Farenheit 9/11 question....

[Gop guy]

Do any of you think that this movie or any other movies by the radical Hollywood left put out between now and November 2nd will influence the election in any way?

 

[NATO AIR]

no i doubt it, there are few swing votes out there, dems will love it, republicans will hate it

nothing new in the movie

that seven minute silence is kind of ... well... i don't know how to describe it but it ain't good

people know what moore is, whether they like him or not, will determine their opinion on the movie

maybe if there is some kind of really eloquent (without being forced and manipulated like moore did to that poor woman of the KIA soldier) movie about those who went to Iraq and became disillusioned, the effect on their families, etc etc, that might win a few more votes for kerry

i can say from experience that there is about 1 second every time you hear a child's cry for his/her father at a funeral or you see the wife just aghast at the prospect of life without her love and the father of her kids... you do doubt everything, but you realize 1 second later that they died for something important, at the altar of freedom


its an emotional reflex maybe, i dunno know

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Originally posted by Gop guy
Do any of you think that this movie or any other movies by the radical Hollywood left put out between now and November 2nd will influence the election in any way?

I would have to say no. Like the previous post said, the left will use it to "prove" what they say, the right will denounce it. As far as undecided voters, there might be someone totally uninformed and dense enough to see it and be swayed, but I doubt anyone of that frame of mind would see it to begin with. Moore claims that someone approached him and said that the movie made them change their mind about how they were going to vote. Since this claim comes from Moore himself, I'd say the validity of it is questionable.

Calling this movie a documentary is an insult to the genre. Calling it propaganda is closer, but still not accurate. Basically, Michael Moore has taken your average Yahoo! message board post and turned it into a movie. He makes claims, but apparently didn't put the joarnalistic effort into it to back up his claim. At one point, he says that the Oregan state troopers had to limit staffing because of budget cutbacks, but he doesn't bother to say how this is connected to the Bush adminsitration, he just says it is.
There is some crude humor, mostly cheap shots which should shock nobody considering the source. Since they are probably the two strongest allies for the U.S. in Iraq, I find it odd that he totally ignores Italy and Great Britain's involvment in the coalition. I assume this is to help push the "Bush decided to go it alone" argument.
Frankly, all in all, the movie was laughable. Between Moore's questionable credibility, the fact that WMDs are being found in Iraq, a new government taking over in Afghanistan, more links being found between Saddam and Bin Laden, and several other factors, I don't see this movie swaying anybody anywhere.

 

[menewa]

After seeing this movie, I do believe it could make a minor dent in the upcoming election. I don't say this because of the quality of the movie, rather because of the people I saw going to watch it. I saw the movie last weekend at the Rave theatre near Dallas. Surprisingly, at 27-years-old, I found myself being the oldest person there. In the line tracing it's way to the screening room, I was surrounded by 18-24 year-olds. Considering that this demographic usually contributes the least number of voters every year, a movie such as this might serve to motivate our silent youth.

The youth I talked to after the movie were indeed galvanized to do something after witnessing Moore's diatribe against Bush.

Several points of this movie can be refuted, several other points cannot. I wasn't that impressed with the film. Nothing really shocking if one keeps up with current events. But if it can get these damn lazy teens and other youngsters to the voting booth then it really could turn an election. I hope it does.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I live in a state that is conservative and Republican. There are long lines to see this movie everywhere it is shown. And an increasing number of Letters to the Editors indicating that people are accepting the message as truth. But then what can you expect of people who get their news coverage 30 minutes a day from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN. And in newspapers the New York Times and the Washington Post are always quoted on what they have to say about the issues. In my opinion, the liberal media has gotten too powerful in this country. There should be a backlash by the people to correct this situation. We put our trust in them to tell us the truth, and they abuse this trust by filtering the news through their liberal ideology. People need to wake up to the fact that in a democracy/republic, they have a responsibility to be informed, and that entails personal effort, not depending on someone else to provide your information and tell you how you should think.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by menewa
The youth I talked to after the movie were indeed galvanized to do something after witnessing Moore's diatribe against Bush.

But if it can get these damn lazy teens and other youngsters to the voting booth then it really could turn an election. I hope it does.

Point one - give them two days and they will have forgotten all about it. They're more worried about the latest Janet Jackson video.

Point two - This demographic doesn't vote much because they have more important things to do. I'm not sure what those things are, but they surely must be important.

Point three - There is already a sufficiency of uneducated half-wits pulling levers in voting booths. Why on earth would you want more of them?

 

[Annie]

Point three - There is already a sufficiency of uneducated half-wits pulling levers in voting booths. Why on earth would you want more of them?

LOL I love that! Too many vote without knowing what the hell they are doing. :

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Originally posted by Adam's Apple
I live in a state that is conservative and Republican. There are long lines to see this movie everywhere it is shown. And an increasing number of Letters to the Editors indicating that people are accepting the message as truth. But then what can you expect of people who get their news coverage 30 minutes a day from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN. And in newspapers the New York Times and the Washington Post are always quoted on what they have to say about the issues. In my opinion, the liberal media has gotten too powerful in this country. There should be a backlash by the people to correct this situation. We put our trust in them to tell us the truth, and they abuse this trust by filtering the news through their liberal ideology. People need to wake up to the fact that in a democracy/republic, they have a responsibility to be informed, and that entails personal effort, not depending on someone else to provide your information and tell you how you should think.

No matter how conservative or Republican a state is, there are still going to be Liberals as well as people who just want to see the train wreck for themselves. I was curious enough to see it, granted I saw it for free.

I agree about the media. It is horribly bias this year. Even the Dallas Morning News has been bad. Their "Election '04" section might as well be called the "John Kerry for President" section. Makes me think about the 1963 Communist Goals that have been posted somewhere on this board where they said they wanted to take control of the media.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think if this movie has any effect it wont be the effect the left wants. When the strongest arguments the left has against the President is stuff Michael Moore makes up there are alot of people who are going to see through it and support the President.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I think if this movie has any effect it wont be the effect the left wants. When the strongest arguments the left has against the President is stuff Michael Moore makes up there are alot of people who are going to see through it and support the President.

To me, the strongest stuff in this movie isn't made up, for it comes directly from the horses various mouths.

For instance, when Bush was asked a couple of months after the invasion of Afghanistan by a reporter if he knew where Osama bin Laden was, he replied that he didn't really worry about him. Why would you say you're not really worried about him? That's like the mayor of New York City during the Summer of 1977 saying that he wasn't really concerned about the wherabouts of the Son of Sam. However, it's worse b/c the Son of Sam killed a handful of New Yorkers while bin Laden is alledged to be responsible for killing thousands of New Yorkers. As well as possible 100s of others around the globe.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by menewa
To me, the strongest stuff in this movie isn't made up, for it comes directly from the horses various mouths.

For instance, when Bush was asked a couple of months after the invasion of Afghanistan by a reporter if he knew where Osama bin Laden was, he replied that he didn't really worry about him. Why would you say you're not really worried about him? That's like the mayor of New York City during the Summer of 1977 saying that he wasn't really concerned about the wherabouts of the Son of Sam. However, it's worse b/c the Son of Sam killed a handful of New Yorkers while bin Laden is alledged to be responsible for killing thousands of New Yorkers. As well as possible 100s of others around the globe.

Menewa are you on drugs? Comparing Bin Laden to the Son of Sam has got to be the stupidest f**king analogy I have ever seen. David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) was 1 person listening to voices in his head stalking NYC. Bin Laden didn't kill anyone himself, his organization did. But I see that you used "alledged" in your UBL statement, so I guess you think that the CIA really caused 9/11

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS

Menewa are you on drugs? Comparing Bin Laden to the Son of Sam has got to be the stupidest f**king analogy I have ever seen. David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) was 1 person listening to voices in his head stalking NYC. Bin Laden didn't kill anyone himself, his organization did. But I see that you used "alledged" in your UBL statement, so I guess you think that the CIA really caused 9/11

No shit he's a hell of a lot worse. I said this in my original post. You fail to see my deeper point so I guess I have to go deeper for you. If the mayor of NYC has said something so flippant about a guy who killed a handful of people, he would never ever be elected again. But Bush, said this about someone who may be responsible for killing a thousand times as many people. But he can somehow get away with this while my hypothetical mayor would get the chopping block.

I use the term alledged because it has not been proven in a court of law. In the real world of laws this is the appropriate term for someone who has been charged with a crime but has not yet received a judgment.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by menewa
To me, the strongest stuff in this movie isn't made up, for it comes directly from the horses various mouths.

For instance, when Bush was asked a couple of months after the invasion of Afghanistan by a reporter if he knew where Osama bin Laden was, he replied that he didn't really worry about him. Why would you say you're not really worried about him? That's like the mayor of New York City during the Summer of 1977 saying that he wasn't really concerned about the wherabouts of the Son of Sam. However, it's worse b/c the Son of Sam killed a handful of New Yorkers while bin Laden is alledged to be responsible for killing thousands of New Yorkers. As well as possible 100s of others around the globe.

What is said can be spun and is exactly what fat boy did! Bush was merely pointing to the fact that we were being highly successful in Afghanistan ( which was being played down) and the fact that Bin Laden hadn't been captured YET didn't worry him. It DIDN'T mean he wasn't interested in still searching for him.
You'll buy anything bad about Bush, admit it . Truth is not important to you.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by dilloduck
What is said can be spun and is exactly what fat boy did! Bush was merely pointing to the fact that we were being highly successful in Afghanistan ( which was being played down) and the fact that Bin Laden hadn't been captured YET didn't worry him. It DIDN'T mean he wasn't interested in still searching for him.
You'll buy anything bad about Bush, admit it . Truth is not important to you.

The bold is the understatement of the week!

 

[menewa]

Ya'll will say anything to avoid my point. Imagine If Clinton has said something so stupid. Ya'll would be ready to lynch the man. Yet, your reverance for Bush has turned into a sickness. You let him get away with anything and turn around and say "Who cares?"
You must all immediately join BA (Bushites Anonymous) and clear your heads of this kowtowing for an elite brat with no brains and even less integrity.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
First of there is no "may" in the equation, he was responsible!

Like I said, you seen or heard from him since?
He could be dead, he could be alive who cares? let's just stop the entire war against terrorism to catch one man!

why comment on a statement that you don't seem to fully understand? I guess it is easier to make these things into something bigger than ther are.

The war on terrorism is about this one man and his al qaeda fighters, but I see you've forgotten. But I don't blame you for your sudden case of amnesia, seems the current inhabitants of the White House suffer from the same malady.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by menewa
The war on terrorism is about this one man and his al qaeda fighters, but I see you've forgotten. But I don't blame you for your sudden case of amnesia, seems the current inhabitants of the White House suffer from the same malady.

The war in Iraq was about 12 years of failed resolutions, refusal to return belongings and bodies to Kuwait, shooting at US planes, refusing to cooperate with UN inspectors, Saddam gassing his own people, the threat of WMD's, Iraq's cooperation and harboring of terrorists....

I will forgive you for YOUR amnesia.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by menewa
The war on terrorism is about this one man and his al qaeda fighters, but I see you've forgotten. But I don't blame you for your sudden case of amnesia, seems the current inhabitants of the White House suffer from the same malady.

No Menewa, if only the WOT depended on one man, then you'd be correct. It doesn't. Problem has to do today with radical Islam, or perhaps orthodox Islam and the rest of people on the planet. Get a Clue!

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by menewa
Ya'll will say anything to avoid my point. Imagine If Clinton has said something so stupid. Ya'll would be ready to lynch the man. Yet, your reverance for Bush has turned into a sickness. You let him get away with anything and turn around and say "Who cares?"
You must all immediately join BA (Bushites Anonymous) and clear your heads of this kowtowing for an elite brat with no brains and even less integrity.

First, havent seen you show anything stupid that President Bush has said.

Second, President Clinton once tried to defend himself by saying "That depends on what the deffinition of is is" How in the universe could President Bush even come close to saying something that stupid.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by menewa
The war on terrorism is about this one man and his al qaeda fighters, but I see you've forgotten. But I don't blame you for your sudden case of amnesia, seems the current inhabitants of the White House suffer from the same malady.

While im sure my fellow conservatives have already pointed out. the war on terror is far more than Osama and Al Queda. that seems to be what you guys towards the left of the political spectrum dont seem to understand.

If we killed or captured Osama today, the war on terror would continue.

If we annilated Al Queda the war on terror would continue.

Its silly and stupid to assum that Osama and Al Queda are the only terrorists in the world. What kind of leader would ignore the threat that terror gives us regardless of which terror organization is running it?