Snapuer said
“My point was that you dismissed what Hitchens wrote as “drivel” assuming that he wasn’t liberal.”
No, I read as much of the Hitchens review as I could, and dismissed it as pretentious, long-winded, nit-picky and boring.
Kind of like your posts.
I could post plenty of articles that rip apart Hitchens’ boring review, but that would be even more boring than what Hitchens wrote.
Lumpy- you shoudn’t throw me(or anyone), as “pretentious, long-winded, nit-picky, and boring” as I am (you forgot pedantic), 50 mph fastballs across the plate- “…I read as much of the Hitchens review as I could…” But enough about making fun, though-that’s not the point, and so on, and blah, blah.
Go back and read what you wrote. If you had said that you had read as much of Hitchens as you could take and found it wanting or whatever, that would be one thing. The dear reader, on the other hand, can not fathom the depths of your mind- they can only read what you write. The quote, and the defense of it, gave quite the opposite impression.
I’m not critizing your opinions as such, although I disagree with what you have expressed in your posts. I am attacking the way that you express them. You feel free to declare people “dicks,” “hacks,” “dorks,” and “fakers” and accuse them of “talking out of their ass” and all of that right-wing this and them that. Yes, it may seem nit-picky to pin you down on Hitchens and the Nation, but it’s not too much to ask that you know a few things about that which you make such declarations about.
Personally, and of course I could be wrong, I think your reach exceeds your grasp, and you cover the gap with invective. That’s probably not the best way to proceed, but I could be wrong about that too. I case you hadn’t noticed, I was using sarcasm to point that out.
As for the issue of Moore and F-9/11, from what I have read about him, and seen of him in interviews, I don’t like him, and would not spend any money to see his stuff that might end up in his pocket.
Judging from the comments about his film and the reviews of it I have read, and the definition of a documentary as “a motion picture that records news events or shows social conditions without fictionalization,” I don’t think that Moore’s movie is one. I think he selects his material to come to a predetermined conclusion, which in my opinion is not to document but to form a polemic. Yes, one can lie with facts, as well as shade meanings and appearances, especially if you play with the chronological order of them. I’m not say he did, I’m saying its possible.
Michael Moore, in whatever shape he is in and clothes he wear, is free to make whatever kind of movie he wants. We are free to watch or not, and to comment on it as well. In our semi-free enterprise system, theaters are also free to choose not to show his movie.
I wonder how many people who saw his movie are going to read that new book about him- Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man? I wonder what you have to say about the book, Lumpy, before or after you have read it, or will read it at all.
In light of its recent and timely release to DVD, I thought I’d bump this thread which discusses this great film.
I bought it, and at $16 it was a bargain. The DVD extras are good, but not great. The greatness is in the film itself – I nearly forgot just how good it was.
After all the “boycotting” and arguing, who has actually seen the movie?
Not a chance!!!
However, all the smart people will buy the DVD and then come on over to the challenge.
Here’s to a John Kerry win!!!
If a certain documentarian is voting for Kerry, we all should vote for Kerry!!
JeffR
As ashamed as I am to say, I saw the movie. I did however hear some interesting points (well, in between the ferocious cussing coming from myself). I thought it was complete bullshit due to the rediculous commentary coming from that fat P.O.S., and I would never recommend it to anybody. Just my opinion. RLTW
rangertab75
[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
I did however hear some interesting points (well, in between the ferocious cussing coming from myself).
rangertab75[/quote]
Which points did you find interesting?
Fahrenheit 9-11 was one of those flicks that can fit in that “Things that make ya go hmmmm” category. (That was gay, I know.) Now, most of the so-called facts in that movie were told from Michael Moore’s perspective, which is why I thought it was bullshit. He makes a big deal out of little insignificant things (like that part when the secret service makes his fat ass leave the vicinity of the Saudi embassy). Just shit like that. I can’t remember exactly what the points were that I found interesting, but interesting can sometimes go hand-in-hand with bullshit. RLTW
rangertab75
[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
Now, most of the so-called facts in that movie were told from Michael Moore’s perspective, which is why I thought it was bullshit. rangertab75[/quote]
Is it from MM’s perspective that Bath’s name was blacked out when Bush’s records were released? Have you or has anyone else checked into whether or not the ties between Bush, Bath and the bin Ladens is legit?
I think the film does a great job of highlighting the background of Bush and his web of debts.
Do you really think that if GWB was in some way, shape or form was connected to the Bin Ladens, he would still be president?? Everyone in this country and the world for that matter would be screaming their guts out, calling Bush a terrorist supporter, not just Michael Moore’s fat ass spewing out his propaganda. Hey, remember early on in the Iraq war that Iraqi bastard who would get on Al-Jazeera and say that the U.S. was getting their asses kicked, and sometimes even said that we weren’t in the country? Was that true? That is the same bullshit that Michael Moore is doing, except Michael Moore is doing it in the movies. RLTW
rangertab75
Good news! There’s a Farenheit 9/11 reader out now that supports each claim the film makes…complete with news clippings, citings, etc.
Check it out Rainjack et al!
I had not seen Fahrenheit till I rented it last week. I have to say that it was one of the most powerful movies I’ve ever seen.
I also rented another movie at the same time. It’s called Fahrenhype 9/11. It was equally as powerfully.
After watching both films and doing some more research, I’ve come to my conclusion that Michael Moore is a liar and a propagandist. It’s a documented fact and a subject of a book called Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man written by two men who also write/wrote for the the New York Times, one of the more liberal publications.
But don’t take my word for it, investigate it for yourself. Anyone who saw Fahrenheit owes it to themselves to watch Fahrenhype.
Watching Fahrenheit was like having a nightmare and Fahrenhype was like waking up.
That being said, I’m voting for Kerry.
I decided to write this post because it makes me sick when people attack Bush by quoting “chapter and verse” of Moore’s film without exploring all angles. As one of the authors of Michael Moore is Fat Stupid White Man said, “He’s genius at presenting a false image without uttering a false word.”
The fact that there’s a reader citing Moore’s sources means very little to me (seing as how Moore was caught doctoring an article in the beginning of his film which his legal team called a “typo”).
That being said, I’m voting for Kerry.
I decided to write this post because it makes me sick when people attack Bush by quoting “chapter and verse” of Moore’s film without exploring all angles.
I think everyone who saw the movie should read a book called “Micheal Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man!”
Funny title, but a verry good book. It really points out why Moore is a douchbag. Very detailed.