06-27-2004, 12:46 AM
It is..very, very good. Opinions respected or not, he did an amazing job on this film. There are a couple of scenes, that no matter what possible context you could place them in, makes people wonder how on earth GW Bush got elected president. There are some downright funny, funny scenes in the movie, and it definitely played with the emotions inside of me, and I don't have much in the way of emotion usually.
There's already attacks on the "credibility/truth" of the film, the biggest attacks I've seen are at best hypocritical, at worst, blatantly lying. Moore definitely skirts the edge on i'd say two parts, one being the congress' kids in the armed forces, and the second portraying iraq far better off then it probably was pre-war, both of which are semantic attacks (Most people in congress dont have their kids in the armed forces, and Iraq, infrastructure wise and as far as the population is currently concerned, is worse off right now then it was pre-war). Ironically, Moore never argues that what he says is balanced in any way, shape or form, but most of the attacks claim to be coming from a "balanced" position, but use the same techniques Moore uses, in a way, discrediting itself. The biggest one is probably attacking Moore on semantics in one breath and attacking him for then actually being semantic in the next breath (aka, nail him on details in one fact, then whine about how he didnt get the bigger picture because he was following details).
If you guys actually find a legitimate retort, post it here, I'd be interested in seeing it. No, don't post the Slate one, that's a horrible argument that actually doesn't prove much of anything if read. (I'll post the link of the discrediting of the Slate article if someone asks)
There's already attacks on the "credibility/truth" of the film, the biggest attacks I've seen are at best hypocritical, at worst, blatantly lying. Moore definitely skirts the edge on i'd say two parts, one being the congress' kids in the armed forces, and the second portraying iraq far better off then it probably was pre-war, both of which are semantic attacks (Most people in congress dont have their kids in the armed forces, and Iraq, infrastructure wise and as far as the population is currently concerned, is worse off right now then it was pre-war). Ironically, Moore never argues that what he says is balanced in any way, shape or form, but most of the attacks claim to be coming from a "balanced" position, but use the same techniques Moore uses, in a way, discrediting itself. The biggest one is probably attacking Moore on semantics in one breath and attacking him for then actually being semantic in the next breath (aka, nail him on details in one fact, then whine about how he didnt get the bigger picture because he was following details).
If you guys actually find a legitimate retort, post it here, I'd be interested in seeing it. No, don't post the Slate one, that's a horrible argument that actually doesn't prove much of anything if read. (I'll post the link of the discrediting of the Slate article if someone asks)