Farenheit 9/11.

[hawgs]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
I hate tools that wont let a topic thats been locked time and time again die. I'm voting twice, once for Bush, and once to ban 98v6.

Totally agree. 100%

[98v6]

Originally posted by MustangEater8251:
My question is why won't he have an interview with this guy?

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Some of Michael Moore's views bring up good points. But the fact he is so one sided and by it they are overlooked.

Probably the same reason that none of the senators want to interview him- He is busy attacking bush, and this guy has plenty of time to gather ammo against him. To do an interview would be a public humiliation, not because Bush is anything close to a decent human being or good president, but because everybody makes mistakes and Moore is no exception. I don't care how many of those guys come around, I've read enough of their half assed arguments against Moore to know where they stand... or is it possible to stand with ones thumb inserted all the way into one's anus?

[98v6]

Originally posted by 99redbird80:
Exactly. Oh btw it DOES address plenty of the facts. I hope people are smart enough to know that it's just a biased piece of liberal propaganda, with loose facts and straight out lies. Like almost everything else he does. :rolleyes:

And actual footage of the president being serious one minute and carefree the next? There's a shot of him laughing as he talks about the soldiers who have fallen in his idiot wars... It's just pointless. Go see the damn movie and you'll know what I am talking about. It's well done, and if you go see it you'll realize that the critics have some points, but they discredit the things that don't really matter, I have yet to see a critic debunk the claim that Bush is a terrible president.

[ReodDai]

I'm a strong believer in don't ever trust the media, wether its a documentary, movie or a news program. They ALWAYS twist documents or use quotes out of context. If your extremely studied in a certain field go watch a discovory documentary about it I'm almost possitive you'll be appaled by the time it ends at all the facts and topics being repeated to make big deals out of little things or taken completely out of context other times. That being said.

If I let a movie that is written to MAKE PROFITS, effect my political views, I'd have to consider myself an idiot. This film isn't a documentary, it isn't a news program, it IS a wannabe hollywood bush bash meant to make the director as rich as possible by creating polarity and debate (thus people will see the contrevesal (sp?) movie.

Don't want to vote for bush because I dislike a fundamentalist as president. Don't want to vote for kerry because other things he scares small children just by "smiling at them". My cure? Bush is the lesser evil but since I don't necassarily care for either I'm not voting lol.

[98v6]

Originally posted by ReodDai:
I'm a strong believer in don't ever trust the media, wether its a documentary, movie or a news program. They ALWAYS twist documents or use quotes out of context. If your extremely studied in a certain field go watch a discovory documentary about it I'm almost possitive you'll be appaled by the time it ends at all the facts and topics being repeated to make big deals out of little things or taken completely out of context other times. That being said.

If I let a movie that is written to MAKE PROFITS, effect my political views, I'd have to consider myself an idiot. This film isn't a documentary, it isn't a news program, it IS a wannabe hollywood bush bash meant to make the director as rich as possible by creating polarity and debate (thus people will see the contrevesal (sp?) movie.

Don't want to vote for bush because I dislike a fundamentalist as president. Don't want to vote for kerry because other things he scares small children just by "smiling at them". My cure? Bush is the lesser evil but since I don't necassarily care for either I'm not voting lol.

There's a difference between a twist and a lie. Kerry=divided government, they can't do anything... Safe.

Bush=Power, aligned congress and executive branch=nothing good can come from it. Nothing good HAS come from it, why can't you people see that?

[99redbird80]

"The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box." -From the review

I already know what you're talking about, it's in the trailer. Even the guy that's attacking Bush now (Richard Clark) says the movie is preposterous. The only reason I need to see the movie is to get me angered up and have a reason to vote for Bush even more.

[hawgs]

I agree ^

The part where he is serious and then says watch this this drive was the best part! that was quite humorous.

[98v6]

More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse.

Why the **** did he go to a goddamn photo shoot when AMERICA WAS UNDER ****ING ATTACK? THAT IS THE ISSUE, NOT HIS STANCE! GOD INVENTED CELL PHONES FOR A REASON!

[98v6]

vote for Bush even more.

[img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

[Skapimp]

**** Bush.

[99redbird80]

98v6

[img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]


They never said it was a photoshoot, I do not know where you got that. It was a candid photo.

[95fbirdkid]

Originally posted by Skapimp:
**** Bush.

**** kerry

[98v6]

Originally posted by 99redbird80:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 98v6

[img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]


They never said it was a photoshoot, I do not know where you got that. It was a candid photo. </font>[/QUOTE]Makes me glad i don't vote conservative, because i want to have as little in common as far as intellectual decisions go as possible with anyone who would actually type something like that.

Edit: Now for the second half of my post lol... Photo Ops was the term he used man, and he was posing for candid photos, but i mean come on why wasn't he dealing with the fact that we were under attack? Unless, of course, the unthinkable were true and he was in on it and i'm not saying he was, but it did really benefit him...

[ June 25, 2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: 98v6 ]

[Skapimp]

Yes, **** Kerry, he's no prize.. but **** Bush more. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[L32Projekt]

Hey 98,

I don't have a lot of time before I have to get ready for work and defend a little slice of America for my "idiot" Commander in Chief, but concerning Afghanistan and we "failed", it was attacked because it was harboring terrorists and we did what we said we would do. Any state found to be harboring our enemy would be dealt with. Did you forget that the Taliban supported and gave the land to Al-Qaida, therefore giving them a safe base of operations? Did you also forget the Taliban were ejected from power from that nation and that Al-Qaida was denied a crucial base of operations? So, did we deal a blow to Al-Qaida and a state sponsoring terrorism? If you answer anthing but "yes", I can understand why you're so weak to believe anything that comes out fo Moore's cake-eating mouth.

Fact: Our MAIN goal in that operation was to destroy the Taliban's influence on Afghanistan to keep it from further supporting a terrorist group. Did we accomplish that goal? YES. Now shaddup.

P.S. 98, you're a great guy when you're not talking about politics. Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you should exercise it all the time. It's a little skill called tact....