NSLog();

9 Comments »

9 Responses to "More Moore (Lies)"

1. | Reply Tomas
   Posted 05 Jul 2004 at 1:05pm #
   

   Basically every review I've read about Fahrenheit 9/11 has said that the film isn't really revolutionary or even eye-opening in any way, it just repeats what is already well known, and I agree with that completely, having seen the film myself.

   Which, I suppose, is why all these "deceits" are the result of a fanatic hair-splitting festival which ignores the overal message in favor of focusing on pointless details to death; because there _are no_ new revolutionary facts, nor lies, to debunk.

2. | Reply James
   Posted 05 Jul 2004 at 1:15pm #
   

   I'm amused that the senators who went to Iraq are "pro-Saddam" instead of wanting to possibly prevent a war that didn't need to be fought.

   Seems there's a lot of deceit in the listing of deceits.

   So it means absolutely nothing.

3. | Reply RiRW
   Posted 05 Jul 2004 at 1:59pm #
   

   Fahrenheit 9/11

   I just saw this movie last night, and I have no clue why it's being called a documentary. The X-Files has more truth (and is more interesting). Erik posted a link to Dave Kopel, who is compiling a list of inaccuracies at http://www.davekopel.com/Ter...

4. | Reply Symbolic Order
   Posted 05 Jul 2004 at 2:46pm #
   

   Michael Moore & Intellectual Honesty

   I’ve been told I should see Fahrenheit 9/11. I had planned not to, as I’d rather not give Michael Moore any money. However, in light of recent comments by the man, I may simply download it and watch for free. These suggestions that I watch ...

5. | Reply girlwonder
   Posted 05 Jul 2004 at 5:11pm #
   

   while i agree that the movie was over the top, don't you think that if what moore was saying was untrue that the adminstration would be all over him like white on rice? you can't get in trouble for telling facts, but you can for lying. just a thought.

6. | Reply Erik J. Barzeski
   Posted 05 Jul 2004 at 5:26pm #
   

   I think that there are any number of reasons that Bush hasn't responded much to Michael Moore, perhaps primary among them being that to respond would be to elevate.

7. | Reply Grayson
   Posted 06 Jul 2004 at 12:29am #
   

   I felt that the film did little to actually enlighten the debate although I enjoyed watching it. As a film maker, Moore can play around with editing to suit his desires. I doubt that quite a few things on the list are really "deceits" but instead not playing along with Moore's editing. Informed viewers should be able to piece together the entire picture. It may not convince anyone to change their views, but perhaps it will cause at least a few to look into the issues more closely.

8. | Reply Geoff Taylor
   Posted 08 Jul 2004 at 3:24pm #
   

   Moore counts on the fact that most people are not capable of thinking for themselves, prefering instead for someone else to think for them. Why read many different sources or watch many different points of views on television when you can go to the Moore rally at the local theatre?

9. | Reply Malachi Griffie
   Posted 09 Jul 2004 at 7:27pm #
   

   I thoroughly agree that "Further sensationalism is not the answer" and I know it is somewhat hypocritical, but it is really nice to see someone with a more (much more) liberal viewpoint doing this. Take that Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reilleys of the world.

   I would rather put up with new sensationalistic media if it comes from the left, both to "combat" people like those mentioned above and to prevent said people from completely overwhelming the average person's views.

   And yes, I know, I already said it was hypocritical of me.