Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians?

[kaydee457 13]

The ignorance demonstrated in the responses from some in this thread is a very good argument for a return to the draft!

[IAMX 3,055]

The ignorance demonstrated in the responses from some in this thread is a very good argument for a return to the draft!

And return to conscientious objectors in mass.

It's often said today, especially at school, the educated avoid being the arm of a politician's war agenda. Quite true today. Some of us are smart enough to know the wars being fought are complete nonsense, and won't kill people for political gains.

Edited August 23, 2008 by SRVT

[jundp 191]

The ignorance demonstrated in the responses from some in this thread is a very good argument for a return to the draft!

I certainly hope you aren't referring to my post, kaydee.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

The ignorance demonstrated in the responses from some in this thread is a very good argument for a return to the draft!

I certainly hope you aren't referring to my post, kaydee.

i'm confident that he was not.

[jundp 191]

The ignorance demonstrated in the responses from some in this thread is a very good argument for a return to the draft!

I certainly hope you aren't referring to my post, kaydee.

i'm confident that he was not.

Oh good. Because, since I'm so shy and quiet I was surprised

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

The ignorance demonstrated in the responses from some in this thread is a very good argument for a return to the draft!

I certainly hope you aren't referring to my post, kaydee.

i'm confident that he was not.

Oh good. Because, since I'm so shy and quiet I was surprised

[Heracles 417]

Moore, America's disingenuous documentary film maker.

[IAMX 3,055]

Moore, America's disingenuous documentary film maker.

He's certainly opened up plenty of people's eyes to legitimate issues this country is facing. For that, he's a genius, and I respect him. But sometimes I think of what he complains about like listening to Don Cherry talk, and sometimes just let it pass because, like everyone else, he has a political position, and of course not everyone will agree with it.

Edited August 24, 2008 by SRVT

[DeadPoolX 9]

Moore, America's disingenuous documentary film maker.

He's certainly opened up plenty of people's eyes to legitimate issues this country is facing. For that, he's a genius, and I respect him. But sometimes I think of what he complains about like listening to Don Cherry talk, and sometimes just let it pass because, like everyone else, he has a political position, and of course not everyone will agree with it.

Moore's problem is that while he may have a point -- and sometimes a very good one at that -- his methods are so underhanded and biased that it detracts from his overall message. In other words, he loses much of his battle by not being completely honest and relying on trickery in order to make his films. Maybe if he were more objective in his films wouldn't have the "shock" value they do, but at the same time, he'd gain a lot more respect and credibility.

Case in point: My sister-in-law and her husband saw Fahrenheit 9/11 a while back. Both of them are Canadian and not fans of the Bush administration; however, they even said that the film was extremely biased and after awhile, just seemed like a way for Moore to vent his own frustrations. Had Moore presented his so-called documentary in a objective fashion, perhaps they -- and others, including myself -- would listen more. As it is, we tend to roll our eyes and think, "It's just Michael Moore blowing off steam again."

[alienlovechild 75]

Moore, America's disingenuous documentary film maker.

He's certainly opened up plenty of people's eyes to legitimate issues this country is facing. For that, he's a genius, and I respect him.

Moore only opened the eyes of people who were ignorant about the issues of gun control, health care and the Bush Administration. That's why he appeals to liberals who don't care to hear any opposing ideas. He just a narrow-minded propagandist with a wry sense of humor who makes money hoodwinking the masses with some creative editing.

Edited August 24, 2008 by alienlovechild

[IAMX 3,055]

Moore, America's disingenuous documentary film maker.

He's certainly opened up plenty of people's eyes to legitimate issues this country is facing. For that, he's a genius, and I respect him. But sometimes I think of what he complains about like listening to Don Cherry talk, and sometimes just let it pass because, like everyone else, he has a political position, and of course not everyone will agree with it.

Moore's problem is that while he may have a point -- and sometimes a very good one at that -- his methods are so underhanded and biased that it detracts from his overall message. In other words, he loses much of his battle by not being completely honest and relying on trickery in order to make his films. Maybe if he were more objective in his films wouldn't have the "shock" value they do, but at the same time, he'd gain a lot more respect and credibility.

Case in point: My sister-in-law and her husband saw Fahrenheit 9/11 a while back. Both of them are Canadian and not fans of the Bush administration; however, they even said that the film was extremely biased and after awhile, just seemed like a way for Moore to vent his own frustrations. Had Moore presented his so-called documentary in a objective fashion, perhaps they -- and others, including myself -- would listen more. As it is, we tend to roll our eyes and think, "It's just Michael Moore blowing off steam again."

In regards to F911, almost no one really understood the gravity of the situation regarding Katherine Harris scrubbing black votes. No one else was brave enough to ask the question of why the administration rushed the Bin Laden family out rather than question them. The criticism of Bush's vacation days and all could have been left out, but the funny thing is, an uncle of mine who just moved from Texas, when the movie came out, pro-Bush, saw the film, after seeing all of that, the one thing that pissed him off (turned him anti-Bush) was the serious Bush speech, then after the cut, the "now watch this drive" part.

To this very nature, if there is no one with a slant, it would piss anybody off the things this ####### did. I just like hearing people actually attempt to defend what was done.

Moore only opened the eyes of people who were ignorant about the issues of gun control, health care and the Bush Administration. That's why he appeals to liberals who don't care to hear any opposing ideas. He just a narrow-minded propagandist with a wry sense of humor who makes money hoodwinking the masses with some creative editing.

In those regards, he sounds like a conservative preacher, or the pro-life, anti gay marriage people who are only concerned with their own ideals about freedoms. Guess there's two sides to a coin after all.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Moore, America's disingenuous documentary film maker.

He's certainly opened up plenty of people's eyes to legitimate issues this country is facing. For that, he's a genius, and I respect him. But sometimes I think of what he complains about like listening to Don Cherry talk, and sometimes just let it pass because, like everyone else, he has a political position, and of course not everyone will agree with it.

Moore's problem is that while he may have a point -- and sometimes a very good one at that -- his methods are so underhanded and biased that it detracts from his overall message. In other words, he loses much of his battle by not being completely honest and relying on trickery in order to make his films. Maybe if he were more objective in his films wouldn't have the "shock" value they do, but at the same time, he'd gain a lot more respect and credibility.

Case in point: My sister-in-law and her husband saw Fahrenheit 9/11 a while back. Both of them are Canadian and not fans of the Bush administration; however, they even said that the film was extremely biased and after awhile, just seemed like a way for Moore to vent his own frustrations. Had Moore presented his so-called documentary in a objective fashion, perhaps they -- and others, including myself -- would listen more. As it is, we tend to roll our eyes and think, "It's just Michael Moore blowing off steam again."

In regards to F911, almost no one really understood the gravity of the situation regarding Katherine Harris scrubbing black votes. No one else was brave enough to ask the question of why the administration rushed the Bin Laden family out rather than question them. The criticism of Bush's vacation days and all could have been left out, but the funny thing is, an uncle of mine who just moved from Texas, when the movie came out, pro-Bush, saw the film, after seeing all of that, the one thing that pissed him off (turned him anti-Bush) was the serious Bush speech, then after the cut, the "now watch this drive" part.

To this very nature, if there is no one with a slant, it would piss anybody off the things this ####### did. I just like hearing people actually attempt to defend what was done.

Moore only opened the eyes of people who were ignorant about the issues of gun control, health care and the Bush Administration. That's why he appeals to liberals who don't care to hear any opposing ideas. He just a narrow-minded propagandist with a wry sense of humor who makes money hoodwinking the masses with some creative editing.

In those regards, he sounds like a conservative preacher, or the pro-life, anti gay marriage people who are only concerned with their own ideals about freedoms. Guess there's two sides to a coin after all.

Indeed. Well stated.

[alienlovechild 75]

In those regards, he sounds like a conservative preacher, or the pro-life, anti gay marriage people who are only concerned with their own ideals about freedoms. Guess there's two sides to a coin after all.

Not exactly. I never seen a right-wing documentary with widespread distribution so we haven't the other side of the coin yet except through a media filter.

[Dan J 277]

In those regards, he sounds like a conservative preacher, or the pro-life, anti gay marriage people who are only concerned with their own ideals about freedoms. Guess there's two sides to a coin after all.

Not exactly. I never seen a right-wing documentary with widespread distribution so we haven't the other side of the coin yet except through a media filter.

Because it wouldn't be a documentary.

[jundp 191]

Oh good. Because, since I'm so shy and quiet I was surprised

Moore's problem is that while he may have a point -- and sometimes a very good one at that -- his methods are so underhanded and biased that it detracts from his overall message. In other words, he loses much of his battle by not being completely honest and relying on trickery in order to make his films. Maybe if he were more objective in his films wouldn't have the "shock" value they do, but at the same time, he'd gain a lot more respect and credibility.

I absolutely agree. I use Fahrenheit 9/11 to illustrate propaganda in my Mass Media class.

I agree with many of Moore's viewpoints (especially the film about healthcare) but his tactics are no better than any other type of propaganda, IMO.

Not exactly. I never seen a right-wing documentary with widespread distribution so we haven't the other side of the coin yet except through a media filter.

I have. It's called Nazi Propaganda. Ever heard of Der Ewige Jude? I'd say that's a right wing documentary with wide-spread distribution. And it's still used today...in America among the Ku Klux Klan. Who is one of the best-known KKK men in politics?