by Ben_Dovall ยป Thu Jun 7 2007 13:22:46
IMDb member since March 2007
Post Edited: Thu Jun 7 2007 13:27:15
I was expecting some type of rebutal or counter arguments. This sad excuse for a movie doesn't have either. All it has is people praising the US and voicing patriotism. WTF? Saying you love America is a counter argument, a rebutal to Fahrenheit 911? This movie doesn't even try to counter what Moore says. All it does is slam him. Give me a break. The director is a hack who should stick to promotion videos for cruise lines.
Thats the best the right wing can come up with, 2 hours of politicians and pundits repeating "America is great, love it or leave it" I could have made a movie like that, all I have to do is film my family for 2 hours, they are hard core patriots.
No, that's a complete lie.
Example; mayor Ed Koch actually quote Saddam Hussein himself and outlines the various attacks upon US interests and installations over the 20 years leading up to the 9/11 event.
For those of us who follow international news, we already knew we were at war. It was just a matter of when the next attack would hit our shores. And it did.
Additionally, at least two (or more) of the people who were in Michael Moore's film denounced Moore as using their interview footage to improperly frame the events and situations they were commenting on.
There is a very strong anti-war and pro-psychiatry movement deeply entrenched in the Hollywood film industry. A lot of people mistake that for "liberalism", but in reality it's a wing of the behavioral medical field trying to turn hostile feelings, and our innate anger and aggression, to be classified as a condition or syndrome.
That means that whenever you're angry, you are (or could be) diagnosed, by their criteria, as mentally unstable.
What that could mean is that defense of this nation, or even you defending your life and your family, could be classified as an emotional disorder.
It's an intentional effort to disarm the American public in the name of "world peace".
Now, you tell me, will the Saddam Husseins, Osama Bin Ladens, and even Slobodan Milosovich adhere to our new vision of "world peace"?
That's Michael Moore's agenda; to frame any loose association between parties as a bona-fides social linkage, and therefore a friendship with an agreement in political views; i.e. if the Bush administration new the Saudi royal house, and Bin Laden was related to the Saudis, therefore, by Moore's logic, Bush was in on 9/11. Untrue, of course. But that is Michael Moore's logic, and the danger of that kind of illogic.
This film flirts with being jingoistic, but is more fact than anything Moore could have cobbled together.
reply
share