they didn't want to be there and never offered a coherent thought of their own for the camera - into his own scenario where he was an ass to businesspeople who really had no relevance to the underlying concern.

That's not to say he wasn't an ass at Lockheed Martin or to Charleton Heston either, but I found using the Columbine victims as props to be particularly reprehensible.

Having said that, I thought BFC was powerful and enjoyable. I get very irritated when people spout that it is trash and lies. Was there some minor misdirection? Yes. Does it invalidate the director's point? No. Nobody cares whether LM makes satellites or ICBM's - Moore wasn't seriously trying to create a literal link between Dad making WMD's and kiddy at home doing same in basement - it was a metonymical link between the activities of the government and the governed. It is sufficient for Moore's point that somewhere in the U.S., some company is manufacturing WMD's for the government.

According to the Ebert/Roeper clip, Moore only pulls his asstacular on-camera abuse stunt once. This may be once too often for some people, but to me it says that he knew how serious this work was, and kept his fat ass in check as well as he could.

Whether we believe it has significance or not, probably all of the people in this forum have read all of the allegations/information that will make its way into F. 9/11. Nonetheless, I think the packaging of the information will be interesting enough to make it worth seeing.

P.S. Did anyone else notice that Roeper made some comment to the effect "Moore exaggerated and made it look like Bush just sat there for 6 minutes" ... as though that *wasn't* what happened? Scary stuff folks.
 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Moore's films have as much basis in reality as Peter Pan does.
Click to expand...

Is that so?
Click to expand...
Yes...it's been well documented how much of a twisting of the facts Bowling for Columbine is. Do some looking around...I'm sure you will find the info out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top