well this thread is on page three already and I have yet to hear anyone say anything of substance that was presented in this film. In any war you can find grieving mothers and body parts. Personally I think sticking a camera in a grieving persons face for your own financial or political gain violates something that is sacred. We know people are dying. We know people are grieving - we dont need to make a spectical of them to rack up $$$ at the box office.

Where is the bombshell here? where are the documented links that show Bush had personal motives that drove him to abuse the power of his office?

Ken, I gotta say that in my theater the house lights were a little dark to take proper notes. I just recommend that you go see the film. Call it a pile of horsesh t if you feel that way afterwards. I just have to say it made a big impact on me.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: That's so the School District can get federal funds. In my sons case the District got the funds but forgot to schedule his classes for it. He was supposed to have 1/2 day "special ed" and 1/2 day "main stream" He has been 100% main streamed since the beginning of the last school year YET is still listed as partial "special ed" for funding purposes. He did good though and graduated to the next grade despite having serious ADD problems. I wonder how they will continue to get funding after he has been successfully "main streamed"?

I'm not doubting that but I know in our district they try to minimize the amount of kids in Special Ed...it ends up costing the district more than the funds because of the student:teacher ratio. Most of the time in our district it is the parents, who are too busy to spend time helping the kids or making sure they do their homework (which I know is not the case with you Bill) who request and request the placement until they either get that or a service agreement, which is when the kids test scores aren't low enough but they get help anyways. The school never says no to them. It's getting pretty bad.

quote Originally posted by ray b: BTW F9-11 is #1 movie in the USA over the weekend and the top gross for a documentry for ALL TIME

Key word here is "documentary". How many of you have a habit of going to see a "documentary”? In the overall opening weekends, it is someplace in the 200s 1 spot below Legally Blond II.

quote Originally posted by trailboss: Debbie exposes the lies in the film, Moore shows the same lack of credibility he used in Bowling for Columbine. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/

Well I wouldn't exactly call that imparital journalism either.

NEW YORK TIMES FACTS
Columbine Facts Reply

Now I certainly won't dispute that Moore puts a spin to his accomodate his agenda, but that doesn't make it a lie. As he's said, if there was so much as 1 technicality Bowling for Columbine and 9/11 both would of been shut down. But as much as you may agree or disagree with Moore's agenda, you still need to be open to listen to what he is presenting to you as a possibility and then digest it, do your own research and pull your own conclusion from it whether it be in favour or to the contrary.

Does he outright make up things that aren't true? Probably not. Does he use very creative editing to make things seem other than they are? Seems that way to me. IMO, it is the same as saying, "Steve has been cocaine-free since 2003." I have never used cocaine, so this sentence is technically correct. But it strongly implies (and is worded to do so) that I used cocaine up to 2003.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Does he outright make up things that aren't true? Probably not. Does he use very creative editing to make things seem other than they are? Seems that way to me. IMO, it is the same as saying, "Steve has been cocaine-free since 2003." I have never used cocaine, so this sentence is technically correct. But it strongly implies (and is worded to do so) that I used cocaine up to 2003.

Like I'd listen to what a former cokehead has to say

Yeah I think he does that with the intent of stressing a point which is factually based, but in doing so seems to discredit his arguement in the process. I think you'll get 3 reactions from this, those who will overzealously take it as gospel, those who will argue the whole fact is a lie due to the attempt at minipulation, and those who will make a informed decision by checking sources other than Moores opinion.

Quote:
"(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pr*cks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

Quote:
"DO YOU FEEL like you live in a nation of idiots? I used to console myself about the state of stupidity in this country by repeating this to myself: Even if there are two hundred million stone-cold idiots in this country, that leaves at least eighty million who will get what I'm saying..." -- P. 85 of "Stupid White Men"

Quote:
"Should such an ignorant people (Americans) lead the world?" -- Michael Moore in an open letter to the people of Germany

Insight from a college dropout who doesn't have the sense to leave the buffet table.

Quote:
"There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled."

Well, Americans did make this insufferable blowhard wealthy.

[This message has been edited by fogglethorpe (edited 06-28-2004).]

quote Originally posted by sentinel_76ca: Like I'd listen to what a former cokehead has to say Yeah I think he does that with the intent of stressing a point which is factually based, but in doing so seems to discredit his arguement in the process. I think you'll get 3 reactions from this, those who will overzealously take it as gospel, those who will argue the whole fact is a lie due to the attempt at minipulation, and those who will make a informed decision by checking sources other than Moores opinion.

What's minipulation? Is that a tiny bit of manipulation?

The problem I see with his movies is that the largest group is the zealously gospelizing people. I would think the whole fact lie argueers probably won't see the movie as they think that his movies are a waste of time. The informed deciders are always a small minority.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: Well, Americans did make this insufferable blowhard wealthy.

Yep! I truely believe he is doing this nothing more than a paycheck. I don't blame him. Rush does the same thing. Many people do it just for the money. Bill Clintons books is all about money, he wouldn't have wrote...ehmm.. I mean have somebody write it for him, just to tell his side of the story. It is all about $$$.

Moore doesn't actually care about the American people, he doesn't even care about himself. Look at him, reminds me of pot smokers that actually got off the couch once in awhile to do something.

I do like his documentaries, because they are entertaining. But I take everything at face value.

For example: In his documentary Roger and Me, when he showed Flint Michgain going through economic downturn because of a closing of a GM plant, Moore showed a family in Flint getting evicted from their home as an example of the economic downturn, come to find out, that family never even had or ever worked at GM, but Moore played it like they were one of the layoffed GM employees.

A little twist. But all said in done. He is only doing it for the money.

Im afraid I have to agree with Moore's quote about us being a nation of idiots. Where else would you find warnings about falling asleep with hair dryers or putting your hands under a running mower, etc. If we were smart enough to use common sense, we wouldn't need these warnings. Im afraid a lot of us Americans lack common sense and are willing to give millions to our fellow citizens for lacking it also. As far as Moore is concerned, a fool is born everyday, and he is out to take advantage of this fact.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: What's minipulation? Is that a tiny bit of manipulation?

Damn, why do they put the "i" so close to the "a"

guess I should lay off the sauce that early in the day

Just curious.................

How would a vote for Kerry be in any way a morally superior choice?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by stimpy: A vote for Bush is, above anything else, a fundemental defect in one's moral makeup.

Well, Mikey did it. Michael Moore's "documentary" Farenheit 9/11 piled up some good (not unexpected) profits. 'Course, if Farenheit 9/11 is a "documentary", then Snow White is a "documentary" on the dangers of a wanton young runaway girl who encounters the risks of shacking up as the love slave of 7 circus freaks, and dropping acid (that LSD-laced apple), and finally, golddigging by leading a rich man on, a la The Bachelor style, by feigning sleeping sickness and potential sex (well, a kiss is a start) just to move in with the guy. Anyway, I digress... Mikey did very well, grossing over $21 million in relatively few theaters over the weekend. His followers got the message and turned out in force. But there's more. Tom Ortenberg, of Lion's Gate, the film's distributors, said, "This is a testament to Michael Moore. His voice resonates across the country in what I think we can all now fairly describe as America's movie."

The success is just eatin at ya ain't it?

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Well, Mikey did it. Michael Moore's "documentary" Farenheit 9/11 piled up some good (not unexpected) profits. 'Course, if Farenheit 9/11 is a "documentary", then Snow White is a "documentary" on the dangers of a wanton young runaway girl who encounters the risks of shacking up as the love slave of 7 circus freaks, and dropping acid (that LSD-laced apple), and finally, golddigging by leading a rich man on, a la The Bachelor style, by feigning sleeping sickness and potential sex (well, a kiss is a start) just to move in with the guy. Anyway, I digress... Mikey did very well, grossing over $21 million in relatively few theaters over the weekend. His followers got the message and turned out in force. But there's more. Tom Ortenberg, of Lion's Gate, the film's distributors, said, "This is a testament to Michael Moore. His voice resonates across the country in what I think we can all now fairly describe as America's movie."

As long as we're being partisan about the whole thing http://www.rightnation.us/blog/austin/index.php

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Im afraid I have to agree with Moore's quote about us being a nation of idiots. Where else would you find warnings about falling asleep with hair dryers or putting your hands under a running mower, etc. If we were smart enough to use common sense, we wouldn't need these warnings. Im afraid a lot of us Americans lack common sense and are willing to give millions to our fellow citizens for lacking it also. As far as Moore is concerned, a fool is born everyday, and he is out to take advantage of this fact.

Well there are idiots all over the world, we have plenty here in Canada and usually they are driving right in front of ME!! But that's another story. When you get as much diversity in our countries your bound to end up with segments who simply are not exposed to certain skills. For example perhaps the guy who sticks his hands under that mower just does not understand mechanical concepts, he's probably more skilled in say arts, particularily painting with is feet.
I do find it amazing and I think this is kind of where Moore wants to point his audience as well is that there is corruption in government, it's to the point where they don't even try to hide it, the book series The Buying of the President, it outline who contributed and what they expect in return. I think most will agree it's picking the lesser evil now and who will lead the country and not get us deep in sh!t than we already are. I think there use to be a time where government was for the people, but I think those days are gone. My hope although I don't think I'll ever see it in my lifetime, that government will get torn down and go back to the people, with Technology there's no reason why we can't be the ones to vote on laws which get passed, that control the government's salaries, that we get to pick and choose the country we hand down to our children, and not the Agenda of the wealthy.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Well, Mikey did it. Michael Moore's "documentary" Farenheit 9/11 piled up some good (not unexpected) profits. 'Course, if Farenheit 9/11 is a "documentary", then Snow White is a "documentary" on the dangers of a wanton young runaway girl who encounters the risks of shacking up as the love slave of 7 circus freaks, and dropping acid (that LSD-laced apple), and finally, golddigging by leading a rich man on, a la The Bachelor style, by feigning sleeping sickness and potential sex (well, a kiss is a start) just to move in with the guy. Anyway, I digress... Mikey did very well, grossing over $21 million in relatively few theaters over the weekend. His followers got the message and turned out in force. But there's more. Tom Ortenberg, of Lion's Gate, the film's distributors, said, "This is a testament to Michael Moore. His voice resonates across the country in what I think we can all now fairly describe as America's movie."

The semantics surrounding the Repubs labeling of this movie as a documentary cracks me up. Whatever it is is unimportant. All documentaries are opinions, even though they are thought of as fact. A cop writing a ticket is an opinion based upon the collection of supporting evidence. This movie is a documentary based upon the collection of supporting facts, so if you want to refute the factuality of the movie, then attack the basis of the supporting facts rather than the classification of the genre of the movie.

Just as if you attack the character of a person, attacking the classification of a movie is an Ad Hominem.

Since when did I have anything to say?

[This message has been edited by Maniak84 (edited 06-28-2004).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Just curious................. How would a vote for Kerry be in any way a morally superior choice? John Stricker

John, I wish I could say that I support Kerry and had wonderful examples of how he is a superior choice. Honestly I can't say that I want to vote for Kerry. I will be voting for a change. I'd love to vote for McCain, actually. He's a Rapublican!

quote Originally posted by stimpy: John, I wish I could say that I support Kerry and had wonderful examples of how he is a superior choice. Honestly I can't say that I want to vote for Kerry. I will be voting for a change. I'd love to vote for McCain, actually. He's a Rapublican!

Which is where I am. I don't want another billionaire for president, but I don't want Bush at any cost. Actually it would be nice if he picks Edwards as his running mate and then Kerry becomes disabled.

He better pick Edwards. If he don't, the DNC won't get another dime from me and their fundraising emails get flagged as spam.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Does he outright make up things that aren't true? Probably not. Does he use very creative editing to make things seem other than they are? Seems that way to me. IMO, it is the same as saying, "Steve has been cocaine-free since 2003." I have never used cocaine, so this sentence is technically correct. But it strongly implies (and is worded to do so) that I used cocaine up to 2003.

If you have to do this in order to support your position, there's something wrong with your position. Any time you have to use any kind of deception to "sell" your point of view to the public, there is something wrong with it. I do not agree with people of Moore's stripe who believe that Americans are idiots and it's okay to use deception to make them think the "right way"--that smacks to me of Stalinism or Nazism for crying out loud. Certainly it is not "democratic" thinking, not in any sense of the word.*

Moore has freely admitted that the entire point behind this film is to "de-elect" Bush. If he used the same kind of techniques for this film that he did for "Bowling for Columbine" it's more fiction than fact; the fact that he has said that he made this film with the idea of reducing support for Bush relegates it to being liberal Democrat propaganda, nothing more. (Notice that I have not referred to it as a "documentary".)

He's got every right to make his movie. I have every right to criticize his lack of honesty. But I'm not going to go see the damn film because I've no interest in paying $8 to subsidize Moore's cockeyed view of this country; it's not going to change my mind about anything because I know the source has a history of skewing the facts to fit his own perceptions. If any (not "all", just "any" ) of Moore's past films had been unimpeachably honest I could take him seriously, but history has shown that he has no interest in presenting the unbiased truth about anything or anyone he doesn't like.

As for the "unbridled success" stuff...if every die-hard Democrat in the "hate Bush" left in this country shells out $8 to see the movie, that alone is enough to make it successful.

Ed

* and if anyone is planning to tell me "Bush lied about Iraq" I am going to ignore it, so save your fingers. You cannot convince me that he did, any more than I can convince you that he didn't. & don't bother citing Moore's movie as evidence that he did.

quote Originally posted by edhering: Ed * and if anyone is planning to tell me "Bush lied about Iraq" I am going to ignore it, so save your fingers. You cannot convince me that he did, any more than I can convince you that he didn't. & don't bother citing Moore's movie as evidence that he did.

"If you have to do this in order to support your position, there's something wrong with your position. Any time you have to use any kind of deception to "sell" your point of view to the public, there is something wrong with it. I do not agree with people of Moore's stripe who believe that Americans are idiots and it's okay to use deception to make them think the "right way"--that smacks to me of Stalinism or Nazism for crying out loud. Certainly it is not "democratic" thinking, not in any sense of the word.*"

I think he's kinda sick of the apathy of Americans, to which I agree. Can you prove he lied on his movie?

"Moore has freely admitted that the entire point behind this film is to "de-elect" Bush. If he used the same kind of techniques for this film that he did for "Bowling for Columbine" it's more fiction than fact; the fact that he has said that he made this film with the idea of reducing support for Bush relegates it to being liberal Democrat propaganda, nothing more. (Notice that I have not referred to it as a "documentary".)"

Where did he say that? I'm not saying he didn't, but I didn't hear/read that he did. I agree that it is to remove Bush, but where did he say?

"He's got every right to make his movie. I have every right to criticize his lack of honesty. But I'm not going to go see the damn film because I've no interest in paying $8 to subsidize Moore's cockeyed view of this country; it's not going to change my mind about anything because I know the source has a history of skewing the facts to fit his own perceptions. If any (not "all", just "any" ) of Moore's past films had been unimpeachably honest I could take him seriously, but history has shown that he has no interest in presenting the unbiased truth about anything or anyone he doesn't like."

Does anyone?

"As for the "unbridled success" stuff...if every die-hard Democrat in the "hate Bush" left in this country shells out $8 to see the movie, that alone is enough to make it successful."

Which means there is a large following.

quote Originally posted by edhering: If you have to do this in order to support your position, there's something wrong with your position. Any time you have to use any kind of deception to "sell" your point of view to the public, there is something wrong with it. .

Sorta like the selling of Iraq as an iminent threat to the US. It's a war for national security. Oh wait, it's a war of liberation. Saddam and Osama are one in the same, Oh wait, they're not, but if the facts are distorted and the distoration is repeated often enough, fallacy becomes the common perception. Funny how that works.

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: I think he's kinda sick of the apathy of Americans, to which I agree. Can you prove he lied on his movie?

I don't think anyone here is saying that he outright lied. We are saying that he has used very creative and slippery editing to make the viewer think things that aren't true.*

*This opinion based on Bowling For Columbine since I've not seen a breakdown of his current movie.

For anybody interested, here is Michael Moore's Biography.

Author, filmmaker, and political activist Michael Moore has developed a trademark style of tackling major issues with a sharp sense of humor while maintaining a regular-guy attitude, an approach that has helped him secure a reputation as both a razor-sharp humorist and one of America's most fearless political commentators. Michael Moore was born in 1954 in Davison, MI, a suburb of Flint, then home to one of General Motors' biggest manufacturing plants, where Moore's father and grandfather both worked. Born to an Irish-Catholic family, Moore attended parochial school until he was 14, when he transferred to Davison High School. Moore soon developed an interest in student politics as well as larger issues: He won a merit badge as an Eagle Scout by creating a slide show exposing environmentally unfriendly businesses in Flint, and in 1972, when 18-year-olds were granted the right to vote, he ran for a seat on the Flint school board, soon becoming one of the youngest people in the United States to win an election for public office.
ADVERTISEMENT

While Moore was briefly a student at University of Michigan-Flint, he dropped out to focus on activism, and began a career as a journalist by working for the Flint Voice, an alternative weekly newspaper. In time, Moore became the editor, and under his leadership the paper expanded into the Michigan Voice, one of the most respected alternative political publications in the Midwest. Moore's success at the Michigan Voice eventually led to a job offer from Mother Jones magazine, where he became editor in 1986. Moore believed that Mother Jones, a leftist political journal based in San Francisco, had lost its bite, and it was his goal to give the magazine an edgy, populist voice. He often butted heads, however, with Mother Jones' publishers and management, and after less than a year he was fired, reportedly for refusing to run an article critical of the Sandanista rebels in Nicaragua that Moore believed was both inflammatory and inaccurate.

After a brief spell working with a Ralph Nader organization, Moore got the idea to make a film about his old hometown of Flint and how the local economy had collapsed in the wake of the closure of General Motors' Flint plants despite their continued profitability. Moore used his settlement fee from Mother Jones as seed money for the film, but eventually sold his home and even held bingo games to raise the money to finish it. Finally, in 1989, the completed film Roger & Me -- in which, among other things, Moore and his crew repeatedly fail to get General Motors chairman Roger Smith to agree to an interview -- became a major critical success, was honored at a number of film festivals, and went on to become one of the most financially successful documentary features ever made.

Following the success of Roger & Me, Moore participated as an interviewer in the production of Blood in the Face, a documentary about extremist White Power groups (co-directed by Roger & Me's cameraman, Kevin Rafferty), and then directed a short follow-up to Roger & Me, Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint, which followed what had happened there since the previous film's conclusion. Next, Moore began work on his first fictional feature, Canadian Bacon, a satiric comedy in which an ineffectual United States president fabricates a "Cold War" against Canada. Unfortunately, John Candy, who played the lead, died shortly after filming was wrapped, which, in part, led to conflicts with the film's producers that prevented it from receiving a wide release. In 1994, Moore took a stab at television with the satiric news and commentary program TV Nation, which aired on NBC. While TV Nation won rave reviews and a loyal following, the show's ratings were not what NBC was hoping for (it was also uncomfortable with some of the show's satire), and the network canceled the show after only one season. FOX stepped forward to air a second season of TV Nation, but the show fared no better on FOX and soon went off the air for good.

In 1996, Moore returned to the written word, publishing a book of political commentary, Downsize This!: Random Threats From an Unarmed American. The book proved to be a surprise best-seller, and as Moore took to the road to promote it, he brought a camera crew along to make a documentary exploring the economic inequality in America as he dashed from city to city; the resultant film, The Big One, was released in 1998. In 1999, Moore returned to television with The Awful Truth, a blend of comedy and pointed political commentary similar to TV Nation. Rather than deal with U.S. network interference again, Moore got financial backing from the British network Channel Four, with the cable outlet Bravo airing the show in the United States; the show lasted two seasons.

In the fall of 2001, Moore's next book, Stupid White Men, was scheduled for publication when its release was postponed by its publisher, Random House; Moore was openly critical of George W. Bush in the book, and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Random House felt that the book's satiric tone would be considered inappropriate. According to Moore, Random House was considering canceling the book and destroying its initial print run (which was completed prior to 9/11) when he was asked about the book at a convention of library administrators. After telling the audience that the book was in all likelihood never coming out, an e-mail campaign was launched by librarians, and in the spring of 2002, Stupid White Men was finally released, quickly becoming a major best-seller.

In the fall of 2002, Moore released his fourth feature film, Bowling for Columbine, an examination of America's obsession with guns and violence. It was the first documentary to be shown in competition at the Cannes Film Festival in 46 years, and was honored with the festival's Jury Award. Subsequently becoming the most financially successful documentary in the history of film, Bowling for Columbine recieved a Best Documentary nomination when the 2002 Academy Award nominees were announced in February of 2003. The film subsequently won the Oscar, and true to form, Moore used his acceptance speech as an opportunity to launch a broadside against President George W. Bush and his participation in the war against Iraq, which had been launched only a few days before. Moore's statement drew strong reaction on both sides of the political fence, though Moore himself appeared to take the controversey in stride. ~ All Movie Guide

i personally can't stand the manipulation that is Jabba the butts trademark.
And for you guys that like him and defend his tactics just for the fact that he doesn't like bush i hate bush for the same reasons.
Were at some kind of krazy system where we have to choose between the liers.
Do we pick the best at lying or is the best the one that lies the least.
Jabba the Butt is definitly a much more artistic lier than bush.Like in Wag the dog if bush was smart he would hire Jabba to work for him.

quote Originally posted by 88GTNeverfinished: He better pick Edwards. If he don't, the DNC won't get another dime from me and their fundraising emails get flagged as spam.

Get ready to flag it. It is going to be Dick Gephart

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Yep! I truely believe he is doing this nothing more than a paycheck... He is only doing it for the money.

This is exactly why I won't go see it.
Ever since I saw Roger and Me, I've always considered him to be an arrogant, boorish, clod. The only time I can recall seeing him since, was the news clip of him getting booed off the stage. (Gee. What a surprise. )

I vote with my dollars. He's not getting even one of mine.

The rest of you, have fun.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 06-29-2004).]

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: The semantics surrounding the Repubs labeling of this movie as a documentary cracks me up.

Moore's a Republican? The MPAA is a Republican? Do you realize that Moore is advertising this as a documentary, even with his disclaimer that it's his point of view? No, of course not. That would rob you of an opportunity to slam Republicans.

My local radio station is advertising it as a documentary. They must all be Republicans, too.

Well I seen it tonight. Seriously, you have got to see this movie and then do some thinking. I can tell A LOT of people posting here haven't seen the movie and it's very obvious who hasn't seen it. Maybe I ought to stop listening to Rush and Hannity or ehem Fox news, naw they're good for a laugh sometimes.

quote Originally posted by stimpy: John, I wish I could say that I support Kerry and had wonderful examples of how he is a superior choice. Honestly I can't say that I want to vote for Kerry. I will be voting for a change. I'd love to vote for McCain, actually. He's a Rapublican!

Stimpy, think about it. McCain could have been the president in 2000 and I believe he would have been the superior choice. Bush spent millions upon millions on a downright nasty negative ad campain to defeat him in the caucases. I'm suprised the two can even be in the same room together, probably for fear of party pressure. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Or why Bush has turned his back to the NAACP since he took office. First time in 90 years a president has. A lot of things like this, confirms others I already knew, man now are making a lot of sense.

[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 07-13-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Uaana: But pretty sure it was in this thread where someone pointed out how he flubbed while reading off a teleprompter.. Anyone ever read aloud in front of a group from a teleprompter or note cards and lose your place? Now try doing it 100 times a yr +. When you have done so without a single mistake or flub then feel free to start casting stones.

The thing that makes that flub so funny is that it's a common expression. He not only falsely attributed it to "his" state, but REALLY shouldn't have needed a teleprompter, especially if that was the case.

GL

Farenheit 911 preferred by terrorists...

The people that like this movie are in great company, so does Hezbollah!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39012

The Guardian/UK originally ran the story.

quote Originally posted by trailboss: The Guardian/UK originally ran the story.

Please post a link to the Guardian story, or some other legitamate news source.

Terrorists also like The Passion of the Christ because it justified killing Jews... for whatever reason. Drudge had a link on his site when the movie was popular.

quote Originally posted by trailboss: Farenheit 911 preferred by terrorists... The people that like this movie are in great company, so does Hezbollah! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39012 The Guardian/UK originally ran the story.

quote Edhering said: Moore has freely admitted that the entire point behind this film is to "de-elect" Bush.

Which means the genre "documentary" is not appropriate for that movie. It's a propaganda film.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 07-13-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Which means the genre "documentary" is not appropriate for that movie. It's a propaganda film.

So, I could film a documentary on the OJ murders and say I did it to expose OJ. It doesn't make it propaganda... Have you seen it?

quote Originally posted by Tigger: So, I could film a documentary on the OJ murders and say I did it to expose OJ. It doesn't make it propaganda... Have you seen it?

documentary:
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE

objective:
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>