Fahrenheit 9/11 and why every America loving person should see it!

[shartley]

[RoadDawg]

I'll agree that Moore hasn't put his best foot forward. Every documentary film has a one sided agenda. For example the Moore Hates America (refered to above) is aiming at taking out Moore's reputation. Which if he's such a @sshat as many claim he is then the public would realize this. We all know that the public doesn't really research things. Instead the rally behind their political view. For example the D's vote almost always all D's and the R's vote straight R's. It shouldn't be done this way but it's just "easier" to the John Doe's/Jane's of the world.

Not to detour to far but how do you guys feel about Rush Limbough? They are basically the same entity just one is on the opposite of the other. One is Anti Democratic and the other is Anti Bush.

Once again Shartley. I feel people need to see it in order to keep from getting a distorted version of what is being said. If people don't want to see it, fine. Just don't say bad things about it til you see it. If you say bad things about the film and haven't seen it, your basically parroting what other's have said. Which is no better then distorting the truth. Now I haven't seen this film and plan to soon. I have not YET made a judgement on this yet. I'm intrigued to hear what Moore claims as truth in which case I'll always take with a grain of salt.

[Python14]

As someone who has seen it, I can honestly say it's sad. It's sad because there were people in the theater who thought they paid $7.50 for a documentary portraying facts and the straight truth. Even sadder is that I paid $7.50 knowing it wasn't.

[shartley]

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Good advice. I'll add that you should try to spread your sources as far and wide as you can. Foreign newspapers online tend to give very different perspectives of world events than the mainstream North American press. Try the BBC, New Zealand Herald, Straits Times (Singapore) in addition to CNN, CBC, the NY Times, etc.

[-Carnifex-]

Ok. SO I guess I was mistaken when I heard HIMSELF say on a interview(last week) the following. "I'm a independent, and I don't support Kerry. I believe we need a change in the White House because Bush is taking us down a very bad path. Kerry has some bad things about him but not as bad as Bush." I take it you missed that part. Show me where he has supported Kerry. He could be registered anything he wants to be. Hell I could be a Republican if I wanted. I vote for who I think is right. So does he. It's the power of voting. A right given to the American people. By the way showing this film doesn't necessarily support Kerry. Also I'll point out that there was some truth in BFC. The gun deaths in the US is definatly higher then that in other parts of the world. So once again if even 15% of what he says has truth behind it, we could be in a messed up situation.

You're going to go with what he says as opposed to legally binding documents?!

Tipical Micheal Moore target!

[spantol]

There's a simple reason why someone who would not consider himself a democrat would register as a democrat--to be able to vote in the democratic primary. Moore was campaigning for Clark, remember.

You're going to go with what he says as opposed to legally binding documents?!

Tipical Micheal Moore target!

[who_311]

the problem was it was sold and promoted as a Documentary.... Not a movie.... Thats the issue.

Actually, in the majority of interviews Ive seen him in, he has called it a "satirical documentary/movie" or similar to that. Ive never seen him out and out say "documentary".

But hey, Im only 16, so Im guessing some one is going to say that what I just said doesnt matter and that I have no say in the subject. So flame away if you must.

Alex

[-Carnifex-]

There's a simple reason why someone who would not consider himself a democrat would register as a democrat--to be able to vote in the democratic primary. Moore was campaigning for Clark, remember.

But he is still registered as a democrat, aswell as in Michigan (isn't that illegal)?

[SlartyBartFast]

Good advice. I'll add that you should try to spread your sources as far and wide as you can. Foreign newspapers online tend to give very different perspectives of world events than the mainstream North American press. Try the BBC, New Zealand Herald, Straits Times (Singapore) in addition to CNN, CBC, the NY Times, etc.

I've got some better advice.

To REALLY have a political or religious or otherwise contentious issue discussion, listen to the speakers that make your skin crawl the most and then force yourself to refrain from comment until you can say what you agree with.

Then, even once you've done that, only defend you position with positive comments.

[spantol]

Again, just because he's registered as a democrat doesn't mean that he's an active member of the democratic party. See my previous post for an example of how that could be. If he claims publicly that he considers himself an independent--who are you to say that he is not?

Currently, he's registered as a democrat in NY, and registered without an affiliation in Michigan. (Cite: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html). The Smoking Gun article says that Moore should have canceled his registration in NY when he transferred his principle residence to Michigan, but I can't find any information online outlining how one would do that. Indeed, this is the first I've ever heard about "unregistering" to vote. I'd be inclined to believe Moore just didn't think about it. Not sure if it's specifically illegal, but it seems easy enough to do.

The bottom line is that if you want to bash Moore, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so. Bringing up his voter registration records is reaching a bit, don't you think?

But he is still registered as a democrat, aswell as in Michigan (isn't that illegal)?

[aaron_mag]

This is in regards to Phil's comment on our wise forefathers...

Peronsally I agree with you. Our system is a thing of checks and balances. It was brilliantly implemented. But anyone who believes that it was brilliantly planned out is kidding themselves. It was the result of a series of comprimises on both sides of several different issues. Angrily fighting and hammering out the details.

That is what made it a good system. Political discourse and evolution. Not one side deciding it for everything.

As much as we might lament bi-partisan politics, it has been around for a very long time. And it will continue to be around for a long time. Keep that in mind when you desire to say that the other side is 'anti-american'.

Dissenting over big issues is what formed our political system....

[Jack_Dubious]

Well I saw his "Op/Ed piece", as Moore describes it, and I really enjoyed it. While there are a few of Moores conclusions I dont believe, the overall tone of the movie and especially the final message I did agree with. I also found this movie less gimmicky i.e. had less stunts than BFC, and overall found it to be a better film than BFC.

I have a lot of respect for the opinions of people who are critical of this movie *and* who have seen it. I dont think its right to criticize something (a movie/book/music/etc.) without seeing it/reading it for yourself. But then Ive never been to a book burning..so who am I to criticize
Actually...if you read through some of the threads concerning "The Passion", there are many people who agree you shouldnt judge a movie without seeing it. Or maybe it only applies to certain movies?


JDub

[Jack_Dubious]

Dissenting over big issues is what formed our political system....

I always thought it was a marathon session of Rock-Paper-Scissors that formed our political system:

Ben Franklin: Ha..Scissors! Scissors beats Paper! I say the President should have the power to veto.
Alexander Hamilton: Damn you Franklin. You know I always pick Paper!

JDub

[-Carnifex-]

Again, just because he's registered as a democrat doesn't mean that he's an active member of the democratic party. See my previous post for an example of how that could be. If he claims publicly that he considers himself an independent--who are you to say that he is not?

Currently, he's registered as a democrat in NY, and registered without an affiliation in Michigan. (Cite: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html). The Smoking Gun article says that Moore should have canceled his registration in NY when he transferred his principle residence to Michigan, but I can't find any information online outlining how one would do that. Indeed, this is the first I've ever heard about "unregistering" to vote. I'd be inclined to believe Moore just didn't think about it. Not sure if it's specifically illegal, but it seems easy enough to do.

The bottom line is that if you want to bash Moore, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so. Bringing up his voter registration records is reaching a bit, don't you think?

I'm aware of that, but the fact remains that he is STILL a registered Democrat, something he would have and probably should have done if he wasn't aligned with said party.