Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on July 16, 2004, 10:32:39 AM
-
yep michale moore again.
just spent the most uncomfortable smoke break. 3 people were talking about how much they learned from that 9-11 movie.
how it made so much sence, and on and on about how real it was.
made me physically upset to my stomach to hear these people talk about it, and telling from what they were saying they have never researched into any of it themselves.
they were the kind of people you see that believe all they read in a magazine, and just take what they are fed as being the only possible truth.
no i didnt waste my breath getting into an argument with 3 dummies that wouldnt know the first thing of real politics.
heck they even said they dont want computerized balloting for the next election becuase then the republicians could more easily "hack" the system and rig the election again. yet the complained about how anyone could use a different balloting system than our local one. the had no clue how people in FL could not read a ballot (they obviouosly have never seen a punch out ballot with the slot you slid it into).
i hate people.
-
Originally posted by JB73
yep michale moore again.
just spent the most uncomfortable smoke break. 3 people were talking about how much they learned from that 9-11 movie.
how it made so much sence, and on and on about how real it was.
made me physically upset to my stomach to hear these people talk about it, and telling from what they were saying they have never researched into any of it themselves.
they were the kind of people you see that believe all they read in a magazine, and just take what they are fed as being the only possible truth.
no i didnt waste my breath getting into an argument with 3 dummies that wouldnt know the first thing of real politics.
heck they even said they dont want computerized balloting for the next election becuase then the republicians could more easily "hack" the system and rig the election again. yet the complained about how anyone could use a different balloting system than our local one. the had no clue how people in FL could not read a ballot (they obviouosly have never seen a punch out ballot with the slot you slid it into).
i hate people.
They are just ignorant, you're not. Don't hate, we're too young for that. <>
Karaya
-
You seem to feel pretty strong emotion about this. Have you seen it? There seems to be no shortage of people having opinions on things they don't actually know about.
For the record, I haven't seen it yet and I'm not sure I'll go out of my way to after his thuggery to Charlton Heston in his last movie. My objection is apolitical.
-
Sounds like word is getting around. Keep us posted!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You seem to feel pretty strong emotion about this. Have you seen it? There seems to be no shortage of people having opinions on things they don't actually know about.
no i have not seen it, nor will i. i will not let a red cent of mine go toward's his insane babbelings.
to go see it is to promote his ideals and lies. thats all there is to it. if you give money to it you might as well donate to whatever group susan sarandon heads up or whatever.
the onlr reason michael moore is on this planet is to one day fertalize a small plot of ground. i do not wish him dead, nor do i wish harm to him, i am meerly stating that pushing up daisies will be the most significant, and meaningful thing he ever does.
to single out the comment:
There seems to be no shortage of people having opinions on things they don't actually know about i take offense to that, because i choost not to text political debate you people here does not mean i am uneducated in politics.
i find it easier to spend my time doing something constructive than wasting oxygen against soapbox-standing liberals.
-
JB, you've got a cool avatar
-
Originally posted by JB73
yep michale moore again.
just spent the most uncomfortable smoke break. 3 people were talking about how much they learned from that 9-11 movie.
how it made so much sence, and on and on about how real it was.
made me physically upset to my stomach to hear these people talk about it, and telling from what they were saying they have never researched into any of it themselves.
they were the kind of people you see that believe all they read in a magazine, and just take what they are fed as being the only possible truth.
no i didnt waste my breath getting into an argument with 3 dummies that wouldnt know the first thing of real politics.
heck they even said they dont want computerized balloting for the next election becuase then the republicians could more easily "hack" the system and rig the election again. yet the complained about how anyone could use a different balloting system than our local one. the had no clue how people in FL could not read a ballot (they obviouosly have never seen a punch out ballot with the slot you slid it into).
i hate people.
(http://www.gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/06012004/crayon.jpg)
-
Some are still praising Moore? Oh well, here's all I have to say about that:
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly
-
Originally posted by JB73
they were the kind of people you see that believe all they read in a magazine, and just take what they are fed as being the only possible truth.
As opposed to the people that form opinions strong enough to cause an upset stomach without any firsthand information whatsoever.
Please.. See the movie. Take notes. Document what is false and then debate away. If you don't want to give Moore any money, download the film. I'm sure it can be found.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As opposed to the people that form opinions strong enough to cause an upset stomach without any firsthand information whatsoever.
Please.. See the movie. Take notes. Document what is false and then debate away. If you don't want to give Moore any money, download the film. I'm sure it can be found.
OR...read something that will give you a platform from which you can speak:
F9/11 FACTS (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/)
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
OR...read something that will give you a platform from which you can speak:
F9/11 FACTS (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/)
I saw it. Not because I like that big gas bag but because I think there's something to gain from knowing as much as possible about those with whom you don't agree.
What I can't believe is how many people fail to understand the difference between a documentary and propeganda.
Moore isn't nor ever was a documentarian. He's a propegandist, perhaps the best since the days of Hitler. Of course, documentary sounds way better when you're giving away Academy awards.
-
...and strangely enough, some people think a documentary can't be both propaganda and non-fiction at the same time.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
OR...read something that will give you a platform from which you can speak:
F9/11 FACTS (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/)
how about this:
http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/F911%20Moore.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/C18/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1164665/posts
We can post links back and forth but if you buy into the "Facts" of F911 you need to remove your head from the sand!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
...and strangely enough, some people think a documentary can't be both propaganda and non-fiction at the same time.
Documentaries are designed to inform, not sway. In that sense, no, a documentary cannot be propagandistic. On the same token, propaganda doesn't have to be fictional.
In reality, almost all propaganda contains heavy doses of truth. Some truth mixed in with assumptions, garnished with some tactful leaps of logic combine to create some very potent material indeed.
propaganda's use of slanted factual information to achieve a goal is what makes it frightening. It's what causes the mobs to rise up. It's what causes entire populations to become scapegoats. It's what creates vehement nationalism.
Mike Moore is certainly up there with Leni Riefenstahl. Only she was prettier.
-
Ken Burns makes Documentaries...
moore makes crap
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Documentaries are designed to inform, not sway. In that sense, no, a documentary cannot be propagandistic. On the same token, propaganda doesn't have to be fictional.
In reality, almost all propaganda contains heavy doses of truth. Some truth mixed in with assumptions, garnished with some tactful leaps of logic combine to create some very potent material indeed.
propaganda's use of slanted factual information to achieve a goal is what makes it frightening. It's what causes the mobs to rise up. It's what causes entire populations to become scapegoats. It's what creates vehement nationalism.
Mike Moore is certainly up there with Leni Riefenstahl. Only she was prettier.
great explnation.
that is truly what it sounds like to me. propaganda. and frighteningly i am seeing people fall into it.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Documentaries are designed to inform, not sway. In that sense, no, a documentary cannot be propagandistic. On the same token, propaganda doesn't have to be fictional.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary), propagandist films are just one subset of the documentary category.
-
Documentaries are designed to inform, not sway. In that sense, no, a documentary cannot be propagandistic.
1. Is propagandistic a word?
2. BS
Just look up the top documentaries over the past 30 years... I betcha can find one or 2 with an ax to grind or a viewpoint.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1. Is propagandistic a word?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yes.
Well that's just fantasmigorical.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
We can post links back and forth but if you buy into the "Facts" of F911 you need to remove your head from the sand!
when you've seen the movie..we'll talk..'till then stfu
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
when you've seen the movie..we'll talk..'till then stfu
Speak for your self little boy.....I have a copy of it at home!
How errogant can you be to think that somone hasn't seen the movie or seen through alot of its BS. You must really be snowed
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Speak for your self little boy.....I have a copy of it at home!
How errogant can you be to think that somone hasn't seen the movie or seen through alot of its BS. You must really be snowed
hey brainiac...what is "errogant"?
what language is that?
...ahem..speaking of being snowed:rofl
(another grade school twit) :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
hey brainiac...what is "errogant"?
what language is that?
...ahem..speaking of being snowed:rofl
(another grade school twit) :rolleyes:
Hi, My name is xrtoronto. I can not seem to make a point so I must reduce myself to personal attacks. If somone does not agree with me I just attack them until they STFU. I may sound like a Nazi but I'm actually a libral, and a canadian one at that.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As opposed to the people that form opinions strong enough to cause an upset stomach without any firsthand information whatsoever.
Please.. See the movie. Take notes. Document what is false and then debate away. If you don't want to give Moore any money, download the film. I'm sure it can be found.
holy shreck! Sandman, you said this much kinder than I would have but I was thinking the same thing..
How helplessly ironic it is to have such a closed mind and not be capable of the mental brain power to figure this on your own before you get an upset stomach..
Uninformed bashing.. makes me ****ing sick!! How one uninformed person can judge another to be too dumb to form an opinion.. OMG what a ****ing hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
holy shreck! Sandman, you said this much kinder than I would have but I was thinking the same thing..
Yeah, but it's still too close to a personal attack for my general tastes. Debated whether to post it or not.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1. Is propagandistic a word?
2. BS
Just look up the top documentaries over the past 30 years... I betcha can find one or 2 with an ax to grind or a viewpoint.
Those one or two, in that case, qualify as the same as this one. Although the Wikipedia explanation was interesting, there's still a clear difference between 'The Majestic Golopogos Turtle' and 'Don't vote for Bush'. And even if they are in the same family, why not just be more specific and call it exactly what it is?
This movie was made to swing the voters. It's a 116 minute campaign commercial, only without the 'approved by John Kerry' note at the end.
My only question is, who's Moore gonna burn if Kerry should win? He took a shot at Clinton at the beginning of Bowling for Columbine for 'Bombing a country whose name we can hardly pronounce'... 4/20/99 was apparently one of the heaviest days of bombing we carried out over Yugoslavia.
Perhaps Moore will just go back to attacking big business. Of course, now he is big business himself.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Those one or two, in that case, qualify as the same as this one. I don't care what Wikipedia says. There's a clear difference between 'The Majestic Golopogos Turtle' and 'Don't vote for Bush'.
documentary
Fact-based film that depicts actual events and persons.
Documentaries can deal with scientific or educational topics, can be a form of journalism or social commentary, or can be a conduit for propaganda or personal expression. The term was first coined by Scottish-born filmmaker John Grierson to describe fact-based features such as Robert Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1922). Grierson's Drifters (1929) and Pare Lorentz's The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936) influenced documentary filmmaking in the 1930s. During the World War II era documentary filmmaking was a valuable propaganda tool used by all sides. Leni Riefenstahl contributed to the Nazi propaganda efforts in the 1930s; the U.S. made films such as Frank Capra's series Why We Fight (1942–45); and Britain released London Can Take It (1940). Cinéma vérité documentaries, which gained notoriety in the 1960s, emphasized a more informal and intimate relationship between camera and subject. Television became an important medium for documentary films with goals that were more journalistic (such as CBS's Harvest of Shame [1960]) and educational (such as Ken Burns's Civil War [1990]).
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=388203&query=documentary&ct=)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
documentary
Fact-based film that depicts actual events and persons.
Documentaries can deal with scientific or educational topics, can be a form of journalism or social commentary, or can be a conduit for propaganda or personal expression. The term was first coined by Scottish-born filmmaker John Grierson to describe fact-based features such as Robert Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1922). Grierson's Drifters (1929) and Pare Lorentz's The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936) influenced documentary filmmaking in the 1930s. During the World War II era documentary filmmaking was a valuable propaganda tool used by all sides. Leni Riefenstahl contributed to the Nazi propaganda efforts in the 1930s; the U.S. made films such as Frank Capra's series Why We Fight (1942–45); and Britain released London Can Take It (1940). Cinéma vérité documentaries, which gained notoriety in the 1960s, emphasized a more informal and intimate relationship between camera and subject. Television became an important medium for documentary films with goals that were more journalistic (such as CBS's Harvest of Shame [1960]) and educational (such as Ken Burns's Civil War [1990]).
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=388203&query=documentary&ct=)
Okay, Sandperson. I'll agree that propaganda can be considered a subset of documantaries... I guess we're also in agreement that Mike Moore's work belongs in that subset, and should be advertised as such.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Okay, Sandperson. I'll agree that propaganda can be considered a subset of documantaries... I guess we're also in agreement that Mike Moore's work belongs in that subset, and should be advertised as such.
Propagandistic Documentary.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Propagandistic Documentary.
:aok
Is that a 'We're in agreement :aok' a 'Whatever, idiot :aok', or a 'fine, now go F yourself :aok'?
I can never tell. I didn't read the tutorial.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Is that a 'We're in agreement :aok' a 'Whatever, idiot :aok', or a 'fine, now go F yourself :aok'?
I can never tell. I didn't read the tutorial.
I didn't realize a :aok could indicate so much. We're in agreement.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I didn't realize a :aok could indicate so much. We're in agreement.
Cool.
As for the :aok.... I often see them used as punctuation, indicating that the preceding sentence or statement is to be taken sarcastically.
-
:aok as sarcasm is a clear abuse of smilies and will be reported to the international smilies court. You are taking food from the plates of :rolleyes: kids without shame. Abosultely despicable. :aok
-
Nice winging sandman.. :aok
-
Everytime a :aok is used, Baby Jesus cries.
-SW
-
:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Stop that, I don't want to become the next Noah.
-SW
-
LOL LOL
Wulfie!!!
:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Originally posted by rpm371
(http://www.gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/06012004/crayon.jpg)
LMAO rpm :D
Seen it, was a fun movie at times... not so nice to look at at other times. Good entertaining value, no more.