Went to watch this tonight. Its good, VERY controversial and I've got a feeling its gonna get banned.

 

It basically states how George W Bush is virtually on Bin Ladens pay roll, 6% of America is owned by Afghanistan, Iraq (which was bombed by Bush after the 9/11 incident) hadn't EVER done anything wrong to the USA and how THICK Bush is.

 

It was very one sided but also very informative.

 

I recommend seeing it if you havent.

Edited July 19, 200420 yr by Ginge

Here is the basics of the film as written by Michael Moore (producer, director and writer of the film)

 

Farenheit 9/11

If it's anyway near as good as Bowling for Columbine then I'ld definatly like to see it.

 

That film was really good.

i really should watch bowling for columbine at some point. wanna see this to see what it's like as well

QUOTE (Ginge @ Jul 19 2004, 02:51)

It was very one sided but also very informative.

Seems like a contradiction in terms to me.

I trust Michael Moore as much as I trust G W Bush.

QUOTE (Alex @ Jul 19 2004, 09:42)

I trust Michael Moore as much as I trust G W Bush.

^ Yeah that. From what I've heard the film is your standard trashy 'pop politics' -- i.e. take an extreme view and ignore all the information that does not conform to your view.

 

It seems ironic to fight misinformation with ... misinformation.

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 19 2004, 09:33)

QUOTE (Ginge @ Jul 19 2004, 02:51) It was very one sided but also very informative. Seems like a contradiction in terms to me. The bits that werent one sided were informative, like the bit that said there was only 1 out of the 500 odd congressmen that had a son serving in the army and Michael Moore tried to get other congressmen to sign their sons up but they wouldnt. They're ready to tell other parents to send their kids to thier death but wont send their own.

I suppose the difference being, those kids volunteered to serve and fight. Had the congressmen forced their kids into military duty, that would effectively be the draft and not very "voluntary".

^ quite.

 

It's a typical tabloid-style twist of statistics. I.e. the figure may be factually correct, but the inference (or rather the conclusion they're trying to coerce you to infer) is baseless.

Michael Moore is to Rory Bremner what The Sun is to the Guardian.