• 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.

Michael Moore's lies exposed

FinnMacCool said:
That doesn't rule it out as a work of fiction. You only believe it as such because you don't agree with it. Its a documentary.

repeat after me: ITS A DOCUMENTARY

Let's just say that everything in Micael Moores movie was based on bad facts and sometimes lies. Its still a documentary. ok?

Do you feel that calling Micahel Moores movies documentaries somehow is a threat? Cause it isn't. There is such things as bad documentary. Call it that if you wish. But it is a documentary.
Click to expand...

It's not a documentary. If your not smart enough to understand the definition I can't help you. But calling it documentary over and over again doesn't make it so. I can call an apple an orange over and over again. But no matter how many times I say it.. It will still only be an apple. By your definition ET is documentary, Close Encounters, The Matrix, Jason, all documentaries. And they are because I say they are. But the fact is they aren't because they don't fit the definition of a documentary. His are works of fiction based on real life topics. Kind of like a sitcom without the funny.
 
Watch all of Michael Moores movies and then watch all the movies you just mentioned. Then come back here and tell me how you can put them all in the same category. Then I'll believe they are works of fiction.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Watch all of Michael Moores movies and then watch all the movies you just mentioned. Then come back here and tell me how you can put them all in the same category. Then I'll believe they are works of fiction.
Click to expand...

Because all movies I mentioned including MM's are not keeping with the facts. If the facts have been altered, edited, removed or fudged then it is no longer truth it is fiction. Everything I mentioned staged scenes to show a specific end that they wanted to show. They did not show the truth of the time but the truth as they wanted others to see it
 
Bullshit. All the stories you mentioned before have stories. What is the story in Michael Moore's movie? Who is the main character?

works of fiction of any kind can be based on real life events but I wouldn't call them documentaries.

Your argument holds no water. They are documentaries. Even if he might have lied about the "facts" which he presented in his movie they are still documentaries.

The goal of a documentary is to persuade people or tell them how to do something. This cetainly fits Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 when he tried to persuade people not to vote for Bush.
 
Last edited:
FinnMacCool said:
Bullshit. All the stories you mentioned before have stories. What is the story in Michael Moore's movie? Who is the main character?

works of fiction of any kind can be based on real life events but I wouldn't call them documentaries.

Your argument holds no water. They are documentaries. Even if he might have lied about the "facts" which he presented in his movie they are still documentaries.

The goal of a documentary is to persuade people or tell them how to do something. This cetainly fits Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 when he tried to persuade people not to vote for Bush.
Click to expand...

Spend 5 minutes and look up the definition. MM movies are star wars without the aliens. You don't have tohave a lead to have a movie. I just washed crash this weekend and there was no single lead throughout the whole movie. It was many diferent threads slowing coming together. And like MM movies... It was fiction
 
Whatever I'm not going to go back and forth on this. If you honestly think that Michael Moores movies should be in the same category as Star Wars then so be it.

So god damn stupid though that people actually think like that but whatever.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Whatever I'm not going to go back and forth on this. If you honestly think that Michael Moores movies should be in the same category as Star Wars then so be it.

So god damn stupid though that people actually think like that but whatever.
Click to expand...

Not quite as stupid as thinking that a movie that alters the facts on purpose and stages fake scenes unknown to the audience. Thats these scenes while fake also show an untrue version of events. That this is a documentary.....
 
That is exactly what makes it a documentary. It presents facts in a way that hopes to try and persuade you to do something. And yeah they can sometimes mislead people which is sometimes the whole point.
 
FinnMacCool said:
That is exactly what makes it a documentary. It presents facts in a way that hopes to try and persuade you to do something. And yeah they can sometimes mislead people which is sometimes the whole point.
Click to expand...

For gods sake.. Thats not a documentary.. Look up the definition. He is not presenting facts he's presenting half lies and partial truths and staging fictional scenes with eronious outcomes... That is NOT a documentary.. Look it up
 
n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

Lets see here: Film? check
political subject matter? check
facts? check
narration? check

Its a documentary.
 
Last edited:
FinnMacCool said:
n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

Lets see here: Film? check
political subject matter? check
facts? check
narration? check

Its a documentary.
Click to expand...

But it's not factual. Thats the point he is twisting and editing things to make his point. At the point that he does this they are no longer facts, they have been altered.

Tell ya what.. call it a documentary all you want.. But it won't make it so. But if it makes you feel better to call a movie with fictional scenes and facts a documentary then go for it. Who am I to dance on your parade
 
Ok if you want to get real technical here. This is the defination of facts

Fact
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
So according to this definition, facts don't always have to be true. As for Michael Moores facts being true or not well thats certainly debateable
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=facts
 
FinnMacCool said:
Ok if you want to get real technical here. This is the defination of facts

Fact
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
So according to this definition, facts don't always have to be true. As for Michael Moores facts being true or not well thats certainly debateable
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=facts
Click to expand...


Main Entry: fac·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'fak-ch&-w&l, -ch&l, 'faksh-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: fact + -ual (as in actual)
1 : of or relating to facts
2 : restricted to or based on fact

MM started with facts and then changed them into fiction. What about staging scenes? Just over look that little indescretion of documentary film making? To me thats called movie making, not documentary making
 
Well thats your opinion. But your defintion of factual actually supports my argument.

Its as easy as admitting that Michael Moores movies are documentaries even if you don't neccesarily agree with them.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Well thats your opinion. But your defintion of factual actually supports my argument.

Its as easy as admitting that Michael Moores movies are documentaries even if you don't neccesarily agree with them.
Click to expand...

I won't admit something that is not true and his movies are not factual when filmed to decieve using lies. Thats not facts or factual. If you can not understand the difference between fiction = not real and non fiction = real. Then you can deal with that on your own in whatever way you see fit. But for me I believe the definition of a documnetary speaks for itself and MM does not fall into that catagory.
But this again is pointless, we are going to just go back and forth on this unless your willing to admit his film is not a true documentary. At best its a faux documentary, or even a mockumentary.

Remeber the movie spinal tap? That was shot as a documentary. Yet is was 100% fiction. Calling it a documetary didn't make it one. It was a movie that was put together by adding what the director thought would attract the most people. Was not put together with the truth in mind
 
Obviously your going to choose to ignore everything I have put forth to prove that Michael Moore's films are indeed documentaries. So if you are constantly going to resist I see no point in debating on this any further.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Obviously your going to choose to ignore everything I have put forth to prove that Michael Moore's films are indeed documentaries. So if you are constantly going to resist I see no point in debating on this any further.
Click to expand...

I don't have to ignore them, there untrue.

But if I make a "documentary" about the assasination of MLK. But instead of saying that a white man named James Earl Ray killed him. I said it was a black man names Al Sharpton. And I recreated a scene of this man shooting MLK. The audience is unaware that this scene is bogus and has been staged. Is this a documentary in your opinion or a work of fiction. It is based on fact, I have just altered those facts to fit my message and I have introduced footage of a false scenes with no true bedrock in the truth
 
Opinions have no place in this bit. It is clear cut.

Moore does not make "documentaries." Find any Arts College Professor and ask for a lesson. There is a huge difference between what he does and in what is considered to be a documentary.
 
GySgt said:
Moore does not make "documentaries." Find any Arts College professor and ask for a lesson.
Click to expand...

Some people will believe anything if it means they get to embarass or humiliate the US. The content isn't important just the effect
 
Opinions have no place in this bit. It is clear cut.

Moore does not make "documentaries." Find any Arts College Professor and ask for a lesson. There is a huge difference between what he does and in what is considered to be a documentary.
Click to expand...

I'll have an answer for you tomorrow
 
FinnMacCool said:
I'll have an answer for you tomorrow
Click to expand...

Do I get a response or are you just going to ignore the post?
 
FinnMacCool said:
That is exactly what makes it a documentary. It presents facts in a way that hopes to try and persuade you to do something. And yeah they can sometimes mislead people which is sometimes the whole point.
Click to expand...



Actually, Its more like taking select portions of real events and presenting them in a fictional story. Kind of like the Davinchi code. Its a masterful example of fictional spinning of of factual events.

Ive seen some of them and they are compelling stories but just that..

One example comes to mind was an attempt to show the president goofing off at camp David. If you look closely you can see the English prime minister Tony Blair in the background with whom he was meeting with at the time.If you are not paying attention you will miss it. I am a little surprised they did not edit him out completely.
No mention of Prime Minister Tony Blair or the High Level Meetings was forthcoming. Of course not. Truth is not the purpose of the film. It succeeded at being entertaining and divisive which was its true purpose. That and making money hand over fist.
 
FinnMacCool said:
What is it then?

I don't even like Michael Moore jesus christ but his movies are documentaries. They aren't action/adventure movies and they sure aren't romances for that matter.
Click to expand...

I already posted the definition. Read back on page two!
 
I do not believe this was already posted (i didnt check a page or 2) but there was a movie that came out this time last year called fahrenHYPE 9/11. It is a fact based (unlike michael moore's:blastem: idiotic rhetoric propaganda) contridiction to farhenhiet 9/11. It even has anne coulter in it!:rwbelepha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom