Posted on 07/05/2004 4:02:41 PM PDT by Maceman
OK Freepers --
I just got a call from a friend of mine who went to see Farenheit 911 today.
She is a lawyer, but by no means a committed Democrat. She found the movie very compelling and said it has convinced her to vote for Kerry. She is very smart, but like most Americans doesn't follow politics very closely.
I need an article that is very credible, not overly partisan, and extremely well sourced and reasoned. I have seen this one, but wonder if there is anything better.
I know that there have been a lot of articles debunking the "facts" presented in this film, but I am looking for the absolute best and most comprehensive one, in the hope that she will be persuaded to change her mind.
Changing her mind will not have any impact on the election, since since we live in Massachusetts which will go for Kerry no matter how -- or even whether -- we vote. But I don't feel like listening to her telling me that Michael Moore is right for the next few months.
She is open to a reasonable argument, if I can find the right article.
Your help, as always, will be gratefully appreciated.
I still think the one you already have is the best, but Christopher Hitchens was excellent as well.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
bump
Saved for amo.
Both Bush's had severed contact with the Carlyle Group at least 5 months prior to the bin Laden family contributions.
Sorry - anyone who'd be influenced by a moive as to whom to vote for is an idiot. Run. Run away. Fast.
Then, she has a fool for a client.
IS more having a contest where he pays off 10 thousand bucks to someone who can prove a lie in Fahrenheit 911? Has someone posted such an article? I remember seeing something about it today, but I can find it.
I don't know why you would think an article presenting 50-plus deceits in the movie was not good enough. Perhaps deep down you realize your friend isn't as smart as it seems, at least politically. I have found thus far that people are seeing what they want in the movie and rejecting the rest. Good luck with your friend but my hunch is that she isn't receptive to truth if she cannot see all the lies of moore.
"WHat is the best refutation of Farenheit 911?"
A Brain!
No. She's not.
FMCDH(BITS)
bookmarked.
First, point out his lies in his previous film:
Bowling for Columbine.
Rule 12 of the AMPAS Academy Award Rules read, in relevant part:
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
As many of you have, no doubt, learned by now, Bowling for Columbine is almost purely a work of fiction and does not fit within Rule 12.
Just a few examples of how Michael Moore created an almost pure work of fiction:
He lies about the timeline of Heston's visits to to Columbine and to Mt. Morris
He claims that Heston's "cold, dead hands" speech occurred in Columbine, whereas it was actually given a year later in North Carolina
He edits Heston's words together to make him appear to say things that he never said
He edited his interview with Heston to include things that were not part of the interview -- e.g., it shows Moore calling after Heston as Heston leaves the interview, while a close study of the footage reveals that Moore's comments, allegedly to Heston, were filmed at another time (Heston never heard them)
He lies about the connection between the Klan and the NRA -- there is none
He lies in the beginning of the film about walking out of the bank with a gun, which is not possible, at the time, because Moore is a resident of NY and could not possibly have gotten a gun from the bank -- that is, unless he somehow, and convincingly, LIED about his state of residence
He edited a Bush/Quayle '88 campaign ad and then passes-off the edited version as the original
He lies about the Lockheed Martin plant near Columbine -- it produced rockets for launching satellites, not missiles
Etc.
EXPOSED: The Left's biggest (and we do mean biggest) liar and hypocrite, Michael Moore
Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke
Oscar-winning filmmaker and bestselling author Michael Moore has made a king's fortune railing against the hypocrisy he epitomizes. In "documentaries" like Bowling for Columbine and the soon-to-be-released Fahrenheit 9/11, and in "nonfiction" books like Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore has proved himself over and over to be the most shamelessly dishonest -- if crudely effective -- propagandist since Joseph Goebbels and Nazi documentarian Leni Riefenstahl. Now, in Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man, David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke dish it back hard to the fervent prophet of the far left, turning a careful eye on Moore's use of doctored film footage, manipulated facts, and spliced speeches to tamper with the truth.
"Postwar filmmakers gave us the documentary, Rob Reiner gave us the mockumentary, and Moore initiated a third genre, the crockumentary," write the authors. Drawing from the archives of their hugely popular websites MooreLies.com and MooreExposed.com, Hardy and Clarke intrepidly expose:
• How Moore pulls off a "man of the people" image so at odds with his lifestyle as a fabulously wealthy Manhattanite
• Moore's upper-middle-class origins: how this self-described son of factory workers from Flint, Michigan was anything but
• Why Moore shows the greatest disdain for that which he actually is: "a very rich, pasty white American male"
• Why Warner Brothers, the distributor of Moore's first film, Roger & Me, was forced to pay legal damages to a man portrayed by Moore in a false light
• Why Moore's Oscar-winning anti-gun-rights documentary, Bowling for Columbine, is "as manipulative as totalitarian propaganda"
• How, in Columbine, Moore made Charlton Heston -- once a leader of the civil rights movement, a personal friend of Martin Luther King, and a regular guest speaker for the Congress of Racial Equality -- come across as a gun-crazy racist, all by distorting the evidence and "creative" editing
• Moore the Prophet: how he has fared in some of his high-profile predictions, such as his 2002 declaration that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il was about to have "a change of heart"
• Reported in full: Moore's hateful and racist (anti-white) remarks while on a speaking tour in England just after 9/11
• The hilarious story behind Moore's grandstanding at the Academy Awards -- at which he was loudly booed, to his evident surprise
• How Moore bends the truth to fit his predetermined thesis, creating a false impression for a wide audience that takes in his message
• How Moore's career and public persona fit the textbooks definition of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, pervading his works with a truly pathological combination of overwhelming egotism and self-loathing
Loaded with the kind of accurate, honest reporting to which Moore is notoriously averse, and laced with the irreverent wit he only thinks he has, Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man will have you asking: "Dude, where's your integrity?"
Be one of the first to own what is bound to be one of the most talked about conservative books of the summer.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060763957/terraspacedock
Tell her if she liked that movie, then maybe she can find a classic out on video tape at Blockbluster that she might like as well. It called "Triumph of the Will".
You have asked us to give facts and truth to a female lawyer. You could have the truth pumped up her a$$ and she wouldn't know it.
in case nobody else mentions this...
On today's Michael Medved Show, Medved pointed out that about the first third
of the film is one big internal inconsistency.
This is because it spends lots of time and footage telling the audience that Dubya is
just a lackey of The House of Saud.
And then Dubya and Co. roll into Iraq even though the House of Saud is begging them to
not do it!
Also, I've heard a recent issue of Newsweek has a pretty good listing of inconsistencies
in the film.
She's more than gullible, plus if she sues you, you can use as your defense that she believes lard butt, and the term caveat emptor is not in her vocabulary.
BMP for later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.