Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 20, 2004 17:45:53 GMT -5
What did watching Michaels Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11 do to you?
|
|
|
Post by usa on Jul 20, 2004 19:32:11 GMT -5
What did watching Michaels Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11 do to you? It didn't do anything for me because I will not waste my money on Moore's propaganda. What did it do for you?
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jul 20, 2004 21:23:45 GMT -5
Hey Guarp Michael Moore has absolutely no credibility in my book. His emotionally supported beliefs won't hold water. I haven't seen it (won't invest my time or $), but I'm sure its real entertaining to watch President Bush get slammed. Mr. Moore is incapable of contemplating the real truth behind 9/11. Ed
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 21, 2004 8:13:42 GMT -5
I will not see it because I am certain it would lead me to think even less highly of MM and his ilk if that is possible.
There are very few logical thoughts that come out of Moore. Listening to him is kind of like reading the Communist manifesto... what is the point other that to understand how screwed up the ideas are? I already know how screwed up his ideas are without watching this so-called movie.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 21, 2004 16:22:31 GMT -5
I will not see it because I am certain it would lead me to think even less highly of MM and his ilk if that is possible. This type of prejudice must save you a lot of time. I wonder how you would know since you haven't seen the work in question. What about Marx's Communist Manifesto do you considered to be screwed up? Or is this another work that you have decided to judge without investigating? It is really a movie. By any definition you wish to use. After reading the posts I can see it is an effective work as well. Even Orwell's 1984 did not garner this type of rabid hate. You know what they say - Where there's smoke there's fire.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 21, 2004 16:27:55 GMT -5
Michael Moore has absolutely no credibility in my book. His emotionally supported beliefs won't hold water. Does every one here prejudge without examination? You haven't seen the film yet you draw these conclusions. How much credibility do you think that gives you?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 21, 2004 20:42:38 GMT -5
Yes, I find that some of my prejudices not only save me time but also pain. For example, I usually choose not to try to pet a barking pitbull who is lunging at me at the end of his chain. Some call this an unfair prejudice since I don't actually know the dog, but I call it good common sense. MM is the barking pitbull of the political left... I have very little use for him or the hate that he spews. I have seen enough of his garbage starting with Roger and Me. Please. Your liberal, communist bias is starting to show. Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 21, 2004 22:34:07 GMT -5
MM is the barking pitbull of the political left... I have very little use for him or the hate that he spews. I have seen enough of his garbage starting with Roger and Me. What makes you think it is hate? MM does not think Bush is one of the great Presidents. He is expressing his views. So can I assume that either you have not read the Communist Manifisto or could not find and point out the parts you consider screwed up? Liberal Communist? Are you aware that liberalism also strongly opposes communism? I wonder what you have against liberalism? Do you oppose individual freedom? Do you not believe in essential human goodness and human rationality? Do you not think that individual property rights, natural rights, the need for constitutional limitations on government, and, especially, freedom of the individual from any kind of external restraint are of importance? Perhaps you have a different definition of communism and liberalism.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 21, 2004 22:56:29 GMT -5
The characteristics you mention in describing liberalism is not very reflective of many of the more vocal, far left "modern" liberals of today. From my pov, the modern libs today are more reflective of socialists/communists -- i.e., power to the state, loss of individuality, gov't control, wealth distribution, eradication of public display of religious symbols, etc., etc. I do feel that we are sliding towards a socialistic form of gov't/society. I hope I'm wrong about that, but it's the feeling I often get when listening to the viewpoints of some libs.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 21, 2004 23:36:20 GMT -5
The characteristics you mention in describing liberalism is not very reflective of many of the more vocal, far left "modern" liberals of today. From my pov, the modern libs today are more reflective of socialists/communists -- i.e., power to the state, loss of individuality, gov't control, wealth distribution, eradication of public display of religious symbols, etc., etc. I do feel that we are sliding towards a socialistic form of gov't/society. I hope I'm wrong about that, but it's the feeling I often get when listening to the viewpoints of some libs. That is why I asked for the definition ofthe terms. The Communist Manifesto certainly did not give power to the state nor did it support a loss of individuality. In fact it was the opposite. As far as the government supporting religious beliefs of any sort in any way - is that the function of a government? That is the function of a church and I would think churches would want to keep the government out at all costs. I have a problem with being labeled a liberal by someone who seems confused by the definition of the term. But then prejudice seems to be the word of the day!
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jul 22, 2004 7:44:52 GMT -5
That is why I asked for the definition ofthe terms. The Communist Manifesto certainly did not give power to the state nor did it support a loss of individuality. In fact it was the opposite. As far as the government supporting religious beliefs of any sort in any way - is that the function of a government? That is the function of a church and I would think churches would want to keep the government out at all costs. I have a problem with being labeled a liberal by someone who seems confused by the definition of the term. But then prejudice seems to be the word of the day! It has long been my observation that Communism and liberalism, as practiced, are always the opposite of what they claim to be. " inatent
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 22, 2004 8:51:24 GMT -5
The heart of most discussions has to do with how we define our terms. I find that most liberals are uncomfortable with the modern definition of the term. It seems to be a very negative word today and well it should be. It is a failed ideology. Btw, how would you label MM? How do we describe his criticism of what Bush and American in general stands for? How do we describe his outrage at those like Bush who are trying to defend America while excusing those that are enemies of freedom? How do you describe people like no name mentioned that believe in increased power to the state, loss of individuality, gov't control, wealth distribution, eradication of public display of religious symbols, etc., etc? You can't change the failed ideas of certain people (liberals) just by changing the labels attached to them. At the end of the day MM and his ilk’s ideas are wrong no matter how you label them. Despite the recent attempts to rewrite history, America was founded as a Christian nation. The separation of church and state has to do with the establishment of specific denominations such as was the case in the church of England, etc. The separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church, not the mention of God out of government! The notion that the mention of God must be taken out of govt is a recent idea promoted by people with certain ideologies who are call liberals by some people. Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 22, 2004 12:09:15 GMT -5
Ohhh Rob! (sounding a lot like Laura Petrie!) The heart of most discussions has to do with how we define our terms. I find that most liberals are uncomfortable with the modern definition of the term. How would you define it? I gave the usual definition of liberalism but this does not seem to be your definition. Really? Personal freedoms a failed idea? Reduced government a failed idea? I wouldn't. I do not label people. I think he disagrees with Bush. He thinks he does not have the intellegence to be president. I think perhaps as another point of view. Some of us do not see how invading Iraq could be called defending America in any sense. They would be in the camp opposite from liberalism. Especially when you either do not know the definition of what liberalism is or have decided to use a new meaning that for some reason you seem reluctent to share. That is your belief. Maybe we could have a better discusion if you could pick out 2 things in MMs film that you think are wrong. Two incorrect facts. We can work from there. I think we have been here before. You failed to answer the question then but I will ask it again. Does your definition of Christian require the belief that Jesus is God? Or the son of God? I ask because you seem to use words with alternate meanings. So you would like to keep the church free from government involvement but you have no problem with the government supporting or promoting the church? This deals with personal freedom. I do not believe public funds should be used to promote private religion. I do not want to go to a public gathering and have to listen to Moslem prayers. Anyone who wishes can pray silently to their God(s). By the same token I do not want to share the smoke of the person sitting next to me nor to have them share their private phone calls with a trainfull of people. Personal freedom. Less government. No wonder you don't like liberals. Your definition of them fits Rush perfectly!
|
|
|
Post by Proper definitions on Jul 22, 2004 15:52:01 GMT -5
liberal: ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. OTHER FORMS: liberally, liberalness
liberalism: NOUN: 1. The state or quality of being liberal. OTHER FORMS: liberalist, liberalistic (-lstk)
The American Heritage Dictionary
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 22, 2004 18:00:55 GMT -5
Present,
I think you got me here. I did think for a while that you were being serious. ;D
Robb
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 22, 2004 18:05:38 GMT -5
I am surprised to see so many expressed opinions by people who didn't take the effort to go and see the movie themselves. I can understand that you do not really want to see it, because it's not a funny movie to watch. On the other hand you can't disqualify it by saying it's rubbish, when you didn't see it for yourself. One thing you will notice while watching it, is that Moore is not presenting an ideology, but has just one aim and that is: slamming Bush, like Ed told. It has a very strong appeal in it not to vote for Bush, but Moore doesn't offer an alternative. The movie lacks a nuance, in my point of view. Which probably makes it appealing to a lot of people, though. People, who otherwise wouldn't be interested in politics at all. Michael Moore brought up a couple of valid points in his movie, but some of his remarks were pure insinuations. in my opinion Moore didn't lie in the movie. He is misusing certain shots to support his point, the story that he is telling us. Something politicians love to do actually. The movie is not about ideologies, it's just about Bush and Moore. I don't favor this kind of movie-making, but it definitely is an interesting documentary. If you want to see what propaganda is about, go and watch this movie.
|
|
|
Post by moore on Jul 22, 2004 18:38:18 GMT -5
[“I am surprised to see so many expressed opinions by people who didn't take the effort to go and see the movie themselves. I can understand that you do not really want to see it, because it's not a funny movie to watch. On the other hand you can't disqualify it by saying it's rubbish, when you didn't see it for yourself.“]
So I have to watch sadistic porn to know sadistic porn is rubbish?
[”One thing you will notice while watching it, is that Moore is not presenting an ideology, but has just one aim and that is: slamming Bush, like Ed told.”]
Slamming bush is the ideology, because bush represents everything the ideology hates.
[”Michael Moore brought up a couple of valid points in his movie, but some of his remarks were pure insinuations.”]
Please enlighten us with these valid points.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 22, 2004 19:10:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 22, 2004 19:28:24 GMT -5
Present, I think you got me here. I did think for a while that you were being serious. ;D Robb I am serious. If you want to take that route to get out I can understand. For some reason you seem unwilling to define your beliefs. First you mentioned that Marx's Communist Manifesto was screwed up but when asked to point out what parts you felt were screwed up you were silent. I then asked you to define exactly what you felt liberalism was since you mentioned sveral things that were directly opposed and again you were silent. You complained that the MM film was screwed up and when asked to point out just two facts that were incorrect so we could discuss them you were silent. Finally when asked if you thought to be a Christian one had to believe that Jesus was God or thr son of God or just another prophet you were again silent and covered your retreat with a joke. I thought for sure you would answer the question about your faith but you have avoided even that one. Do you actually have any opinions of your own that you are willing to stand behind and discuss or are you just repeating the rhetoric of others and hoping no one will ask any questions?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 22, 2004 19:45:42 GMT -5
So I have to watch sadistic porn to know sadistic porn is rubbish? No you do not. But how seriously do you think people would take any comments you might make about the film? You would be like a man trying to tell women that childbirth was painless!
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 22, 2004 20:45:37 GMT -5
But in this case, he is actually making the rightful assertion that childbirth is painful, even though he has never experienced it. (I am assuming the poster is male). I didn't have to watch The Passion to know it was going to be violent. An accurate conclusion about the misrepresentations contained in F911 can also be reached, because this is what Moore has always done in his films (which are often incorrectly referred to as "documentaries").
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 22, 2004 21:37:34 GMT -5
Sorry I thought I was being had. My brother in-law often does the same thing just to hear me rant. No, I have no problem defining my beliefs according to the normal understanding of the words. I am a Christian with a right leaning, conservative ideology in the tradition of Ronald Reagan. That means pro-life, defence, property rights, personal responsability, tax cuts, etc. You might call it liberal or whatever, but I know what it is. You on the other hand seem to be having difficulty with the definitions. If you look back you will see that the CM was my example of something that I don't need to study because I know that it is trash. I had no idea you would turn out to be such a proponent of Marx's writings but I should have figured as much. The example of porn is probably a better one. Are you going to defend that now? Yes, in order to be a Christian you need to believe that Jesus was who the Bible says he was. LOL, never been accused of that before. What topics would you like to discuss or are you still stirring as I have suspected? Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 22, 2004 22:35:52 GMT -5
But in this case, he is actually making the rightful assertion that childbirth is painful, even though he has never experienced it. A man and a mother tell people about the experience of childbirth. Who do you trust to relate the experience with greater accuracy? You trust someone who has not seen the MM film but says it is trash because that fits your predetermined belief. Having seen films about the passion that were very violent and others that were not at all violent, I am not certain how you could know how the film would be other than listening to others. It might be a reasonable cconclusion but its accuracy can only be determined by viewing the film. As they say about stocks - "Past performance if not indicative of future performance." Remember, Mel Gibson made comedies.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 22, 2004 23:01:23 GMT -5
But we're not talking about Michael Moore's performance in the future. In his case -- past performance has definitely been indicitive of his present performance.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 22, 2004 23:15:48 GMT -5
No, I have no problem defining my beliefs according to the normal understanding of the words. I am a Christian with a right leaning, conservative ideology in the tradition of Ronald Reagan. That means pro-life, defence, property rights, personal responsability, tax cuts, etc. You might call it liberal or whatever, but I know what it is. You on the other hand seem to be having difficulty with the definitions. I have had a difficulty in determining what you mean when you use the words. You implied in an earlier that libralism included "increased power to the state, loss of individuality", etc when it is just the opposite. My point is that you don't know if it is trash or not because I am betting you do not know what Marx wrote. Well, this raises a question. You hve accused me of being a liberal and a communist. I have a difficult time with this because liberalism strongly opposes communism. I do not support Marx but I have read the Communist Manifesto and I failed to see how you had arrived at the conclusion that it was screwed up. You have made it clear - you have never read it. Oh, I don't have to. Porn stands on its own! So much for your claim that "America was founded as a Christian nation". I think you would be hard pressed to find a Christian among the prominent founders of the United States. Well, for start you could explain what is trash about the Communist Manifesto and exactly what you mean when you call someone a liberal. You say you believe in individual rights. Would you support the decriminalization of posessing and using drugs? The right of a mother to decide what does and does not grow within her body? The right for a person to marry a person of the same sex? Or do you support increasing government control to specifically outlaw these personal rights? That should be a start.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 22, 2004 23:21:10 GMT -5
But we're not talking about Michael Moore's performance in the future. In his case -- past performance has definitely been indicitive of his present performance. If you have seen the film you can say that. But without viewing the film you have to judge it on past performane or take the word of others. As I am sure you know, there are as many supporters as there are detractors. You choose to believe those who reflect your beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 22, 2004 23:40:05 GMT -5
The first 5 minutes I already did see have confirmed the truth to me, but I didn't need to see it to know -- I've already read the reviews (positive and negative), and have seen discussions among those who've seen the film (both from those who loved it, and those who didn't). Even the positive reviews/discussions about the movie confirmed to me that Moore is up to his old tricks.
Reiteration of above.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 23, 2004 4:45:07 GMT -5
Better yet -- proponents of Moore's "work" (otherwise known as propaganda, because it's definitely not a "documentary") can obtain a more balanced perspective by taking a gander at: http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/ Well, opponents of his work can definitely form a more balanced opinion by watching the movie. And not just 5 minutes to see if it fits in with there judgement! How can you judge statements and form an opinion about a movie or book without seeing or reading it in the right context? It's only prejudice that's showing here. It would get really interesting if someone did actually go out and see it, and tell me then what you think about it.
|
|