911 F

[71-1085092892]

I just saw a commercial for Moore's movie with the name that has Ray Bradbury pissed off.

It said "This film is not yet rated."

It's been rated R for so long they've already had time to lose their appeal to the MPAA on the rating.

It's just fitting. Might as well start lying before the movie even opens.

[Leisher]

I'm shocked! Shocked! Because Michael Moore's editing is only telling one side of the story...his.

[MommaBear]

My husband and I want to see it, and he suggested we go this weekend. If it weren't the same evening we're to be celebrating our 2nd wedding anniversary, I'd say alright. ???

[Leisher]

My husband and I want to see it

Out of curiousity, can I ask "Why?"

This isn't a political attack, I'm just really curious.

This film is made by an ultra left winger. The whole focus of the film is to bash the Republican incumbant and it happens to be an election year. All of his other films contained half-truths and lies (that's fact, not speculation) and he even admitted to lying about Disney's refusal to release this film simply to get PR.

Knowing all of that as fact, that's why I'm curious as to why someone would go see a "documentary" made by this man.

Is it just curiousity and entertainment or does one really think they're going to be delivered the truth?


The following links will contain spoilers so click them only if you dare:

Here's a review of the film.

Here's another review written by a documentary filmmaker.

If you're going to expose yourself to Moore's version of 9/11 and the following events then you should probably expose yourself to Moorewatch.com. They break down Moore's points in his films and debate with facts. They also expose the areas where he has edited things to go his way and/or completely made things up. Again they do so with facts. "Facts" are those nasty little things that Moore likes to ignore or makeup.

Ditto for Bowling for Truth.

Oh, and here's a little fact sheet that Moorewatch.com has created for protestors to give people after they leave the theater.

I'd be very curious for someone to see the movie, then give that fact sheet a once over.



Edited By Leisher on 1088092751

[thibodeaux]

I have heard that, aside from the horrible lies, Moore's films are pretty well made.

[Leisher]

Even among his bashers I have heard him referred to as a brilliant filmmaker. I don't think anyone questions his talent at putting images on film. I think everyone questions his ability to tell the truth.



Edited By Leisher on 1088097896

[71-1085092892]

Aside from being a genocide, Hitler was a pretty good administrator.

End of thread!

[thibodeaux]

Welll...yah.

[71-1085092892]

I just checked my local movie theatre listings... looks like this movie won't be playing anywhere in the city. That's weird, this being a Marine town, and all.

[TPRJones]

Crap, it's playing in the theater right across the street from my house.

[MommaBear]

I think everyone questions his ability to tell the truth.

Well, my dear, everyone could certainly question George W.'s ability to tell the truth ... but, I'll stop right there.

Michael Moore may be a great film-maker, a political leftist, media darling/slut depending on who you ask so I can't disagree with anything you've said. I'm not drawn so much to this movie? It is what most movies are: someone telling a story from a certain point of view. I don't expect that my true thoughts, feelings or perceptions will be totally rearranged because of it. I don't expect to come away basking in the white glow of truth or righteousness. I'm interested in what kind of story he's going to tell. That's it.

[Leisher]

Well, my dear, everyone could certainly question George W.'s ability to tell the truth ... but, I'll stop right there.

Well, all politicians lie, we all know that. Hell, Kerry's entire campaign is based on lies. Out of curiousity though, what do you think Bush lied about?

I'm pretty sure I know what you're going to cite, but I want to verify it before I post some facts here.

[TheCatt]

"We will do everything we can to avoid a war in Iraq"

"War is our last option"
(Although, possible that it was also the only option they considered, and therefore true)



Edited By TheCatt on 1088178791

[71-1085092892]

Wasn't there a final ultimatum to Saddam to step down, before we invaded?

Maybe the next time we have to lean on someone, they'll listen, knowing it will happen anyway? *cough*Libya*cough*

[Vince]

"We will do everything we can to avoid a war in Iraq"

"War is our last option"
(Although, possible that it was also the only option they considered, and therefore true)

I think war actually was the last option of the ones that were on the table. But I think there was a point where it was too late (save for Saddam's stepping down from power), and we were just going through the motions on the diplomatic side while we set up for the war.

[Leisher]

"We will do everything we can to avoid a war in Iraq"

"War is our last option"
(Although, possible that it was also the only option they considered, and therefore true)

10 years, 17 U.N. resolutions telling him to disarm or face military action, and one ultimatum are good enough for me. What more could they have done?

It was obvious that Saddam wasn't cooperating with the U.N. inspection teams, meanwhile Iraqis were dying due to not having food or medicine thanks to Saddam and the U.N.'s "misunderstanding" about the oil-for-food program.

We knew he at least talked to Al Qaeda, confirmed by the 9/11 commission, should we have sat back and waited for them to buy a WMD from him?

All he had to do was allow the weapons inspectors back into the country and allow them access anywhere. He didn't, now he's gone.

Saddam could have prevented the war by simply pretending to go along with the U.N. & U.S.'s demands. He was too arrogant though and truly did not believe we'd invade.

Oops.

[TheCatt]

It's the fact that he kept saying it, especially during the "going through the motions" phase Vince references.

And sure, Leisher, those previous actions may have been enough for you, but it does not support the statement that war was a last option, or that he had tried everything else first.

[71-1085092892]

War wasn't the last option with the Japanese in WWII. We could have ended our tarriffs on them, and left them alone. They wouldn't have bothered us after Pearl Harbor, which was really our fault anyway because of those tarriffs.

Since when is war only valid as a last option? An argument could be made that any war could have been avoided by capitulation.

[Leisher]

It's the fact that he kept saying it, especially during the "going through the motions" phase Vince references.

Yeah, he does beat things to death to get his point across or to project his motivation. I'm not a fan of his speech writers.

And sure, Leisher, those previous actions may have been enough for you, but it does not support the statement that war was a last option, or that he had tried everything else first.

I understand that it may have been enough for me, but for others it wasn't enough. That doesn't mean he was lying though. I've shown that a lot was done to try and avoid the war. Not only by him, but by other world leaders. Bill Clinton, in his last interview, said the only thing more Bush could have done is to give the inspectors more time, but that he thought Bush was doing great dealing with Iraq.

I just think Clinton's got it backwards. The inspectors had the time, but were getting dicked around. As for how Bush has handled the war, I think he's been just ok. I feel he could have done different things here and there to help get more support and to show the world what our real motivation is behind this war.

[Vince]

And sure, Leisher, those previous actions may have been enough for you, but it does not support the statement that war was a last option, or that he had tried everything else first.

Right. We didn't try throwing a part with strippers and midgets for Saddam to get him to comply.