Fahrenheit 9/11

So what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? What was said is that we are confused how those who haven't seen a movie can critique it. Nothing whatsoever has been even mentioned about who promoted it in Cannes.

 

Out of curiosity...did anyone here watch the Blair Witch Project?

That was billed as a "documentary" as well.

 

GT says

" I didn't comment on it's cinematic values, only on it's truth."

Again, how can you comment on the truth when you haven't seen the movie.

I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment one way or another. I encourage people to voice their opinion, comments, and views. We may not agree on an issue but I do respect your right to voice your opinion so you can back up your views with facts. If you haven’t seen the movie, how can anyone take what you say seriously since you can’t provide us with specific details in the movie's content?

Just Curious

IMSA

 

Many fiction works, in both print and celluloid have been powerful social and/or political statements. Orwell's 1984 comes immediately to mind. Gulliver's Travels. Some of Oliver Stone's work. But there's a definite diference between fiction and documentary. Documentary uses real clips of real people, saying/doing whatever they're doing. Cutting and pasting to change the basic meaning of what they're doing is a lie that has no place in a documentary. Setting up phony scenes and portraying them as real life happenings is a lie. Encouraging the world to consider your fiction as documentary is a lie. And you can't say that his work is accepted as fiction by most people. DanTekGeek didn't see it as such, most movie reviewers are not political experts, they generally accept it as documentary, and the Academy gave him an Oscar in that category. If his stuff was portrayed up front as fiction, I'd have no problem with it as a presentation of political opinion. It's the lies I have problems with. People believe not only his political opinions, they believe that the lies he portrays about real people are real facts. I've got large problems with that.

 

i thought blair witch was boring too lol

 

Did you bother to read the Slate article I posted a link for? Or the one regarding Columbine?

 

Sorry, you can't speak for me since nowhere on this board did you see me agreeing the film is fiction. I'll wait until I SEE the film before I pass judgement one way or another.

How do you know "he is attempting to bash the administration with pure fiction"

How? Give me facts. Give me specific details from the movie. Oh what? You haven't seen it? Then how can you comment on content?
Really, I'ld like to know.

"Total Crap" Which part of the movie did you feel that way about. Oh wait. See above.

IMSA

 

Nope, I don't really care what someone you're quoating says about the film. I figure if your giving an opinion you have seen the film. How else could you have an opinion one way or another?

IMSA

 

I've never seen either the U.S. Constitution (I missed it when I was in Washington) or the back side of the moon either, but I have opinions about both based on reliable reports from others who HAVE seen them. As, no doubt, do you. Hitchens is a known quantity; I've been reading his articles for quite a while.

My own eyes-on based opinion would be limited to the obvious such as style and emotion, and whatever inconsistencies I might pick out based on what I already know. I could likely flesh that out with research to verify each bit of information he presented. As the author of the Columbine piece did. That took some time. Hitchens has been both a political and social commentator for quite a few years; he qualifies as expert opinion.

Do you actually believe there really is a backside to the moon? If so, how? You certainly haven't seen it for yourself.

 

You know, I'm sure we're both speaking the same language, but you can't convince me we're having the same conversation. I read your post quite a few times, and I can't figure what to make of it. You appear to be answering me...but at the same time it's as if I asked what time it is and you said "apple".

 

As I respect your right to yours. It's just too frustrating to continue trying to explain myself when obviously you don't get it, as I'm sure it is in reverse.

 

Since this thread is sliding from discussion of Moore and his film(s) to the more personal, I think it's probably time to let it die.

I'll see y'all in the other threads.

 

I don’t think the thread has deteriorated so much as I think some board members are getting frustrated. All I’ve asked is there are some members that don’t like the movie and I’ve asked for specific reasons. Such as which points are valid and which are not? What were your opinions about particular scenes? If Moore misrepresented a particular part or parts of the movie, which parts are false or misrepresented? I think we could have a very civil, rational, and productive discussion if those of you who see Moore’s movie in a negative light were in a position to explain why you feel that way. Unfortunately those who have argued the hardest against the movie are unqualified to make any real statements because you haven’t seen it. And if you’re judging the movie from an opinion piece you read on the web, can’t you think for yourselves?.
If you truly wanted your opinions to be taken seriously, you’d take the time to see the movie so you could argue your points effectively and back up your statements with facts.


IMSA

 

I'll see if I can get Hitchens to post here for you.

I'll no doubt see it, but not until I can see it for free, so it'll likely be a while before I can comment further.

 

I haven't seen the movie yet and have made no statements saying I have, I haven’t said one word about content one way or another,. I haven’t said if I’m pro Bush or anti Bush, nor have I said anything good or bad about Moore and his film. For all you know I could feel the same way about Moore and his films as you do. There's no way I could have an opinion since I haven’t seen the film. You’re making assumptions. My point is if I can’t make judgments about the movie one way since I haven’t seen it, how can others?

“Did you read GT's link? I believe that will shed light on why I (speaking for myself here) believe Moore...once again......grossly misrepresented the truth and produced yet another POS and trying to sell it as a documentery.”

How do you know Moore misrepresented the truth and delivered another POS film? You haven’t seen it. And no, I have no interest in reading GT’s link. I Iwould hope he could think for himself and
arrive at an opinion on his own.


IMSA

 

I think it's a bit of a stretch to insist that a person cannot form a valid opinion without first hand knowledge of the subject.

I have never seen a Moore film, and I'm not likely to. The man is an ideologue, who distorts the truth to further his political aims.

Do that if you will, I say, but allow that it's propaganda, not a documentary.

 

LOL. Well, I've been accused of various things over the years, but that's one of the first times I've been accused of not thinking for myself.

 

Yeah - that was definitly out of line. Time for cooler heads to prevail.

 

I don't have to jump off a cliff to know it won't feel good when I hit the ground.

 

You're the last person on this board I'd think that about. Weren't you voted 'Most Thoughtful' (out of 10k or so members) in the 1st MG Awards?

 

Most thought provoking, IIRC. Although I was hoping for Most Handsome. I was SO disappointed.

LOL. I'm a strict constitutionalist, which isn't particularly popular today, so have problems with the fiscal excesses of both Republicans and Democrats, although more with the Dems, think the Patriot Act was an abomination, not to mention unconstitutional. I'm a conservative Christian who thinks that the War On Drugs has been lost already, and think drugs should be legalized, even though I definitely don't approve of drug use. Heck, these days just being a Christian is both unconventional and subject to funny looks.

I may be heading in the wrong direction, but I'm definitely doing my own driving.

 

I was beginning to think I was the only one outraged at the Patriot act. I especially hate the name of it - sounds like if you don't support it, there is something wrong with you.

 

A few years ago I worked with a woman who said she was Libertarian, so i asked what was the gist of their platform and she replied "The constitution of the U.S.A." - so I thought hmmm, I've got to learn more about this. I'd vote for them if I thought they had a chance to make a difference and if it wouldn't be a vote-by-default in the Dems pocket.

Have to admit I agree with you on most issues.

 

I wonder if that was a planned thing?? (the name,, and all it implies)

 

Of course it was planned. Most bills wending their way through congress have titles that might have been thought up by advertising agencies these days, that have little to do with what's actually IN the bill.

 

That's scary. I guess if the Anti Gun Lobby hired the Oscar Meyer Wiener commercial dude,, I'd have to give up all my guns and stuff.

 

I like a lot of what the libertarians like, but they're a little TOO in love with freedom for my taste. They see no need for basic rules and penalties that are necessary for a society to protect itself from the scum out there, and they embrace personal freedom, but don't believe there's any need for a moral context to society. I'm afraid their vision of a free society would degenerate too easily into anarchy.

But that's just me. They also have a long way to grow making a base at the grass-roots level before they'll be any kind of threat at the national level.

 

Our legislative process:

"Weiners don't kill people, people kill people. Unless you eat a lot of weiners. Then the cholesterol will get you. So eat fish. Then you can get mercury poisoning. Therefore, all guns will only fire Oscar Meyer weiners"

 

At fish

 

Not to mention that they seem to attract (at least up until now) some wild-eyed anti-government militia types

 

BWAHAAAAAAHAAAAA!!!! Lord,, Mr. P,, I just spooged my monitor,,,,,

 

Happy to do my bit for the decorating

 

Me to. Wish I'd thought of that

 

Anarchy appeals to THEM.

 

I've never actually met a true anarchist. I'd like to, just to hear them defend anarchy as a political philosophy.

 

They're somewhat out of favor currently. Their movement pretty much fell apart after their hopes for Communist Russia turned to oppressive ashes.

Emma Goldman, one of the patron saints of anarchy, wrote quite a bit about it. Check this out:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/GoldmanCW.html

 

Thanks G.T. Some reading for the Summer.

 

No problem. Wear gloves, a hat & sunglasses. And keep the shades drawn.

 

G'night all. Sleep tight.

 

Night MrP.

 

I'm not sure what there is to "agree to disagree" about, since you still don't seem to be having the same conversation I am.

However, in the interest of not having my brains come shooting out my ears because they've boiled over trying to figure out WTF you're on about, I'll just go with "ok, whatever you say", and shall not address you again on this topic.

 

As a Libertarian, I must ask you this: How are we ever supposed to make a difference and redeem our neglected Constitution if no one votes for us? PLEASE, if you agree with our platforms, vote Libertarian! I don't know of one person whose views are completely Dem or Republican... If enough people vote we can defeat this hypocritical two-party government system and our children (and their children) will have a choice...

Thanks,
Gina


BTW, I'm seeing this movie because I can distinguish the truth from fiction, am not easily influenced, and WILL think for myself. Thanks for the thread, Sgt. Tibbs!

 

Sorry, I thanked the wrong person for starting the thread. I should have thanked DanTekGeek... Figures, we finally get a good political thread going on MG and I'm in the Software forum and don't see it until everyone goes to bed...

Peace,
Gina

 

An honest question:

G.T., I've been calling myself a Libertarian for two years now and have never heard anyone describe us as "Anarchists." Anarchy essentially means "a state of lawlessness," correct? Anarchists believe that no laws should exist-- period, if I am understanding it correctly. Our platform IS the Constitution of the U.S. and that it is being raped and pillaged for the special interests of Repubs and Dems. The Constitution is a set of laws... so I don't get it. I wrote my last 2 posts before I read your (and alanc's) comments on Libertarianism. I am totally open-minded and respect what you have to say so I would appreciate any comments relative to my question...

I basically hate what is going on in the world and with our government. I don't believe we are fighting this war for the reasons listed in the newspapers and put forth by our government. Our support was essentially bought with fear. I agree that the war on drugs was lost a long time ago and believe that, unfortunately, to thwart crime they should be legalized but regulated in some way. I believe that the present administration's spending on this war is ridiculous, and the Patriot Act strikes directly against the heart of our Constitution. I also am a Christian but would never force my belief system upon anyone.

However, I don't agree with the Dems on many issues, like outlawing handguns. (A criminal is not going to stop acquiring them because they are illegal! If adults keep handguns they should simply keep them away from their children, and be good parents. My father was a hunter and had a room full of guns but I never touched one.) Also, I am opposed to big government, big spending, and I honestly think that the IRS and the tax rates in this country encourage many people to just not seek employment and use our welfare system!

I don't think I am alone in my views and when I happened upon the Libertarian web site I saw that I agreed with everything that was said. I fervently disagree with Anarchy, however, and cannot find anything in the Libertarian platform that suggests Anarchy or the views of Emma Goldman. (I am still reading the Emma Goldman site you gave a link to.) As I mentioned earlier, I am not just being argumentative and am genuinely interested in what I am promoting here, so if you have more links/info (that goes for anyone) please PM to me. I know that we need something different than the two party system we now have, but we need governing...

Thank you,

Gina

 

I reckon you can call me a Republican. The reason I will only vote that way is because I will not vote Democrat due to their anti-God platform. I don't agree with everything they do, but they aren't trying to take God out of everything.
Because we are basically a 2-party system, it would be foolish for me to vote for a 3rd party. That is how Clinton won 2 terms. If it weren't for Perot taking the moderate vote, I don't think he would have won. At least not the popular vote. So that is why I won't vote any other way.

1992 William J. Clinton
George H. Bush
H. Ross Perot Democratic
Republican
Independent 370
168
0 44,909,889
39,104,545
19,742,267 Albert A. Gore, J.—D
J. Danforth Quayle—R
James B. Stockdale—I

 

Oops, shouldv'e been like this:

1992


William J. Clinton Democratic 370 44,909,889
George H. Bush Republican 168 39,104,545
H. Ross Perot Independent 0 19,742,267

The first set of numbers is electoral. Second is popular.

 

Hi Gina,

I did not say that Libertarians were Anarchists (capital "A"), only that in my opinion they want to deregulate things a bit TOO much; to the point that sliding further toward anarchy (small "a" meaning simply chaos) would be a worry. There's already enough chaos in our society, and plenty of evil and dishonest people out there. There still must be rational but firm laws to control them. Most of those worries and controls, constitutionally, reside at the state and local level though, not at the federal level. I'm all for returning more control to the individual states, but am not in favor of eliminating a lot of those controls totally. My disagreement in this area is one of degree, not of basic philosophy.

There is currently quite a bit of wrangling within the party over whether or not there should be any moral context to their platform. IMHO, there is no stable society without a moral framework. Ours was clearly and vocally established around the framework of Judeo-Christian values, and over 150 years of both tradition, and court rulings supporting that. Trying to eliminate that from the basis of our government is both unconstitutional and destabilizing. Any society with NO moral framework has no basis to make decisions or judgements as to what is right or wrong for that society. This issue is still being debated within the party, but it's a concern to me, and one area where I'm not comfortable with them. In fairness, it's a problem with most of the parties today. Libertarians aren't much worse than the Republicans, and no worse than the Democrats on this topic.

There are differences in individual candidates, and there are Libertarians I'd vote for for local and state elections. THOSE are critical to building their party, as without a solid base at the state and local levels, they'll never have the strength to be a power at the national level. They need to work hard on the grass roots level.

Parties evolve and grow, and I have hope for the Libertarians. I prefer to stay independent, helping whichever candidates I feel are best, rather than joining one party and ignoring other worthy candidates that might be out there. But I'd like to see Libertarians in in Congress. Their focus on the constitution would add some much needed debate to the excesses of Washington, and a congressional election is much more winnable for them currently than the presidency. Congress actually writes and ratifies the bills that get passed. Congressmen are critical. But Libertarians have far too little general support to have any hope for the presidency... currently... That may change.

 

G.T.,
Thank you for that explanation and food for thought... Ironically, I never considered being "Independent" a choice, as it seems we are constantly being propelled to "pick a side," and because I do not agree 100% with any side I could never pick one... I am going to focus on the candidates from now on and not "parties" and which club to belong to. To be honest, this will be my first time to vote! I have been of legal age for some time now but never believed in a candidate enough to participate... What happened on 9/11 awakened my sense of responsibility and social awareness to the point of no longer having the luxury of oblivion. Since this will be my first time voting, I may be giving more thought to how to cast my vote than one normally would.

I totally agree with you, I just have a problem telling certain groups of people my moral values are "better than" theirs. For example, I have a real problem telling gay people that their sexual orientation is an abomination, because I am heterosexual and truly have no clue as to what they may be going through. (I realize this is a very controversial subject right now and only meant what I just said as an example, not a subject for debate, as it may get too heated for this forum.) It is tough to know where one should draw the line, although lines must be established for the good of the people...

G.T., thanks for posting back to me. You are a "thinker" and I deeply respect your opinions. I wish our political candidates had your social awareness, level-headedness, respect for the good of the people, and flexibility. (Ever think of running for office? ) It always seems as though the ones who would be perfect for the job don't want to run.

Thanks again and take care,
Gina

 

That's it. I Gina made me realize what we all need. I nominate G.T. for President,, Just write him in and affiliate him with the Geek party.

I know it sounds like a joke,, and it is,, but I am also very serious. Gary would become one of the great ones I think.

 

G.T. for Prez. I'd vote for him!