Michael Moore to shoot Fahrenheit 911 sequel

[michaeledward]

Of all of the folks that have backed F-9/11...I'm curious as to how many of you have seen FarhenHYPE 9/11? I saw both...the second much more enlightening. Looking for thoughts on the film..

And I guess I can play the same trump card as the Moore backers...by saying that if you haven't seen it, don't reply.

I have not seen the rebuttal movie, but I am going to respond.

What is the purpose of Fahrenhype 911? What do you think I should learn from this film? Why should I see it?

It seems to me we have had the pissing match over whether Michael Moore is a liar or not. Let's assume I go rent this movie tonight and watch it, do we then get back into arguments over whether the Saudi's were interviewed before they left the country or not?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The answer is simple.

Understanding is a 3 edged sword.

There is their side, your side and in the middle, the truth.

Michael Moore had a reason for doing his film.
The rebuttle was done for another reason.

The truth lies in between the 2 I believe.

 

[Jay Bell]

I have not seen the rebuttal movie, but I am going to respond.

What is the purpose of Fahrenhype 911? What do you think I should learn from this film? Why should I see it?

It seems to me we have had the pissing match over whether Michael Moore is a liar or not. Let's assume I go rent this movie tonight and watch it, do we then get back into arguments over whether the Saudi's were interviewed before they left the country or not?

It was created to give the whole story of the claims Moore portrayed in his film...and some background of information that Moore flat out altered and gave in his film.

What do I think you should learn? I'm not proposing anything...but I think everyone that has seen Moore's 9/11 should also see the other angle. I'm not trying to sell anything...but just as Moore supporters claim that no one has rights to critisize his work without seeing his film, I think people don't have the whole story without seeing Hype.

Paul,

Funny you said that -- Ann is in her "vibrant" form as usual...it's pretty hysterical

 

[michaeledward]

It was created to give the whole story of the claims Moore portrayed in his film...and some background of information that Moore flat out altered and gave in his film.

What do I think you should learn? I'm not proposing anything...but I think everyone that has seen Moore's 9/11 should also see the other angle. I'm not trying to sell anything...but just as Moore supporters claim that no one has rights to critisize his work without seeing his film, I think people don't have the whole story without seeing Hype.

Paul,

Funny you said that -- Ann is in her "vibrant" form as usual...it's pretty hysterical

Your premise requires that the only source of information concerning the Bush Administration is Michael Moore's film. It presents a Binary argument: Fahrenheit / Fahrenhype.

To me that is an erroneous premise.

There is actually very little in Fahrenheit 911 that was not well known, by the curious, before the films release. Although Lila's story was not told specifically in the daily papers, that same story has been told well over a thousand times now in hometown newspapers across America.

Other arguments presented in the film; Bush, Cheney, Rice connection to Big Oil are well know, US Government ties to Saudi Royal Family, the Military-Industrial complex profits from war.

Truthfully, I was pretty disappointed with Fahrenheit 911 because it told me very little new information.

Please note, that I am not criticizing Fahrenhype 911. The premise seems to be "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire", ... is there anything more to it than that? If not, there just doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to view it.

Mike

 

[Jay Bell]

Mike,

The premise seems to be "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire", ... is there anything more to it than that? If not, there just doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to view it.

But wait...weren't you criticizing people for not seeing F-9/11 and making comments against it? What's good for the Goose...

HYPE is laid out in sections, just as F-9/11 is...and it explains in great detail the editing jobs, left out information and twisted information that Moore details. Oh..oddly, they support it with documented fact.

I'm really curious as to people's reaction to the movie. I watched close friends see Moore's film and get rattled...because pre-viewing, they were Bush supporters. After Hype, they had a big sigh of relief, getting angry that they were ever led astray.

 

[michaeledward]

Mike, But wait...weren't you criticizing people for not seeing F-9/11 and making comments against it? What's good for the Goose...

If I was making comments concerning 'Fahrenhype911', you are correct, it would be hypocritical of me to make such comments without seeing the film. But I was making no comments about the film or what it portrays.

I asked why I should see the move 'Fahrenhype 911' ... and the answer seems to be:

'Because Michael Moore tricked you, and this film will show you how.'
​

As I said, if we only had Michael Moore's film for information concerning the first three years of the Bush Administration, there might be a reason for me to watch Fahrenhype. But, I do not restrict my intake of information to films. I read newspapers, magazines and books. I watch some television, listen to radio, and surf the internet. By utilizing many sources of information, I piece together my idea of this government.

Each of those sources of information from which I draw data could be refuted in the manner of Fahrenhype 911. All of the media is subject to the power of 'EDITORS' and 'PRODUCERS'. Each tries to tell the story either a) as they see it, or b) as impartially as possible. The results, no doubt, always fall short of the ideal.

Personally, what I think makes Fahrenheit 911 interesting is it was the first video medium that took on the policies of the Bush Administration. Yes, there was 'Stupid White Men', 'Dude, Where's My Country', 'Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them', et al in print. But there was very little spoken word (radio) or pictures (television), that presented the Administration from an aggressive angle. For instance, during the invasion of Iraq, the media (which is supposed to be independent) was embedded with the fighting forces. (There were, I believe, appoximately one dozen non-embedded journalists in Baghdad during the invasion).

HYPE is laid out in sections, just as F-9/11 is...and it explains in great detail the editing jobs, left out information and twisted information that Moore details. Oh..oddly, they support it with documented fact.

I'm really curious as to people's reaction to the movie. I watched close friends see Moore's film and get rattled...because pre-viewing, they were Bush supporters. After Hype, they had a big sigh of relief, getting angry that they were ever led astray.

The right-wing echo chamber did an excellent job with Dan Rather and 60 Minutes II in changing the topic from 'George W Bush and his time in the Texas Air National Guard' to 'See the media is biased against Bush'.

Regardless of any 'editing tricks', I believe the discussion should be about the Bush Administration, and the power and authority it has usurped after September 11, 2001 rather than Michael Moore's diet or editing judgements.

 

[Jay Bell]

Regardless of any 'editing tricks', I believe the discussion should be about the Bush Administration, and the power and authority it has usurped after September 11, 2001 rather than Michael Moore's diet or editing judgements.

Referring to the Patriot Act? That'd be a good topic starter. Morris made a great comment...saying that most people he's spoken with that have huge issues with the Patriot Act don't have any idea what's in it. Civil liberties indeed.

I don't have a problem with Moore's size. I'm a guy with a gut from drinking beer, Moore's is from spending too many hours at the editing table. Doesn't make a difference to me.

 

[michaeledward]

Referring to the Patriot Act? That'd be a good topic starter. Morris made a great comment...saying that most people he's spoken with that have huge issues with the Patriot Act don't have any idea what's in it. Civil liberties indeed.

I don't have a problem with Moore's size. I'm a guy with a gut from drinking beer, Moore's is from spending too many hours at the editing table. Doesn't make a difference to me.

I am not referring specifically to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed by both Houses of Congress before it was signed into law. I also hold them accountable. Certainly, the Patriot Act has its problems. Certainly, the Congressmen or Senators did not know what the Patriot Act said when they were voting for it. I've read sections of the law. I know how incoherent it is. It takes an army of lawyers to figure out what it says. To the credit of Congress, they built in an expiration date to the Patriot Act, so, all we have to do is nothing, and any abuses within that law will go away.

But, I didn't think that is what we were discussing. I thought we were discussing if there was any credible reason for Michael Moore to create a sequel to Fahrenheit 911. I think there are several. Money is one. Countering the right-wing echo chamber is another. Exposing abuse of power by the Bush Administration a third.

Fahrenheit 911 is a discussion about the Exectutive Adminstration and its uses and abuses of power during a time of conflict.

As I understand it, you are suggesting I see Fahrenhype 911 so that I can become aware of how Michael Moore is deceiving me. Even if I was so feeble-minded, it is an attempt to change the subject.

Even if Moore is totally wrong about everything he put in his film (which I do not conceed), shouldn't the conversation focus on the Executive branch of government and the powers it has taken for its own post September 11?

 

[Jay Bell]

Not at all. Heretic asked for thoughts, I gave mine.

 

[heretic888]

Not at all. Heretic asked for thoughts, I gave mine.

:wavey:

 

[qizmoduis]

What I find tellling about this whole thing is the cacophony of "Moore is fat" screeches. Why is it so difficult for conservatives to deal with substance rather than irrelevant details?

Also, I've found that the best way to deal with Ann Coulter is to just believe the exact opposite of everything she says. That way, you're usually in agreement with reality. I recently heard an interview with her on BBC World Update via NPR, and the nonsense she glibly tossed out was extraordinary. Conservatives should really stop trotting her out as a representative.

 

[Jay Bell]

On one hand, I'd agree with you. Ann tends to be rather...outspoken. But, she does often raise good questions that the 'left' seems to run sprinting from.

"If this war was about oil, why then are gas prices rising?"

"I'll give $1,000 to anyone on the left that will sit down and discuss the Kurds with me."

 

[Flatlander]

"If this war was about oil, why then are gas prices rising?"

Higher oil and gas prices directly benefit oil companies. They sell their product at a higher price, thus increasing their profit. Who's in the oil business, again?

"I'll give $1,000 to anyone on the left that will sit down and discuss the Kurds with me."

Any time. Start a thread. :asian:

 

[Jay Bell]

Higher oil and gas prices directly benefit oil companies. They sell their product at a higher price, thus increasing their profit. Who's in the oil business, again?

*yawn* (hint) Venezuela might have something to do with it. Not everything in our nation's problems is Bush's fault.

Any time. Start a thread.

Let me get this straight...you'd like a brand new thread to debate the Kurds with Ann Coulter? Mercy what entertainment that would be..

 

[Flatlander]

*yawn* (hint) Venezuela might have something to do with it. Not everything in our nation's problems is Bush's fault.

I will concede that your President is not solely to blame for the current price of oil. However, invading Iraq has been a contributing factor. The inability to get oil out of the ground in Iraq is not helping. Under the current circumstances, getting oil out of the ground in Iraq wouldn't be easy, but I'm free to blame Bush for the current circumstances there, as well. More accurately, I'm free to blame his man on the scene, Donald Rumsfeld. This could have been done better.

Let me get this straight...you'd like a brand new thread to debate the Kurds with Ann Coulter? Mercy what entertainment that would be..

If you can talk her into joining the board. If not, you will suffice. If you're prepared to claim that the left is sprinting from Coulter's remarks as per your previous post at 10:03 AM, I'm here to demonstrate that your claim was a hasty generalization. Start a thread, and we'll see if the left runs.

 

[Rynocerous]

I thought that this thread was about whether or not Michael Moore will shoot aFahrenheit 911 sequel, not oil prices and Curds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the last time I was on this thread just yesterday, the topic has turned.


Cheers,

Ryan

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I thought that this thread was about whether or not Michael Moore will shoot aFahrenheit 911 sequel, not oil prices and Curds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the last time I was on this thread just yesterday, the topic has turned.


Cheers,

Ryan

Sometimes on threads in the Study, if you blink, it's a whole new discussion.

 

[Rynocerous]

Yes well as Flatlander put, we should start a new thread. Which I would actually be interested in studying and conversing on, that would be great.


Cheers,

Ryan

 

[Jay Bell]

Done.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19147

 

[Erik]

re: Moore's belly - We're American. We're fat. This should be no surprise.

re: Ann Coulture & closed minded conservatives - These are the people who believe in "faith" as defined as believing in something without proving it true.

The left has its nutcases, as well, of course.