Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Fahrenheit 9/11
- Thread starter SC4EVA
- Start date
FreeballinDC
Dumper Humper
I saw the film too, and there were some scenes that I did have my doubts about.
The kicker for me was watching all the wounded soldiers going through physical therapy. I almost had to leave the theater, it was that tough to watch.
The kicker for me was watching all the wounded soldiers going through physical therapy. I almost had to leave the theater, it was that tough to watch.
AristotleBC
New member
It's a visual embodiment of the liberal thought process
coverguy
New member
i have no problem with Moore making this film. he has every right.
what bothers me is:
a) that he caved to his personal bias and skewed information/clips/etc... yet still calls it a "documentary;" and
b) that so many Americans are stupid enough to watch this film and adopt it wholely as their beliefs/opinions without asking questions or researching the facts.
what bothers me is:
a) that he caved to his personal bias and skewed information/clips/etc... yet still calls it a "documentary;" and
b) that so many Americans are stupid enough to watch this film and adopt it wholely as their beliefs/opinions without asking questions or researching the facts.
C
Code
Guest
Spin than he's ever spun.
Surprised you were duped by it.
Surprised you were duped by it.
AristotleBC
New member
bluepeter said:
Naw...fragmented, unable to form a thesis, contradictory, spliced and ignoring the truth to reach a desired conclusion rather than evaluating objectively to form a conclusion.
bluepeter
New member
Coverguy said:
That is what he did but the statement made by Aristotle that this is what all liberals do is patently false. Also, Moore may have had an agenda and been way over the top in trying to hang Bush but there is way too much in that film to completely ignore if you watch it with an open mind.
You can splice and dice all you want but direct quotes and facts taken out of the pile without being associated with the propoganda are hard to simply dismiss. The problem here is that because he's such an idiot and because he so obviously has an agenda, anybody that supports Bush completely writes his piece off and the vast majority don't even bother to see it. That is a mistake.
C
Code
Guest
Yep.
A friend netflik'd it. I borrowed it, watched it twice.
It's helluva spun.
Disjointed.
Rambles.
Poorly presented.
A friend netflik'd it. I borrowed it, watched it twice.
It's helluva spun.
Disjointed.
Rambles.
Poorly presented.
WODIN said:
Here is a betterone by Greenwald that lays out in a very linear, concise manner how the bushies lied us into war.Code said:
http://www.truthuncovered.com/
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
Coverguy said:
Yeah, the smart ones rely on Anne Coulter for their information!
AristotleBC
New member
bluepeter said:
Not all, but enough.
I have seen the film.
AristotleBC
New member
I would say I watched 3/4 of the film before it froze and I would have had to rewatch the entire thing to get to the remaining 4th.
Not really...there wasn't much there that I wasn't already privy to details about that refuted his claims. The Saudi connections concern me somewhat I can say... I just don't appreciate things like Moore splicing that "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." When it was actually self-deprecating humor at a dinner in which Al Gore also made fun of himself about inventing the internet.
Considering the hatred for Bush, I was unimpressed as I was expecting much more evidence of corruption than the weak insinuations of Moore's film.
Not really...there wasn't much there that I wasn't already privy to details about that refuted his claims. The Saudi connections concern me somewhat I can say... I just don't appreciate things like Moore splicing that "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." When it was actually self-deprecating humor at a dinner in which Al Gore also made fun of himself about inventing the internet.
Considering the hatred for Bush, I was unimpressed as I was expecting much more evidence of corruption than the weak insinuations of Moore's film.
C
Code
Guest
Nope.
The government does things to protect national security that go beyond the scope of the public's need to know.
If the people become of aware of actions taken by their government officials that upset them; they can enact change by voting.
The government does things to protect national security that go beyond the scope of the public's need to know.
If the people become of aware of actions taken by their government officials that upset them; they can enact change by voting.
bluepeter said:
bluepeter said:
Not really. I made sure to do my research before viewing the film, then research every point after (that I wasnt aware of already).
The whole Bush-bin Laden connection was the icing on the cake. Bush knows Abdul, who works for Mohammad, who owns the IBM of the Arab world, who carries Jafar as an employee. Jafar has 113 family members. #92 is a woman named Perla. Perla's second cousin met Osama bin Laden when he was 10 years old. Therefore, Bush is connected to Osama bin Laden.
If I wanna dig that deep I can find a connection between Mike Tyson and Jesus Christ.
Taps
New member
It's a great propaganda film -- maybe the best propaganda film ever. It's also highly entertaining, and poses some serious questions that the mainstream media has never bothered to ask. The war footage is great, and pretty brutal at times -- why did I have to pay $8 to see pictures of dead Iraqi civillians and American soldiers? Why arn't those images all over CNN? They should be.
That being said, it's still just a movie and a very slanted one at that. Some of the "facts" are completely off, and some it seems are made up altogether.
I suggest reading "Bush At War" and "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward. They cover the same events as the movie, only from an unbiased point of view.
That being said, it's still just a movie and a very slanted one at that. Some of the "facts" are completely off, and some it seems are made up altogether.
I suggest reading "Bush At War" and "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward. They cover the same events as the movie, only from an unbiased point of view.
While I agree that it is incredibly one-sided, (anti-republican), it did get me to wonder how much of what he said was actually true. It gave me a new perspective on my opinion of Bush. Of course, we'll probably never know the real truth behind his administration's motives.(other than oil).
Similar threads
