Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Scabbed Angel

Fahrenheit 9/11

Will you see it?  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you see it?

    • Yes
      23
    • No
      11
    • Don`t know don`t care
      9


Recommended Posts

Arioch said:
I suppose it's never occured to some that different agencies don't have to be in full ideological warfare to be considered on different sides of the political spectrum.

For example, for the past month, the New York Times has published at least one article on Fahrenheit 9/11 per day, most in glowing terms.

On the other other hand, there is this.

I was talking about actual news. I couldn't care less if one network decided to have an Allen Jones tribute week, as long as the new it’s self was up to scrach.

Share this post


Link to post
Arioch said:

On the other other hand, there is this.

Damn rethorical stuff. The guy is taking statements in order, all right, but out of context. Contradictions arise because, when looking at an event, one can take several points of view (that is suppositions on the goals): if we wanted A then we didn't do enough of B, but if it was D we wanted then we did do too much of C. That way of considering things cannot be summed up as a list of statements.
I'm not advocating for Moore, but this article is simply ridiculous. Talk about bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Julian said:

Damn rethorical stuff. The guy is taking statements in order, all right, but out of context. Contradictions arise because, when looking at an event, one can take several points of view (that is suppositions on the goals): if we wanted A then we didn't do enough of B, but if it was D we wanted then we did do too much of C. That way of considering things cannot be summed up as a list of statements.
I'm not advocating for Moore, but this article is simply ridiculous. Talk about bias.

When his claims and supporting evidence are so frequently contradictory on so many levels, one has to wonder. Which view is Moore espousing? Which conspiracy theory would he have you subscribe to in this particular quarter hour of the movie? What numbers did he massage or fabricate to support whatever thrust he's making in this half hour only to strike it down again in the next when he jumps to another viewpoint like a kid with ADD? Whose personal history and accomplishments will he ignore in order to villify next?

I no longer need to wonder. I've seen enough of Moore, and what I've seen disgusts me.

Share this post


Link to post

Again:

Julian said:

I'm not advocating for Moore, but this article is simply ridiculous.


No attack here, ari.

Share this post


Link to post

Looking at it through Hitchens' Unfairenheit 9/11, Fahrenheit 9/11 might be ironically and exactly what Bush needs to win his reelection. But, following the train of thought, and before that, we'll see a movie by Moore about Moore being a conspirator in this respect...

darknation said:

darknation said:
far away from the extreme left / right

Plus, it could just be sides on my metaphorical path, not just political leaning horsepucky.

Unfairenheit 9/11 myk notes:
Moore darknation is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Share this post


Link to post

yeah, I can see why you love Moore. Where wit fails to win approval you can always rely on fat retards to make the like laugh loud.

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

yeah, I can see why you love Moore. Where wit fails to win approval you can always rely on fat retards to make the like laugh loud.

OF COURSE!

/me reads Rush Limbaugh's book.

Share this post


Link to post

Ha, this is the funniest arguement I've seen in a while.

S1lent: I don't agree with Michael Moore. *states reasons*
Captain Red Pants: S1lent is a retard, because he doesn't agree with me.

Ah, this fucking place . . . Why do you guys even bother? You all know what the outcome is gonna be

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, this is quite entertaining watching the pro-moore and the anti-moore as they throw opinions in each others' faces. Citing moorewatch.com or mooreexposed.com against him is the same as citing moore against them. Has anyone researched either's facts? Well then you both are just blindly believing what your told. DN, you've been as complete and utter of a biased retard in this thread as you think Moore is. Only you don't fact up your opinions with facts, real or otherwise. The only intelligent thing you've said is that people should check into facts for themselves. I wish I could behold such a person like you in real life. That would be a treat. S1lent, did you ever see my advice for you in the Doom 3 general forum in the Doom3 vs RE thread? *Sigh* Why do I try? This is pretty funny though.

Share this post


Link to post
Scabbed Angel said:

Only you don't fact up your opinions with facts, real or otherwise.

Dunno, those covers show exactly what he dislikes of him when I asked. Truth is those photoshoped whitened teeth don't exactly make him look like he's doing this for the greater good, more like revolving the muck under the water and trying to score some fame/money.

I still think he showed quite a lot of truth in Columbine (haven't seen the new one).

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it comes out until Friday. A lot of people critisize Michael Moore because he makes money from this. As an artist I'm not going to give away my art for free, even if it has a point to it. Why should he? Should anyone? Should he do this as charity work and work at Mcdonalds in the meantime. Here's a scenario: Mr. X believes in something and wants to show his belief to the world. Mr X appraoches a movie company aobut this. Movie company says, "Well its going to take a lot of money to make. And you work at Mcdonalds. A part of this business is that we fund the movie you're going to make, and as with other movie makers, we are going to pay you to make it because its your new job." If he worked at Mcdonalds, he wouldn't have the money to make his film, his dream. Would anyone care anyway? Just one small point people couldn't use against "the fat slob". That's another funny thing about people. While we're stating our opinions, why not show what judgemental assholes we are by pointing out the fact that we're not tolerant about fat people. "Ooohh... so Michael Moore isn't attractive! This further concludes that he's a dumbass." Hilarious.

Zaldron said:

Dunno, those covers show exactly what he dislikes of him when I asked.

My appologies, I stand corrected. In regards to that, I too hate anyone who dare appears with their fat face on the cover of their work. The nerve of some people! Showing they had something to do with the work that they are the narrator of! The audacity! And smiling while on it, God forbid they are actually proud of what their work. Fat smiling people are assholes when they don't act like fat people apparenty should. Great point.

Share this post


Link to post

Believe me, I plan on living selling art, so that's more than fine by me.

Dunno, maybe I should check more interviews with him. I am pretty neutral about him.

I don't see how he can take the fact that the factions and higher spheres that pretty much inherited the whole Earth is laughable material, and that a book about these situations should have covers that look like a "How to bash the Government and Look Cool for Dummies" manual.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to know when it became unAmerican to claim that our troops are dying for no good reason. Since when did patriotism involve stubbornness on this level?

Share this post


Link to post
Scabbed Angel said:

I don't think it comes out until Friday. A lot of people critisize Michael Moore because he makes money from this. As an artist I'm not going to give away my art for free, even if it has a point to it. Why should he? Should anyone?


we criticize him because his ulterior motive of making enough money to pay for the thousands of twinkies he no doubt ingests on a tri-daily basis (lol fat lol) take precedent over honest filmmaking.

for example: in bowling, he edits and splices together segments of charlton heston speaking in between footage of the columbine aftermath, stating that immediately after the columbine shooting, the nra decided to hold a pro-gun rally at nearby denver. there is no way moore could've done the editing required for this segment without knowing that:

1.) the nra meeting at denver was preplanned and law required that it be held
2.) the actual speech given at the particular meeting was milder than moore's edits would portray it, and heston was considerate towards victims of the tragedy as he spoke
3.) several of the clips edited into this segment of bowling were from other speeches at different meeting, and that to use them would be to take them invariably out of context

however, playing on the viewer's likely ignorance of the law governing nonprofit organizations and of the nature of charlton heston's speech at that particular rally, moore effectively makes heston and the nra look callous towards gun homicides and intentionally defiant of the wishes of grieving columbine parents. basically, it's not simply that he makes money, it's that he sells bullshit to people who don't know any better, and he knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Liam said:

however, playing on the viewer's likely ignorance of the law governing nonprofit organizations and of the nature of charlton heston's speech at that particular rally, moore effectively makes heston and the nra look callous towards gun homicides and intentionally defiant of the wishes of grieving columbine parents.



The NRA is a bunch of big time losers and doesn't deserve better. An organization that fights any kind of gun control is fundamentally evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Liam said:

Several points

Michael Moore said:

"The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?"

More here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Keep in mind the context of the film, that America is gun crazy. What's so wrong with splicing these together? You say it creates a false allusion, and there is a degree of truth in this if you take in in the sense that it is supposed to be a direct relation to columbine. But in regards to the over context, even if this wasn't the NRA's direct response to columbine, does it not still have a valid point about guns in america, where in this case it is relating one mentality about guns to a real consequence of gun use?

Share this post


Link to post
Grimm said:

Ha, this is the funniest arguement I've seen in a while.

S1lent: I don't agree with Michael Moore. *states reasons*
Captain Red Pants: S1lent is a retard, because he doesn't agree with me.

Ah, this fucking place . . . Why do you guys even bother? You all know what the outcome is gonna be

Silent is retarded, and not because he disagrees with Captain Red. And you are correct, we all know what the majority of dw members are going to say on any given political issue, but it's not like anyone actually wins these arguments.

In conclusion, don't whine about it, if the outcome of a political thread on an internet message board is so bleak to you, just move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Scabbed Angel said:

Keep in mind the context of the film, that America is gun crazy. What's so wrong with splicing these together? You say it creates a false allusion, and there is a degree of truth in this if you take in in the sense that it is supposed to be a direct relation to columbine. But in regards to the over context, even if this wasn't the NRA's direct response to columbine, does it not still have a valid point about guns in america, where in this case it is relating one mentality about guns to a real consequence of gun use?

Massaging several real life events into a single one misrepresenting others in order to conform to the theme of a movie that purports to be a documentary is unethical at best.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_open.asp

Case closed.

Unless, of course, you'd like to suggest that the NRA has retroactively changed the wording of the speech Charlton Heston gave in 1999 at Denver, Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post

When you look at the filtered bullshit from the media, and then see the filtered bullshit from this fat fuck, then it's safe for you to arrive at your own opinion, and wonder what each and both of the sides don't want you to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Arioch said:

Massaging several real life events into a single one misrepresenting others in order to conform to the theme of a movie that purports to be a documentary is unethical at best.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_open.asp

Case closed.

Unless, of course, you'd like to suggest that the NRA has retroactively changed the wording of the speech Charlton Heston gave in 1999 at Denver, Colorado.

I can't agree that that was unethical. The point of the movie was to convey the mentality of the pro-gunners and compare it to the misuse of guns in this country, in what way is this unethical? Even if his purpose was to show that the NRA said things at columbine that were really said elsewhere, though someone misleading specifically about where it was said, it also represnts nevertheless, that this {NRA "Cold dead hands...") is an attitude that is held in America, and here is a result (columbine). I see nothing wrong with this... it was used for effect. Meh. And it's not like M. Moore denies what you say:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/heston.php

Share this post


Link to post
Scabbed Angel said:

I can ... agree that that was unethical. The point of the movie was to convey the mentality of the pro-gunners and compare it to the misuse of guns in this country, in what way is this ... ethical? ... his purpose was to show that the NRA said things at columbine that were really said elsewhere ... misleading specifically about where it was said ... I see nothing wrong with this ... Meh.

Ok. Sure. Whatever you say.

Share this post


Link to post

An organization that fights any kind of gun control is fundamentally evil.


Ahahahahahahahahahaahhaaaaaaaaaaa

Share this post


Link to post
Scabbed Angel said:

Heh, clever.

And I didn't even have to dig into your old posts for spare words to pad it out with even more sentences or rearrange their order to directly contravene your original intended message.

It's fun for the whole family and anybody can do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

The NRA is a bunch of big time losers and doesn't deserve better. An organization that fights any kind of gun control is fundamentally evil.


I'm not overly fond of the NRA myself, but it's not like they want people of any age to be able to go to any gas station or corner store and be able to buy seventeen machine guns. They do support most gun control laws, and they are very big on safety and proper and careful use of guns.

Share this post


Link to post

Heh, I may go see it, but I couldn't give a shit less if the money went to some fat fuck indulging himself in tri-daily-twinkie-binging. Hell one day if all goes well he'll have a heart attack. Until then, I'll spend money the way I want to not giving a shit who it goes to, whether its a new Marilyn Manson cd or a film with Matt Damon, if I'm entertained or enjoying something upon spending it, then I spent my money well.

Share this post


Link to post

Grimm said:
Captain Red Pants: S1lent is a retard, because he doesn't agree with me.

I strongly disagree with darknation, Liam and gatewatcher, but I don't think they are retards.

Share this post


Link to post

I love how a group of Doomworld nerds get to sit back and say "How fat and ugly" someone is. I've seen images of many of you and most of you are not much too look at either :P

Share this post


Link to post
Scuba Steve said:

I love how a group of Doomworld nerds get to sit back and say "How fat and ugly" someone is. I've seen images of many of you and most of you are not much too look at either :P


Not me... I'm hot.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×