I am so smart.... S, M, R, TBurlySurly said:
:Who has seen 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. What did you think?
- Thread starter Archslater
- Start date
:
Clueless as usual N8. The limp d*cked things you see on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel as interesting as some of them might be are hardly hard hitting. A good docco invites controversy and is by defintion an opinion piece. See Nick Broomfield as an example. I recommend The Leader, His Driver and the Driver's Wife. Good luck seein' that one on the Discovery Channel.N8 said:
Oh, really? Because I thought a documentary was:valve bouncer said:
doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
...which isnt exactly what we have here.
...and to arch slater, yeah, you're right...there's nothing wrong with having an agenda...but to mislead people for profit is another thing altogether.
Lexx D said:
Um, its not actually. Its really about presenting facts objectively so someone gets a true understanding of a situation. Not a grossly slanted one. So, if michael moore has admitted his films are slanted, than they are by definition, not a documentary.
Nice try Shirley but you're clutching at straws....real little tiny ones...BurlySurly said:
"Documentaries can deal with scientific or educational topics, can be a form of journalism or social commentary, or can be a conduit for propaganda or personal expression"
From Brittanica Online.
Shirley don't just use the first defintion you find in the American Heritage Dictionary.
valve bouncer said:
how can a single word have completely contrary meanings? Looke at the base word there "document". WTF does that have to do with opinions? I dont buy your definition. I dont care who this britanica fella is either.
I accept your capitulation and hope, once again, that you've learnt something from meBurlySurly said:
:devil: Sometimes it seems like you're one step away from covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"...BurlySurly said:
Why the hell are we talking about what defines a documentary? Who cares? Moore clearly states that this movie is full of opinions (his) and that it is unfair. He made this movie to convince people to not vote for Bush, and to make a name for himself. He's somewhat of a toad, to be sure, but he makes good movies.
No one argued that "Roger & Me" was not a documentary at the time it came out, and it had the same venom toward GM.
I'm gonna give Shirley the benefit of the doubt here. I'm pretty sure his last comment was just him being his usual smart arse self and not meant to be taken seriously. Kind of his way of saying "yeah, I suppose you've got a point"....
...and as Ive said over and over, show me where bush is profiting and Ill change my tune.syadasti said:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/081203.htmlBurlySurly said:
and so forth, read the page for a bunch more. so maybe bush isn't profiting himself (i didn't read it that closely), but his cronies most definitely are.
Why does he need to profit? I can lie and tell you I'm a one legged pirate named svenBurlySurly said:
, does this mean I'm profiting? No, Finacilly i'm sure he sees something(IE: campaign support). But i can't prove it, if i could he wouldn't be in the white house. All I'm saying is why does it have to be finacial gain for him to lie?
Would you agree that the Carlyle group is served well by aerospace and defence spending?BurlySurly said:
Bush isn't going to profit from it today. When his daddy goes to see Reagan, however...
nice list of republican supporters there. I guess you'd be upset if nature preservation supply companies made a bunch more cash if nader got elected, right?Toshi said:
this is so stupid.Toshi said:
If Im a defense co. Im going to donate to the party thats most likely to use my services. Why is that a conspiracy?
It isn't a conspiracy. You asked about Bush profitting. We told you. You're still whistling the same tune though...BurlySurly said:
No. You have not told me. You showed some companies that donate to the republican party. That not even close to the same thing. :nuts:Silver said:
you asked to see where bush profited from the war. i've shown that he did -- it was obvious, as you said, since the whole "military industrial complex" is aligned with the gop. given that bush's associates profit directly when "defense" spending increases, and that the level of spending increased radically due to the iraq boondoggle, combined with the hazy and malleable justifications for going to war offered up by bush & co., can't you see why many people think the administration is a bunch of crooks?
I did tell you. Bush's father used to work for, and is a large shareholder in the Carlyle group. James Baker (the guy who was Bush's point man in Florida after the last election) also has a huge stake...Bush is going to inherit more millions than he otherwise would.BurlySurly said:
Keep your fingers in your ears though, it's working out well for you.
no. you did not.Toshi said:
ok, so you've boiled it down to some inheritance that GW may get after his dad dies. and you think that alone is why bush, already a millionaire, pushed for a war that clinton also thought was necessary. Gotcha. you're rediculous.Silver said:
People thought Hitler's propaganda films were really good too.
The Jews/Gypsies and other minorities that didn't like them were idiots who didn't know anything....
The Jews/Gypsies and other minorities that didn't like them were idiots who didn't know anything....
bushwacker said:
sorry, we have "No-compare to the 3rd Reich" rule here. though i get your point, its against the rules.
I saw the movie and thought it was pretty much a waste of my time (not my money cause I didn't pay).
Here's the thing that makes him exactly like Rush Limbaugh, they can do nothing but preach to the choir. The folks that agree with him will continue to agree with him, those that disagree will continue to disagree. If he really was out to make a difference and not a dollar, he would have toned is rhetoric down and aimed this movie at the middle of the political landscape where the election is going to won or lost. Package this movie differently and maybe he could make a difference. So in that aspect there is a certain amount of artistic "integrity".
The two main points I had issue with were the whole Unocal, Taliban and Bush link, and the flights of Saudi Arabians. I felt in both cases the whole story was left out on purpose. Additionally I think his opinions on Afghanistan are completely wrong from a military stand point.
Beyond that I would rather have gone and seen Dodgeball again...
Here's the thing that makes him exactly like Rush Limbaugh, they can do nothing but preach to the choir. The folks that agree with him will continue to agree with him, those that disagree will continue to disagree. If he really was out to make a difference and not a dollar, he would have toned is rhetoric down and aimed this movie at the middle of the political landscape where the election is going to won or lost. Package this movie differently and maybe he could make a difference. So in that aspect there is a certain amount of artistic "integrity".
The two main points I had issue with were the whole Unocal, Taliban and Bush link, and the flights of Saudi Arabians. I felt in both cases the whole story was left out on purpose. Additionally I think his opinions on Afghanistan are completely wrong from a military stand point.
Beyond that I would rather have gone and seen Dodgeball again...
Its pretty clear Bush is going to profit, the evidence is clear cut and was provided above.
We also do know that Bush administration purposely established Guantánamo Bay to try to legally bypass the Geneva Convention. So basically he is a war criminal trying to stand on shaky legal loopholes - it didn't work though:
Supreme Court Strikes Down Indefinite Detention Without Legal Process for Guantanamo Bay Prisoners; Inmates Have A Right To Challenge Their Detention
We also do know that Bush administration purposely established Guantánamo Bay to try to legally bypass the Geneva Convention. So basically he is a war criminal trying to stand on shaky legal loopholes - it didn't work though:
Supreme Court Strikes Down Indefinite Detention Without Legal Process for Guantanamo Bay Prisoners; Inmates Have A Right To Challenge Their Detention
You really ought to apply for a job in the White House. Your ability to stay focused in the face of overwhelming evidence on a position that is weak at best is amazing.BurlySurly said:
But hey, whatever floats your boat. It isn't my friends and colleagues dying over there.
And Republicans are the persecuted minority here? Yeah, it's tough to be a republican these days. Instead of a gold star, you have to wear that shiny new Rolex you got with Bush's tax cuts. I can see how that must be a burden. Just like the Jews. Exactly like the Jews.bushwacker said:
I plan on that someday.Silver said:
But as for my friends, they tell me without a doubt that they, and the people of Iraq, are glad for what they've done. Life is better despite the crap you see on TV. Happy people dont make news...explosions do.
so now republicans are rich?Silver said:
I wonder when my checks start flowing in?
Actually its what some of the brightest minds in the country think too:BurlySurly said:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/judges.remarks.ap/index.html
syadasti said:
Uh...that's the opposite actually, But still, no Nazi comparisons.
All the smart ones are, aren't they? Free market, everyone in American gets the same shot, equal footing and all that? If you're not rich, what's your excuse? You must be lazy.BurlySurly said:
I guess Im just not ambitious enough yet. Soon Ill get into the practice of exploiting minorities for personal gain and making friends with the Saudis.Silver said:
BurlySurly said:
i agree completely. i cant stand either one of them. i find it easier to avoid rush than michael moore, which is leading me to dislike michael moore the most. just hearing his voice makes me cringe.
out of a sense of obligation, I went to see the fat man's film, and can't stop from thinking to myself:
would the democrats have been any less corrupt and effective?
NO
would the democrats have been any less corrupt and effective?
NO