-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
film: fahrenheit 911
- Thread starter wanderlust
- Start date
Originally posted by Mike DMA
keep on dreamin...american citizen?
keep on dreamin...american citizen?
whether you love moore or hate him, this movie has changed opinion. i've seen a number of interviews on tv - although i have yet to talk to anybody in real life - with people who have decided to change vote because of the revelations made in this movie.
for what it's worth, i'm not a us citizen although i do normally live there.
alasdair
DigitalDuality
Bluelighter
Bush Blew It the Morning of 9/11
by Bill Maher / Daily News
John Kerry has waded into an issue raised by Michael Moore in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," namely, President Bush's sitting for seven minutes in a Florida classroom after being told "the country is under attack." Republicans are waxing indignant, of course. But the criticism is richly deserved.
The fact that Bush wasted 27 minutes that day - not only the seven minutes reading to kids but 20 more at a photo op afterward - was, in my view, the most outrageous thing a President has done since Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court.
Watergate was outrageous but it still did not carry the possibility of utter devastation, like a President's freezing at the very moment we needed his immediate focus on an attack on the United States.
This is an issue about the ultimate presidential duty, acting in an emergency. If nothing else in Washington is nonpartisan, this should be.
But it is not. Republicans are tying themselves in knots trying to defend Bush's actions that morning. The excuses they put forward are absurd:
* He was "gathering his thoughts." This was a moment a President should have imagined a thousand times. There is no time in the nuclear age for a President to sit like Forrest Gump "gathering thoughts" after an attack has begun. Gathering information is what he should have been doing.
* From the White House press secretary: "The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening." I agree that gaining a better understanding of what was happening should have been his goal. What I don't get is how that goal was reached by just sitting there instead of getting up and talking to people. Is he a psychic? Was he receiving the information telepathically?
* "He didn't want to scare the children." Vice President Cheney has said of Kerry, "The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample reason to doubt the judgment he brings to vital issues of national security." So Kerry's judgment is suspect, but at a moment of national crisis, Bush's judgment was: Better not to scare 20 children momentarily than to react immediately to an attack on the country!
If he had just said, "Hey, kids, gotta go do some President business - be good to your moms and dads, bye!" my guess is the kids would have survived.
I cannot see how someone who considers himself a conservative can defend George Bush's inaction. Conservatives pride themselves on being clear-eyed and decisive. They don't do nuance, and they respect toughness.
But Bush choked at the most important moment a President could have. We're lucky Al Qaeda had done its worst by the time he pulled himself away from the photo op. Next time, it might not be that way.
by Bill Maher / Daily News
John Kerry has waded into an issue raised by Michael Moore in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," namely, President Bush's sitting for seven minutes in a Florida classroom after being told "the country is under attack." Republicans are waxing indignant, of course. But the criticism is richly deserved.
The fact that Bush wasted 27 minutes that day - not only the seven minutes reading to kids but 20 more at a photo op afterward - was, in my view, the most outrageous thing a President has done since Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court.
Watergate was outrageous but it still did not carry the possibility of utter devastation, like a President's freezing at the very moment we needed his immediate focus on an attack on the United States.
This is an issue about the ultimate presidential duty, acting in an emergency. If nothing else in Washington is nonpartisan, this should be.
But it is not. Republicans are tying themselves in knots trying to defend Bush's actions that morning. The excuses they put forward are absurd:
* He was "gathering his thoughts." This was a moment a President should have imagined a thousand times. There is no time in the nuclear age for a President to sit like Forrest Gump "gathering thoughts" after an attack has begun. Gathering information is what he should have been doing.
* From the White House press secretary: "The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening." I agree that gaining a better understanding of what was happening should have been his goal. What I don't get is how that goal was reached by just sitting there instead of getting up and talking to people. Is he a psychic? Was he receiving the information telepathically?
* "He didn't want to scare the children." Vice President Cheney has said of Kerry, "The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample reason to doubt the judgment he brings to vital issues of national security." So Kerry's judgment is suspect, but at a moment of national crisis, Bush's judgment was: Better not to scare 20 children momentarily than to react immediately to an attack on the country!
If he had just said, "Hey, kids, gotta go do some President business - be good to your moms and dads, bye!" my guess is the kids would have survived.
I cannot see how someone who considers himself a conservative can defend George Bush's inaction. Conservatives pride themselves on being clear-eyed and decisive. They don't do nuance, and they respect toughness.
But Bush choked at the most important moment a President could have. We're lucky Al Qaeda had done its worst by the time he pulled himself away from the photo op. Next time, it might not be that way.
keystroke
Bluelighter
I still stand by my statement that Moore HAS changed a lot of peoples opinions, he has shown sides to something that most of Americans would never of knew existed.
michael
Bluelight Crew
well, really, what the hell was he supposed to do? it's a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
to me those minutes are a non-issue. would 7 minutes have saved any lives?
to me those minutes are a non-issue. would 7 minutes have saved any lives?
Originally posted by Mike DMA
do u know how to fly? ru a pilot? just wonderin
do u know how to fly? ru a pilot? just wonderin
i see the wink but i don't get it. i am not a pilot - why do you ask?
alasdair
michael
Bluelight Crew
i can't hold myself any longer, it's quixote ffs.
wanderlust
Bluelighter
!! 
^
^
wanderlust
Bluelighter
moore was on 'today' this morning. he said in reference to -has he changed any votes- that in a poll taken in pennsylvannia, on this question, 4% of kerry supporters said they were on the fence and had their minds were changed when they saw the movie
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
Originally posted by michael
well, really, what the hell was he supposed to do? it's a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
to me those minutes are a non-issue. would 7 minutes have saved any lives?
well, really, what the hell was he supposed to do? it's a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
to me those minutes are a non-issue. would 7 minutes have saved any lives?
yes, quite possibly, actually. s'if you don't realise that??
electreauxbella
Bluelighter
I got this on DVD the other day & watched it with a completely open mind... the only thing that keeps bugging me about it is what if dubya was stripped of his presidency - would this still of happened?
randycaver
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Messages
- 21,709
onetwothreefour said:
I highly doubt those 7 minutes would have saved any lives. I know you all hate bush, but try to be realistic here. What's done is done.
to the above poster - you can what if anything you like - especially if you dislike bush and want to blame him for all the evils in the world. Personally I don't. I just think it's been building for a long time, and a new president won't change matters.
i don't think the issue is whether those 7 minutes would have saved life.
the republicans, particularly now at the height of their convention in nyc, are painting as a decisive, strong leader in times of trouble.
his reaction to these terrible events in those first few minutes suggest a confused guy with little idea of what to do who's in way over his head. (almost) anybody can spout rhetoric from a podium after having a speech written for them and being able to practice and hone it. those moments give some insight into what he's really like at crunch time and it's not a particularly pretty picture.
alasdair
the republicans, particularly now at the height of their convention in nyc, are painting as a decisive, strong leader in times of trouble.
his reaction to these terrible events in those first few minutes suggest a confused guy with little idea of what to do who's in way over his head. (almost) anybody can spout rhetoric from a podium after having a speech written for them and being able to practice and hone it. those moments give some insight into what he's really like at crunch time and it's not a particularly pretty picture.
alasdair
wanderlust
Bluelighter
i agree ^... he is being portrayed, now, as strong, decisive, a talented quick thinker with the bravdo and courage above many men... a man with the power to not only handle crisis close to effortlessly but effectivly and quick to make the important call without even breaking a sweat.
i believe that seven minutes, while i doubt many could have done much better, shows bush contrary to the image he is now trying to sell
i believe that seven minutes, while i doubt many could have done much better, shows bush contrary to the image he is now trying to sell
vegan
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2003
- Messages
- 6,398
^^ joke apart, this case is not ridiculous like the one of the comic show "les guignols" in france
les guignols was a satiric show
this movie pretends to be informative, not fiction
and people have to make up their mind one way or another
so it's a rather good idea to use the movie as one of several sources of information, just like reading the parties' programs or talking about them with your neighbour
les guignols was a satiric show
this movie pretends to be informative, not fiction
and people have to make up their mind one way or another
so it's a rather good idea to use the movie as one of several sources of information, just like reading the parties' programs or talking about them with your neighbour
captainballs
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,954
Farenheit 9/11 - Poor Execution
After seeing this movie, I almost changed my name from "captain balls" to "captain dissappointed." Please do not flame me if you disagree - I'm not a Bush fanatic or an asshole, I just felt that Michael Moore's vision of this continuing political fiasco was neither convincing nor moving. "Bowling for Columbine," on the other hand, was very moving and very believable.
Simply put, I felt that the final product of "Farenheit 9/11" seemed more like a rough draft that was rushed out to the public. I believe that if a little more time was spent researching and filtering, Michael Moore might actually deserve the Oscar he's going to bitch about not being nominated for.
I'd be interested in hearing other poeple's opinions regarding the seemingly incomplete and slapped together nature of this film.
P.S. - I know this movie is old news, but I always wait till the hype dies down to watch highly sensationalized films.
After seeing this movie, I almost changed my name from "captain balls" to "captain dissappointed." Please do not flame me if you disagree - I'm not a Bush fanatic or an asshole, I just felt that Michael Moore's vision of this continuing political fiasco was neither convincing nor moving. "Bowling for Columbine," on the other hand, was very moving and very believable.
Simply put, I felt that the final product of "Farenheit 9/11" seemed more like a rough draft that was rushed out to the public. I believe that if a little more time was spent researching and filtering, Michael Moore might actually deserve the Oscar he's going to bitch about not being nominated for.
I'd be interested in hearing other poeple's opinions regarding the seemingly incomplete and slapped together nature of this film.
P.S. - I know this movie is old news, but I always wait till the hype dies down to watch highly sensationalized films.
drEaMtiMe*@#
Bluelighter
i posted this in another forum the other day but i thought i'd post it here too considering i liked it so much:
shit. i know that i may be like 10 years late on this one but i highly, HIGHLY, HIGHLY advise anyone else who hasn't seen Michael Moores fahrenheit 9/11 to go borrow it out from the video library asap!
completely gut wrenching stuff. i burst out in tears before the main part of the film had even started... [yes, well, i know, but seriously if you knew me you'd know that i dont cry that easily]. i have no words to describe what i feel really... just go watch it!
. . . the only slight [and emphasis the word slight because overall it was great!] problem that i have with it is that i think it a bit of a shame [although it was amusing how he did it] that Moore couldn't control his [justified] anger at Bush enough, and hence came across as such a smart arse--> hence opening himself up so readily to those propaganda alligations.
like i said however amusing, justified and true it was; essentially it wasn't professional enough. and in a way this makes me mad, because when i think about what would have happened had it of lacked that aura of childish rebellion-- well to put it bluntly i think it would have been SO [
] that i dont think that it ever would have been let to air.
and that's what shits me that the evil of Bush is so strong that they feel it in their power to actually be able to let a film like this air without it being able to truly effect them or make any real difference.
like i said its a pity because moore is an extremely intelligent, and talented individual, and had he of been that little bit "more" cunning/mature.... well in a way i'd hate to imagine what would start happening to people after seeing that version... perhaps audience members would randomly start committing suicide upon leaving the cinema, or something? 
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
completely gut wrenching stuff. i burst out in tears before the main part of the film had even started... [yes, well, i know, but seriously if you knew me you'd know that i dont cry that easily]. i have no words to describe what i feel really... just go watch it!
. . . the only slight [and emphasis the word slight because overall it was great!] problem that i have with it is that i think it a bit of a shame [although it was amusing how he did it] that Moore couldn't control his [justified] anger at Bush enough, and hence came across as such a smart arse--> hence opening himself up so readily to those propaganda alligations.
like i said however amusing, justified and true it was; essentially it wasn't professional enough. and in a way this makes me mad, because when i think about what would have happened had it of lacked that aura of childish rebellion-- well to put it bluntly i think it would have been SO [
] that i dont think that it ever would have been let to air.and that's what shits me that the evil of Bush is so strong that they feel it in their power to actually be able to let a film like this air without it being able to truly effect them or make any real difference.
like i said its a pity because moore is an extremely intelligent, and talented individual, and had he of been that little bit "more" cunning/mature.... well in a way i'd hate to imagine what would start happening to people after seeing that version... perhaps audience members would randomly start committing suicide upon leaving the cinema, or something?