<!--QuoteBegin-Hobojoe+Jun 29 2004, 09:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hobojoe @ Jun 29 2004, 09:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Duff-Man+Jun 25 2004, 08:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Duff-Man @ Jun 25 2004, 08:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> only thing he said he didn't like were the graphic depictions of the war in Iraq, apparently there's some pretty nasty footage of soldiers in battle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> it was a evil thing in The Passion of the Christ and it's a commendable and great thing in F9/11
gg logic <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> vote Pontius Pilot '04!!!
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
Obviously F9/11 only got an R rating because Jack Valenti is part of a vast uber-right-wing conspiracy to keep fiery political rhetoric out of the children's minds. He's pure evil!
<!--QuoteBegin-DOOManiac+Jun 29 2004, 06:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Jun 29 2004, 06:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, freedom of speech does apply to religious fanatics. That's one of the main reasons we have freedom of speech at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, that was my point... sarcasm doesn't work to well in text <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It doesn't really matter if kids can't see it. You can only vote if you are 18 or over so why make it so kids are allowed to watch it.
This movie is a bias but everything he says in his film is true. He researched all of it and jammed it in his movie. I think the Carlyle Group is actually trying to dispute one of his points in the film about the 1.4 billion dollar figure thrown around, and some Republican senator is trying to cover up for not putting his son in Iraq because he has a nephew that is going to Iraq(I don't see how this is one of his own children).
Anyways, other than than, I don't think there were any other disputes against the film. I got this news from Fox, and they played it off like you shouldn't see the film because of these two points. There is soo much more to the film that I believe everyone voting in the next election should at least see this film before casting their ballot. Even though I really don't believe in downloading films from the internet, if thats the only way your going to see it than do it. It might change your view on the matter or at least modify it so you make the right choice in November.
You don't have to falsify facts to give a wrong impression. Moore himself goes into depth about the flights and how they said they took off "after sept. 13th" well, one of the flights in question didn't take off till almost 10 days after that. I think that's an unacceptable presentation.
Also, I heard somebody say how the congressmen wern't allowed to read the Patriot act or something like that... congressmen just physically can't read every bill, as bills are HUGE monsters of paper. From the trailer, at least, I jsut got the impression that the congressmen was telling Moore that they normally don't read the bills.
Not to mention his "wacko attacko" thing for BFC, when somebody takes key lines from a speech, splices in an entirely different speech, and then says in the rebuttal that what he cut out would have been MORE embarassing to Heston, then they are just dead wrong. If you read the statements that Moore makes it seems plausable, but then if you actually look at the full speech you see that much of what Heston said gave positive context to his speech, especially the canceled festivities.
On a more recent note, Moore says on his site that O'Reilly left his screening early (actually he gives something to the effect that O'Reilly was sneaking out and was embarassed to be, but that's beyond the point) but what Moore doesn't say is that it could be understandable for someone on a tight schedule to have to duck out when the movie starts 40 minutes late. Half-truths like these are what turn me off to Moore 100%.
<!--QuoteBegin-404NotFound+Jun 30 2004, 05:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Jun 30 2004, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You don't have to falsify facts to give a wrong impression. Moore himself goes into depth about the flights and how they said they took off "after sept. 13th" well, one of the flights in question didn't take off till almost 10 days after that. I think that's an unacceptable presentation.
Also, I heard somebody say how the congressmen wern't allowed to read the Patriot act or something like that... congressmen just physically can't read every bill, as bills are HUGE monsters of paper. From the trailer, at least, I jsut got the impression that the congressmen was telling Moore that they normally don't read the bills.
Not to mention his "wacko attacko" thing for BFC, when somebody takes key lines from a speech, splices in an entirely different speech, and then says in the rebuttal that what he cut out would have been MORE embarassing to Heston, then they are just dead wrong. If you read the statements that Moore makes it seems plausable, but then if you actually look at the full speech you see that much of what Heston said gave positive context to his speech, especially the canceled festivities.
On a more recent note, Moore says on his site that O'Reilly left his screening early (actually he gives something to the effect that O'Reilly was sneaking out and was embarassed to be, but that's beyond the point) but what Moore doesn't say is that it could be understandable for someone on a tight schedule to have to duck out when the movie starts 40 minutes late. Half-truths like these are what turn me off to Moore 100%. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He can't be extremely specific man.... You only have two points both of which I will refute.
His major point with the Saudi's and the Bin Laden's was that they got to leave the country without anyone questioning them. Since 14 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi's and WTC was planned by Osama, I would think they would at least question them.
Second, the politician said that they can't read all the bills, which is true but he was making a point that NOT ONE of them READ IT.
This was clear in the movie, if you stopped evaluating the movie from the preview and actually watched it, you would understand his point. So I say go watch the movie then come back and discuss in here.
I still don't get the big deal with not reading it.. there is such a multitude of bills passed that it would be impossible to.
These things are like Tom Clancy novels in and of themselves- what congressmen use is a summery that was made by assistants- what should be questioned is what was left out of the summeries.
<!--QuoteBegin-404NotFound+Jun 30 2004, 07:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Jun 30 2004, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I still don't get the big deal with not reading it.. there is such a multitude of bills passed that it would be impossible to.
These things are like Tom Clancy novels in and of themselves- what congressmen use is a summery that was made by assistants- what should be questioned is what was left out of the summeries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, we know politicians can't read everything but the point he was making was that <b>NOT ONE</b> Politician read it. You would think that someone would glance over it and see the big picture and then tell everyone else about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 30 2004, 08:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 30 2004, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This movie is a bias but everything he says in his film is true. He researched all of it and jammed it in his movie. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you can use a whole bunch of true things and still give an impression that is overall incorrect. Or at least not completely correct.
That would be the most reasonable criticism of F911. Definately true in some places, but I would not say it is overall that bad. Some of the issues Moore questions are in all likelyhood coincidence (some of the conspiracy stuff with the Saudis), but others are undeniably valuable.
The most enlightening part of the whole thing I'd say is the section where they compare the conditions of Flint and Iraq, how things got that way, and the greatly disproportionate burden the poor bear in making America what it is.
Comments
it was a evil thing in The Passion of the Christ and it's a commendable and great thing in F9/11
gg logic <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
vote Pontius Pilot '04!!!
Yeah, that was my point... sarcasm doesn't work to well in text <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This movie is a bias but everything he says in his film is true. He researched all of it and jammed it in his movie. I think the Carlyle Group is actually trying to dispute one of his points in the film about the 1.4 billion dollar figure thrown around, and some Republican senator is trying to cover up for not putting his son in Iraq because he has a nephew that is going to Iraq(I don't see how this is one of his own children).
Anyways, other than than, I don't think there were any other disputes against the film. I got this news from Fox, and they played it off like you shouldn't see the film because of these two points. There is soo much more to the film that I believe everyone voting in the next election should at least see this film before casting their ballot. Even though I really don't believe in downloading films from the internet, if thats the only way your going to see it than do it. It might change your view on the matter or at least modify it so you make the right choice in November.
Also, I heard somebody say how the congressmen wern't allowed to read the Patriot act or something like that... congressmen just physically can't read every bill, as bills are HUGE monsters of paper. From the trailer, at least, I jsut got the impression that the congressmen was telling Moore that they normally don't read the bills.
Not to mention his "wacko attacko" thing for BFC, when somebody takes key lines from a speech, splices in an entirely different speech, and then says in the rebuttal that what he cut out would have been MORE embarassing to Heston, then they are just dead wrong. If you read the statements that Moore makes it seems plausable, but then if you actually look at the full speech you see that much of what Heston said gave positive context to his speech, especially the canceled festivities.
On a more recent note, Moore says on his site that O'Reilly left his screening early (actually he gives something to the effect that O'Reilly was sneaking out and was embarassed to be, but that's beyond the point) but what Moore doesn't say is that it could be understandable for someone on a tight schedule to have to duck out when the movie starts 40 minutes late. Half-truths like these are what turn me off to Moore 100%.
Also, I heard somebody say how the congressmen wern't allowed to read the Patriot act or something like that... congressmen just physically can't read every bill, as bills are HUGE monsters of paper. From the trailer, at least, I jsut got the impression that the congressmen was telling Moore that they normally don't read the bills.
Not to mention his "wacko attacko" thing for BFC, when somebody takes key lines from a speech, splices in an entirely different speech, and then says in the rebuttal that what he cut out would have been MORE embarassing to Heston, then they are just dead wrong. If you read the statements that Moore makes it seems plausable, but then if you actually look at the full speech you see that much of what Heston said gave positive context to his speech, especially the canceled festivities.
On a more recent note, Moore says on his site that O'Reilly left his screening early (actually he gives something to the effect that O'Reilly was sneaking out and was embarassed to be, but that's beyond the point) but what Moore doesn't say is that it could be understandable for someone on a tight schedule to have to duck out when the movie starts 40 minutes late. Half-truths like these are what turn me off to Moore 100%. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He can't be extremely specific man.... You only have two points both of which I will refute.
His major point with the Saudi's and the Bin Laden's was that they got to leave the country without anyone questioning them. Since 14 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi's and WTC was planned by Osama, I would think they would at least question them.
Second, the politician said that they can't read all the bills, which is true but he was making a point that NOT ONE of them READ IT.
This was clear in the movie, if you stopped evaluating the movie from the preview and actually watched it, you would understand his point. So I say go watch the movie then come back and discuss in here.
These things are like Tom Clancy novels in and of themselves- what congressmen use is a summery that was made by assistants- what should be questioned is what was left out of the summeries.
These things are like Tom Clancy novels in and of themselves- what congressmen use is a summery that was made by assistants- what should be questioned is what was left out of the summeries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we know politicians can't read everything but the point he was making was that <b>NOT ONE</b> Politician read it. You would think that someone would glance over it and see the big picture and then tell everyone else about it.
Well, you can use a whole bunch of true things and still give an impression that is overall incorrect. Or at least not completely correct.
That would be the most reasonable criticism of F911. Definately true in some places, but I would not say it is overall that bad. Some of the issues Moore questions are in all likelyhood coincidence (some of the conspiracy stuff with the Saudis), but others are undeniably valuable.
The most enlightening part of the whole thing I'd say is the section where they compare the conditions of Flint and Iraq, how things got that way, and the greatly disproportionate burden the poor bear in making America what it is.