Joined: Mon 08-18-2003 10:09AM Posts: 44 Location: TJ 3NW or SIG Tau i can never remember
Source: Off Campus
I saw Farenheit 9/11 and it just echoed my hatred of our president. I think Michael Moore hit the nail right on the head and brought out some of Bush's suspicious dealings to light.
Hate Bush? Nah....i'm not fond of the man but i don't hate him. Just dislike him quite a bit and won't be voting for him
In all reality i don't hate anyone...
Anyway, i'm planning on watching Farenheit 9/11 when i get back to UMR so i can watch a free copy off Seek. Even though i like Micheal Moore, i'm not going to give him any of my money if i can get out of it
Joined: Mon 09-01-2003 4:09PM Posts: 318 Location: Blah blah land
Source: Off Campus
While we're on the topic, I recently read Michael Moore's book, Dude, Where's My Country?, and it's quite good. You may like or dislike him, agree or disagree, but it's better written than any other media nut around. Sure, Bill O'Reiley can write a book, but Michael Moore not only states just the facts themselves, but he provides his full bibliography with footnotes and everything. I don't think many of his media counterparts on the right wing can say that about their writing. Not all, mind you, but many.
While we're on the topic, I recently read Michael Moore's book, Dude, Where's My Country?, and it's quite good. You may like or dislike him, agree or disagree, but it's better written than any other media nut around. Sure, Bill O'Reiley can write a book, but Michael Moore not only states just the facts themselves, but he provides his full bibliography with footnotes and everything. I don't think many of his media counterparts on the right wing can say that about their writing. Not all, mind you, but many.
Ah, Dude Where's My Country is a good book indeed. I read it in one day over Christmas break. It gets a little out there at times, but i enjoyed it. I would, however, classify it as propaganda, but everyone needs to be experienced to propaganda from both sides.
Bowling for Columbine was also a decent movie, although i have heard conflicting reports of its accuracy.
Joined: Mon 09-01-2003 4:09PM Posts: 318 Location: Blah blah land
Source: Off Campus
What I found the most interesting about it was the source citing. He [Michael Moore] cites sources that everyone else has access to just the same as him.
I saw a neat bumper sticker a little while ago that said...
"A true patriot questions our lying government."
Of course that statement is a little slated towards an anti-governmental attitude, it just depends on what you'd like the answers to be.
What I gather from it is that we all have the power to be just as analytic as Mr. Moore and many other people have been and have published respectable books, but the only thing holding it together is the fact that we all have the opportunity to do the same and present facts we feel are significant. It does not matter if you're on the right or left side of the political spectrum.
Whining and bitching is just criticism without fact, and intellectually violent, and we're gonna keep seeing it. Makes me sick.
the republicans have ann coulter, a stupid hoe that has gotten much much more than her fair share of media attention. when clinton's book came out she was on fox and couldn't say a single good thing about him or his book, and called him a rapist and a liar, she said something like "yes, i have nothing good to say about a president that raped an intern and then lied about it..." look up the tv transcript or something. and then there is micheal moore, he is no where near as stuck up, he actually knows facts, they might not be complete but are facts none the less. coulter's aggorance and ignorance is mind-boggling to say the least...maybe when clinton dies she might be able to say something good about him.
i will try to refrain from posting this in both threads.. bush wasn't and won't be a good president in my opinion. i'm going to watch the movie sometime this week..
edit: on second thought, the two almost cancel each other out.
Joined: Thu 02-06-2003 12:57AM Posts: 124 Location: Way the hell away from Rolla
Source: Off Campus
lordoftheworld wrote:
... he actually knows facts, they might not be complete but are facts none the less. ....
Last time I checked a fact that is sufficiently incomplete can be considered fiction; kind of like how withholding a significant amout of truth can be considered a lie. You were criticizing Coulter (yes, she is a bitch) for calling Clinton a rapist, well your venerated Moore is effectively accusing Bush of being a Power Mongering Warlord, an accusation that is just as exaggeraed as calling Clinton a rapist. He's just doing it with a movie instead of a TV interview, so I guess that makes it allright in his case (Please take note of the sarcasm in this sentance).
My favorite assertion of Moore's is that Bush is a complete moron, yet at the same time a power-hungry corrupt calculating devious freedom-robbing evil mastermind. Something doesn't check out about that.
you guys are right.. and here's an article that states exactly that...
if you saw the movie, like i did, you owe it to yourself to read this:
http://slate.msn.com//id/2102723/
least to say, the article points out the one thing that the movie is not, a documentary.
"...if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective..."
you guys are right.. and here's an article that states exactly that... if you saw the movie, like i did, you owe it to yourself to read this: http://slate.msn.com//id/2102723/
least to say, the article points out the one thing that the movie is not, a documentary.
"...if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective..."
If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum