• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Best use for fahreinheit 9/11 DVD's

What's the best use for Fahreinheit 9/11 copies

  • Drink Coaster

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • Short Range Frisbee

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • Clay Pigeon Targets

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Voodoo Parephenalia

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Teething Ring

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,717
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What do you guys think would be the best way to utilize copies of Micheal Moore's Fahreinhiet 9/11?
 
LaMidRighter said:
What do you guys think would be the best way to utilize copies of Micheal Moore's Fahreinhiet 9/11?

Couldn't tell you I still haven't even seen it.

I figure he must have got something right though... the way the neo-con toads tend to go out of their way to make such an issue out of it... devote so much energy to it.. create polls about it and somehow use it as a talking point.
 
Conflict said:
Couldn't tell you I still haven't even seen it.
I won't watch it, to do so would be to monetarily reward Moore for a very biased and childish "documentary".

I figure he must have got something right though... the way the neo-con toads tend to go out of their way to make such an issue out of it... devote so much energy to it.. create polls about it and somehow use it as a talking point.
The movie has pretty much been completely debunked. Micheal Moore is a propogandist, true documentaries gather facts from all sides and don't show a bias, F 9/11 created alot of innuendo and manufactured a few things. BTW, don't take this as an attack, but lumping everyone in as neo-cons doesn't lend to credibility, in fact, most Republicans are true conservatives, we don't like most of our reps. either, but they are typically slightly more attractive to us than the Democrats of new, blindly throwing the neo-con word can damage credibility in an argument.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I won't watch it, to do so would be to monetarily reward Moore for a very biased and childish "documentary".

The movie has pretty much been completely debunked. Micheal Moore is a propogandist, true documentaries gather facts from all sides and don't show a bias, F 9/11 created alot of innuendo and manufactured a few things. BTW, don't take this as an attack, but lumping everyone in as neo-cons doesn't lend to credibility, in fact, most Republicans are true conservatives, we don't like most of our reps. either, but they are typically slightly more attractive to us than the Democrats of new, blindly throwing the neo-con word can damage credibility in an argument.

Like I said I haven't seen the movie and yet I haven't been living in a shell neither. I've read about it and my take on it is:

1. The overall perception of the movie is EXTREME.

2. THere are some truths in the movie, however there are also some misperceptions.

3. I wouldn't equate it to propaganda unless it was produced by the pentagon.
 
LaMidRighter said:
BTW, don't take this as an attack, but lumping everyone in as neo-cons doesn't lend to credibility, in fact, most Republicans are true conservatives, we don't like most of our reps.

I was using the term sardonically. Most republicans may be conservative.. as most democrates may be liberal... neither party seems capable of thinking for themself. There are always exceptions.


LaMidRighter said:
re; democrats, blindly throwing the neo-con word can damage credibility in an argument.

I am not a democrat nor do I throw the term(neo-con) around. The PNAC is the basis of neo-conservatism and it is the gist of the plot of the movie in which you are attacking.

Not to sound like I am attacking you or anything... but I think the implications of my foremost post show that you hold a particular bias. Weren't you saying something about bias? Please elaborate.
 
Ah, a question I can wrap my brain around.

From behind giant shadow of Moores fat ass.

Top Ten uses of Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD's.

10.Stocking stuffer for NavyPride.
9.Hang in garden to shoo the crows away.
8.As your daughters necklace to shoo LaMidRighter away.
7.Shiny object to keep Billo amused for hours.
6.Anti-French catapult ammunition.
5.Keep one on han to keep your smack skills sharp.
4.Memorize and quote to impress hot liberal chicks.
3.Midget frisbees.
2.Lures for really big and stupid fish.

And the number one use of Fahrenheit DVD's.

1.Hemorrhoid coasters.

Is this what you were looking for LaMidLifeCrisis?
 
teacher said:
Ah, a question I can wrap my brain around.

From behind giant shadow of Moores fat ass.

Top Ten uses of Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD's.

10.Stocking stuffer for NavyPride.
9.Hang in garden to shoo the crows away.
8.As your daughters necklace to shoo LaMidRighter away.
7.Shiny object to keep Billo amused for hours.
6.Anti-French catapult ammunition.
5.Keep one on han to keep your smack skills sharp.
4.Memorize and quote to impress hot liberal chicks.
3.Midget frisbees.
2.Lures for really big and stupid fish.

And the number one use of Fahrenheit DVD's.

1.Hemorrhoid coasters.

Is this what you were looking for LaMidLifeCrisis?

More color commentary in bias which leaves no option for moderate disagreement. I'm still waiting for that bias explanation. Certainly no impartial individual would post a poll without providing at least one moderate response.

p.s. teacher... I have no idea what your day job is... but I would suggest that you stick to it. Leave the humor to the humorous.
 
Conflict said:
LaMidRighter said:
I was using the term sardonically. Most republicans may be conservative.. as most democrates may be liberal... neither party seems capable of thinking for themself. There are always exceptions.
I agree with that the country would be much better if people thought outside of their worldviews. The big problem is that I can't read an expression to see how serious the neo-con delivery was. Sorry if I sounded condescending.



I am not a democrat nor do I throw the term(neo-con) around. The PNAC is the basis of neo-conservatism and it is the gist of the plot of the movie in which you are attacking.
The problem with the neo-con thing is that it gets thrown around too much, probably more after F-9/11, the movie created alot of talking points and I think it is mostly a problem related to what you've mentioned in the first quote, people who run around on automatic.

Not to sound like I am attacking you or anything... but I think the implications of my foremost post show that you hold a particular bias. Weren't you saying something about bias? Please elaborate.
We all have our biases, I will admit that I do have a conservative bias, but I think the biggest problem I have with Micheal Moore is the fact that he creates films to further his own agenda and calls them documentaries, the implication of a documentary suggests that it is factual information from both sides of an issue, the reason that really irks me is that I will be graduating with a broadcasting degree and the department stressed reporting fact in a non-fiction work.

Like I said I haven't seen the movie and yet I haven't been living in a shell neither. I've read about it and my take on it is:

1. The overall perception of the movie is EXTREME.

2. THere are some truths in the movie, however there are also some misperceptions.

3. I wouldn't equate it to propaganda unless it was produced by the pentagon.
The reason I call the movie propaganda is that it is intended to get a pre-determined result, and further a singular agenda, whether or not it comes from the government doesn't affect what it is. The reasons I call it propoganda are:
- Released suspiciously close to the presidential election.
- one-sided presentation of the fact.
- omission of relevent points, thus changing perception of fact.
There are other reasons, but I have to get some kind of sleep, to be continued......
 
Conflict said:
More color commentary in bias which leaves no option for moderate disagreement. I'm still waiting for that bias explanation. Certainly no impartial individual would post a poll without providing at least one moderate response.

p.s. teacher... I have no idea what your day job is... but I would suggest that you stick to it. Leave the humor to the humorous.

Holy *****. You must be the life of the party. You must be the warmup guy at wakes. Day job...you make that up all by your self? What's your pulse, about 3? Good lord I don't know whether to start up with you or cut my wrists.

Top ten nicknames for Conflict.

10.Anchor.
9.Wrench in the works.
8.Stick in the mud.
7.He who takes wind from the sails.
6.Laughing boy.
5.The human hyena.
4.The Heckler.
3.Walking birth control.
2.The suicide justifier.

And the number one nickname for Conflict.

1.Satan.

Shall we?

Somewhere around here is a thread posted by champs tittled "An Open letter By Micheal Moore" or something. You want to see some commentary on Moore? Go there. I do it several different ways.
 
teacher said:
Holy *****. You must be the life of the party. You must be the warmup guy at wakes. Day job...you make that up all by your self? What's your pulse, about 3? Good lord I don't know whether to start up with you or cut my wrists.

Top ten nicknames for Conflict.

10.Anchor.
9.Wrench in the works.
8.Stick in the mud.
7.He who takes wind from the sails.
6.Laughing boy.
5.The human hyena.
4.The Heckler.
3.Walking birth control.
2.The suicide justifier.

And the number one nickname for Conflict.

1.Satan.

Shall we?

Somewhere around here is a thread posted by champs tittled "An Open letter By Micheal Moore" or something. You want to see some commentary on Moore? Go there. I do it several different ways.

Wow. Am I supposed to be offended? Compelled? You really are terrible at this.

I do it several different ways too but only with females. ;)
 
teacher said:
If you think of the movie as a comedy it's actually quite good.

If I think of you as a comedy it's quite boring. So why exactly are you here? Clearly you don't have a moderate bone in your body. Nor a funny one. I guess you're just here to agree with anything that your master (GWB, CiC) does, eh?

Have you ever considered attempting to think for yourself? What would you name your movie? Sycophant 911?
 
My answer is not on the poll......It should be used for toilet paper.......
 
Navy Pride said:
My answer is not on the poll......It should be used for toilet paper.......

Lord knows that your ass needs wiped....
 
LaMidRighter said:
true documentaries gather facts from all sides and don't show a bias,

This is not true. Journalistic documentaries perhaps, but virtually every independent documentary ever made, from Woodstock to The March of the Penguins is made with the bias of the filmmaker. The use of music, editing, selection of content and personalities, the evoking of humor, sadness, compassion, hatred - all these things are used with the intent of persuading the audience to see the filmmaker's point of view. You want to argue with the content of Fahrenheit, go right ahead, I don't blame you really. But it irks me when folks try to use the "documentaries are supposed to be non-biased" angle. It is so obviously the argument of someone who never paid attention to documentary films until this one was made.
 
Conflict said:
If I think of you as a comedy it's quite boring. So why exactly are you here? Clearly you don't have a moderate bone in your body. Nor a funny one. I guess you're just here to agree with anything that your master (GWB, CiC) does, eh?

Have you ever considered attempting to think for yourself? What would you name your movie? Sycophant 911?

You're new here, aren't you? Why am I here? Ask around. I have my place. You're just mean and crass. Some think I'm funny. Some don't. My feelings certainly wont be hurt by you. From what I've seen of you so far tells me you're not even mediocre.

My movies name? Conflict and Hitler's dog. If you don't get it, don't worry, plenty others are laughing now.

Welcome to the game Conflict. Now say something nasty.
 
teacher said:
You're new here, aren't you? Why am I here? Ask around. I have my place. You're just mean and crass. Some think I'm funny. Some don't. My feelings certainly wont be hurt by you. From what I've seen of you so far tells me you're not even mediocre.

My movies name? Conflict and Hitler's dog. If you don't get it, don't worry, plenty others are laughing now.

Welcome to the game Conflict. Now say something nasty.

Hitler's Dog? You mean Bush?

SPare me your small talk in the form of a welcome (how much more insincere could you be). I could care less how many posts you may have made on an internet debate forum (and I took time here to study the cognitive semantics of people before I even started posting here). Perhaps you feel as if you have accomplished something here by posting such rhetoric without a clue.

Regardless..... spare me your nonsensical rhetoric. You have already been discredited as far as I am concerned by your lack of moderation. It's easy to say one thing but it is not so easy to hide the implications of your actions. You have said enough here-in that your words and actions serve to speak for themself.
 
mixedmedia said:
This is not true. Journalistic documentaries perhaps, but virtually every independent documentary ever made, from Woodstock to The March of the Penguins is made with the bias of the filmmaker. The use of music, editing, selection of content and personalities, the evoking of humor, sadness, compassion, hatred - all these things are used with the intent of persuading the audience to see the filmmaker's point of view. You want to argue with the content of Fahrenheit, go right ahead, I don't blame you really. But it irks me when folks try to use the "documentaries are supposed to be non-biased" angle. It is so obviously the argument of someone who never paid attention to documentary films until this one was made.

I think that this is an objective point... one that does not lend an ear to any political doctrine... but only the virtue of perception.
 
Conflict said:
Hitler's Dog? You mean Bush?

SPare me your small talk in the form of a welcome (how much more insincere could you be). I could care less how many posts you may have made on an internet debate forum (and I took time here to study the cognitive semantics of people before I even started posting here). Perhaps you feel as if you have accomplished something here by posting such rhetoric without a clue.

Regardless..... spare me your nonsensical rhetoric. You have already been discredited as far as I am concerned by your lack of moderation. It's easy to say one thing but it is not so easy to hide the implications of your actions. You have said enough here-in that your words and actions serve to speak for themself.

Conflict. Is that your name or your emotion in high school locker rooms? Yea, you got me all figured out. You might be fun, not like Ayran or Canuck of course, more like Lucidthots on a bad hair day. See ya round sport.
 

Attachments

  • My guys 062.jpg
    My guys 062.jpg
    83.4 KB · Views: 4
I only wish there was an option for all of the above.
 
mixedmedia said:
LaMidRighter said:
This is not true. Journalistic documentaries perhaps, but virtually every independent documentary ever made, from Woodstock to The March of the Penguins is made with the bias of the filmmaker.
Documentaries fall into the true doc and psuedo doc categories. True documentaries cannot show a bias, because the purpose of the work is to show the realities of the topic.
The use of music, editing, selection of content and personalities, the evoking of humor, sadness, compassion, hatred - all these things are used with the intent of persuading the audience to see the filmmaker's point of view.
If things are used for any reason except to break the boredom then the piece isn't a real documentary and shouldn't be recognized as such.
You want to argue with the content of Fahrenheit, go right ahead, I don't blame you really. But it irks me when folks try to use the "documentaries are supposed to be non-biased" angle.
My professors are not of the same opinion, in fact, they are the reason I critique a documentary with a bias as heavily as I do.
It is so obviously the argument of someone who never paid attention to documentary films until this one was made
. Real documentaries are extremely boring, so no, I don't keep up with them unless I am extremely interested in the subject, but F-9/11 is no documentary in the professional sense.
 
LaMidRighter said:
mixedmedia said:
Documentaries fall into the true doc and psuedo doc categories. True documentaries cannot show a bias, because the purpose of the work is to show the realities of the topic. If things are used for any reason except to break the boredom then the piece isn't a real documentary and shouldn't be recognized as such. My professors are not of the same opinion, in fact, they are the reason I critique a documentary with a bias as heavily as I do. . Real documentaries are extremely boring, so no, I don't keep up with them unless I am extremely interested in the subject, but F-9/11 is no documentary in the professional sense.


Fahrenheit 911 is certainly a documentary in the professional sense. A pseudo-documentary is a narrative film that uses actors to portray a story in a documentary style. Fahrenheit 911 is a true documentary. There are no hard and fast rules that say what a documentary is supposed to be. It is an unlegislated business. A person picks up a camera and tells a story in the way that they see it. Perhaps you might find a definition in a textbook, but if everyone is actually making them in their own way, why is Michael Moore held up to a different standard? Because he is making documentaries that you don't care for? I dare you to find me one documentary ever made that is truly unbiased. The second a person decides to embark on the telling of a story, the story becomes weighted with the perspective of the storyteller. Even news documentaries are no longer unbiased works. They all use the techniques of the POV documentarian.
 
Back
Top Bottom