American politics - the truth
- Thread starter edX
- Start date
delsoljb32
Dark Archon
baggss said:
Amen, he truly is
bigbadbill
Flaccid Member
baggss said:
I keep hearing this ... from people who have'nt even bothered to see the movie. People who are willing to take a stand against it, without having ever even experienced it.
TommyWillB
Registered
Fine... If you Brit's like Bush so much, why don't you take him and make him QE's successor to the throne.Viro said:
Viro
Registered
Hey, who said anything about liking Bush? I don't like Bush, and I think some of the decisions that he makes are really stupid. But that doesn't mean that I like seeing him slandered without any real facts like what Michael Moore does in his film (the Saudi connection, etc).
Now its very easy to point fingers, and with the benefit of retrospect there probably wasn't any WMDs in Iraq. However, the war is now over, Iraq is being occupied and many people are dying almost daily, Americans and non-Americans alike. The message of Michael Moore's film is "The war is a mistake. Vote out anyone who supports the war." That's his opinion, and that's well and good. But what does he expect the world to do now? Pull out troops from Iraq? Let the place fall into anarchy? Destabilize the entire region?
F 9/11 is a good film, and its a very entertaining watch. However, that's all it is. Entertaining.
Now its very easy to point fingers, and with the benefit of retrospect there probably wasn't any WMDs in Iraq. However, the war is now over, Iraq is being occupied and many people are dying almost daily, Americans and non-Americans alike. The message of Michael Moore's film is "The war is a mistake. Vote out anyone who supports the war." That's his opinion, and that's well and good. But what does he expect the world to do now? Pull out troops from Iraq? Let the place fall into anarchy? Destabilize the entire region?
F 9/11 is a good film, and its a very entertaining watch. However, that's all it is. Entertaining.
bigbadbill
Flaccid Member
Viro said:
I don't think we can pull our troops from Iraq now (or ever!?!)
I don't feel that the film's message is "Vote out anyone who supports the war" ... the messages I got:
"What really happened in Florida during the election?"
"How can our President be allowed to use his CIA connections to obtain information for private use?"
"What in the hell did this guy get us into in Iraq, this will never end now!"
and the scene that stuck with me the most was the President's Limo speeding away from the American people protesting during the Inaugural Parade. "Never had an American president been received this way by the people"
There were alot of FACTS exposed here that I for one was not aware of. There were alot of things put in simply for entertainment value. Michael Moore trying to get Senator's to enlist their kids to serve in Iraq had no real relevance to the Bush administration, but it was funny as hell and it made you think.
As far as this film being "propaganda", yes this is wide spread information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating a cause. This is an election year, there is "propaganda" running in 2 minute spots between every sitcom, talk show and reality T.V. show out!
You shouldn't simply dismiss information as "propaganda" because it differs from your own point of view.
Viro
Registered
You're right. But then how much of the film was spent with the corporal who was risking a jail sentence because he won't go back to Iraq, or the (very emotional) mother who lost her son in the war?
I'm not dismissing it as propaganda simply because it differs from my own point of view. There are truths in there like what you pointed out. But then there's a lot of conjecture that is nothing more than speculation. For example the Saudi connection, what Bush was thinking when he first heard of the attack (OK, sitting down with a picture book isn't really becoming of the US president, but did Bush deserve all that MM was saying went through his head?), dining with the Saudi ambassador.
Then there's the bit where MM brilliantly plays the emotions of people, Iraqis who have lost their loved ones and of course, the mother who lost her son in Iraq. Showing such strong emotions on screen is meant to elicit strong emotions from the viewers and drive them to respond in a certain way. And that's where I think MM demonstrates a touch of brilliance in working up people's emotions in order to get people to see things his way.
Even so, there are facts in the film that I didn't know about and really reveals a lot about the competence of the Bush administration. For example, letting all the bin Ladens leave. Like, wha? Or completely ignoring the terror threat that was in a document sent to the President in August.
I'm not dismissing it as propaganda simply because it differs from my own point of view. There are truths in there like what you pointed out. But then there's a lot of conjecture that is nothing more than speculation. For example the Saudi connection, what Bush was thinking when he first heard of the attack (OK, sitting down with a picture book isn't really becoming of the US president, but did Bush deserve all that MM was saying went through his head?), dining with the Saudi ambassador.
Then there's the bit where MM brilliantly plays the emotions of people, Iraqis who have lost their loved ones and of course, the mother who lost her son in Iraq. Showing such strong emotions on screen is meant to elicit strong emotions from the viewers and drive them to respond in a certain way. And that's where I think MM demonstrates a touch of brilliance in working up people's emotions in order to get people to see things his way.
Even so, there are facts in the film that I didn't know about and really reveals a lot about the competence of the Bush administration. For example, letting all the bin Ladens leave. Like, wha? Or completely ignoring the terror threat that was in a document sent to the President in August.
scruffy
Notorious Olive Counter
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Propaganda \Prop`a*gan"da\, n. [Abbrev. fr. L. de propaganda
fide: cf. F. propagande. See {Propagate}.]
1. (R. C. Ch.)
(a) A congregation of cardinals, established in 1622,
charged with the management of missions.
(b) The college of the Propaganda, instituted by Urban
VIII. (1623-1644) to educate priests for missions in
all parts of the world.
2. Hence, any organization or plan for spreading a particular
doctrine or a system of principles.
From WordNet (r) 2.0:
propaganda
n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some
cause
Just because something is propaganda doesn't in any way imply it isn't true - it's just information meant for propagating, and which supports some point of view or cause.
Propaganda \Prop`a*gan"da\, n. [Abbrev. fr. L. de propaganda
fide: cf. F. propagande. See {Propagate}.]
1. (R. C. Ch.)
(a) A congregation of cardinals, established in 1622,
charged with the management of missions.
(b) The college of the Propaganda, instituted by Urban
VIII. (1623-1644) to educate priests for missions in
all parts of the world.
2. Hence, any organization or plan for spreading a particular
doctrine or a system of principles.
From WordNet (r) 2.0:
propaganda
n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some
cause
Just because something is propaganda doesn't in any way imply it isn't true - it's just information meant for propagating, and which supports some point of view or cause.
TommyWillB
Registered
Ha ha...baggss said:
Streisand....
Ouch...
Ha ha..
What an insult...
Why not just come all the way out and just call me fag... Which I am.
Yep... Running off to homo-land right now...
scruffy
Notorious Olive Counter
fryke - propaganda may well have have a negative or disapproving connotation for even longer than that, but it doesn't change the meaning. Propaganda is certainly generally one-sided - otherwise it wouldn't be as effective at swaying people's opinion - but that's all.
My point was - you can't just say something is "propaganda" and then act as though you've refuted the facts in it - something can easily be both true, and propaganda.
When I was volunteering in an election campaign about 4-5 years ago, people regularly talked about propaganda - "I had some new propaganda printed up, who'll put up some posters?" It's not that we were lying in our posters and leaflets - just that we acknowledged that we were listing only facts that backed up the position of our party, so we used the appropriate word for them: propaganda.
Incidentally - Wordnet 2.0 is © 2003 Princeton University. The American Heritage® Dictionary of English , Fourth Edition, © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, and Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. have essentially the same definition in them (I just checked dictionary.com). So it's not that the definition is somehow not current.
My point was - you can't just say something is "propaganda" and then act as though you've refuted the facts in it - something can easily be both true, and propaganda.
When I was volunteering in an election campaign about 4-5 years ago, people regularly talked about propaganda - "I had some new propaganda printed up, who'll put up some posters?" It's not that we were lying in our posters and leaflets - just that we acknowledged that we were listing only facts that backed up the position of our party, so we used the appropriate word for them: propaganda.
Incidentally - Wordnet 2.0 is © 2003 Princeton University. The American Heritage® Dictionary of English , Fourth Edition, © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, and Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. have essentially the same definition in them (I just checked dictionary.com). So it's not that the definition is somehow not current.
You're moving to Canada? Glad to have you!TommyWillB said:
bigbadbill
Flaccid Member
Is that actual campaign footage?