I’d definitly give this a read if you’ve seen F 9/11 and you think all republicans have been “brainwashed”. Post any other links to articles or whatever you feel like.
I think there are other threads that have covered this topic…to Death…and then some more (you sickos :P) Too bad I can’t merge the threads and force VB to make your post come up first though.
the two options that refer to those who have seen it are too polarized and do not offer a valid opinion. i saw the movie and have seen both bowling for columbine, and roger and me. i think they are all good “documentaries” in their own sense but also have drawbacks. 911 was very good but you have to go in there realizing it’s moore’s opinion of bush, it won’t be the most “fair and balanced” view. I like his humor and his ability to to get to the higher ups even if it is one sided because most of the media has fallen into a subserviant role and not questioned this administration. and as one last note, look at all the tactics that you thought were only plots in movies that bush has used… (ie the new goal for the moon, those “homos” trying to get married, and the aliens landing in kansas jk) please respond but leave the flaming at home.
The thing is, most of what was in the movie has been proven false. Bush never even was debriefed about the Bin Laden’s leaving the country. The problem with the film is that people take it as fact, but it’s VERY untrue in some aspects.
i agree that it is by no means solid fact, but a collection of biased (not neccissarily wrong) information. although with the controversy of the film, national debate has started and led to finding out the real facts -the truth- while creating accountability for both sides.
by the way, a few weeks ago bill o’riely offered moore to come on his show and have a debate with him to prove his point. i’ve seen how fox host’s deal with anyone who doesn’t agree with them (hanity and coulms, o’reily, the crazy lawyer chick sometimes on larry king). do you suppose o’reily would agree to a debate with moore on a neutral network (if there is such a thing, just the bbc i guess kinda) where neither party had sway over the broadcast? and vice versa! didnt mean to take over the topic.
100% agree. Hence, useless poll, except to determine whether or not some people on this board have never heard of Fahrenheit 911 (which I seriously doubt)
What I really am looking for are unbiased sites… not pro or con. Just some objectivity and real cases of journalism. [and Moorewatch.com is a JOKE]
disco, putting three sites that link to eachother and seem to be run by the same group if not use the same advertisers does not constitute a list of valid sites. i would have expected some indepth probing of sites for starting a thread but they all list eachother and two look surprisingly similar in appearance.
Moore did come on the O’Reilly factor during the DNC, and it was primarily becuase O’Reilly used the classic Moore tactic of having a camera and chasing someone down the street hehe. Also about the neutral network thing, O’Reilly did offer the NYTimes editors to debate on the PBS’s Charlie Rose show with Charlie being the moderator. I’m not sure if other commentators do the same thing for the only other shows I watch are Hardball and Tim Russert.
About the Moore thing. The truth is out there, and there is plenty of valid information that Moore can cover. By going out of his way to make his view seem known, he only hurts his own cause because most people probably would not consider watching or reading something that clearly is extremely biased.
Guiness: the sites link to eachother because two of them wrote a little book called “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man”. They are all a community. Like Kirupa would link to Ultrashock. They do the same thing, but are different websites. I can’t find any hardcore “moore supporter” websites, mainly because I don’t search for them. But it’s not some conspiracy
I’m not coming in blazing. All I’m going to do is ask one question… And follow it up with tricky traps that will lure any answerer in, and destroy their credibility… lol. I don’t even know what that meant…
Anywho, my question:
What are Michael Moore’s motives for lying about Bush etc.?
I will not accept “hate.” If you say hate, you must explain where this hatred comes from. I’m talking court room stuff here. You can’t supply the motive, you loose the case.
It’s not as if Moore stands to make monetary gains from getting Bush out of office. In fact, as he states in “Dude, Where’s My Country,” he’s made a lot of money from Bush’s tax breaks. On the other hand, certian right-wing journalists make pretty decent salaries… They might actually stand to gain from Bush’s tax cuts… ? Perhaps? Maybe? I donno. I hate conspiracy theories. They tend to pull motives out of no where that can’t really be based in fact. ANd “making money” is not a just explanation unless backed up. I don’t even know, it’s too late. I feel like i’m rambling, so I’m out… PEACE and LATES my fellow Kirupa Dawgs!
Motive is minor? I don’t know about that. Lots of other things are important, but there have been many cases won and lost on the issue of motive. If you don’t have a motive the defense won’t have too tough of a time saying “Ok, so the accused was in the location at the time of the crime, he/she could have done it… but why would they do it?” Why is always the most important of the five Ws when writing articles, stories, doing case studies. It’s quite important in business too. Why are some people buying this, why are some people not buying that… WHY WHY WHY!
