Because there were so many lies in it, no one knew what to believe. Good work american people
EDIT: Holy sh**. I guess everyone wants to believe Moore(by my rating) I can't change your opinion, i was just presenting the other side people. Just check it out
2006-08-29 01:34:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
13⤋
Because Moore is a poor film maker. He is unable to present the facts which hinder his arguement. Only presenting one side of a debate shows people that you are too stupid to make an effective arguement for your side. Points and counterpoints is important to every arguement.
I could make a strong arguement saying Hitler was a good guy (I won't because I would be a bad person) and still present the facts that he killed millions of innocent people. I just need to make the good parts seem 100 times better than the bad parts.
Also, Moore heavily edits the "interviews" leaving out the parts which don't help his arguements. Anyone can see exactly where he took parts out, but some people choose not to notice this.
Regardless of whether Moore is right or wrong people see that he is an idiot and ignore him like intelligent people should.
2006-08-29 08:38:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
49% of Americans are fearful enough to vote for an affible military deserter and warmonger over a decorated war hero. Combined with voter suppression efforts by the ohio Greedy Obtuse Perverts in Ohio and you have another shrub "win." Michael Moore had nothing to do with that.
2006-08-29 09:52:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Moore is no brighter than Bush- I hate that one scene when he shows the soldier talking about killing. I'm sorry but I was there, we were not thrilled to do what we were doing. The portrayal is false which leaves me to believe that that movie is just a load of crap, just like Bush.
2006-08-29 08:34:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by John R 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a liberal movie made by a whiny filmaker that finds the most unusual facts and puts them in a movie against bush (The "and he sleep that night on a warm comfortable....bed" part was insanly pointless). He also put people in that he claimed were going to be in a movie to recruit people for the military, and in the end fooled them and they ended up as points for attacking bush.
2006-08-29 08:34:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by iam"A"godofsheep 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
I think that many people watched the movie, became enraged, but did not vote. But it cannot alone be blamed on those who choose not to vote. The other candidate(s) can get more votes but at the end of the day it is not the voter's decision. The big wigs decide and for some reason they chose Bush. For this reason, I will not be voting ever again.
2006-08-29 08:37:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Amazon 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
The Republicriminals think they are perfect and that all THEIR propaganda is truth.
Yes, Moore engages in a lot of spin in his movies. But it's a LOT closer to the truth than the Republican propaganda being spread these days.
Hilarious how more than half the population hasn't clued in. Actualy, no, it's very sad.
2006-08-29 08:59:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It certainly was a biased film, but it was also an important one. People have the right to see the other side of the issue, not just the one that Fox News shows the American public.
2006-08-29 08:34:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Futanari 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Michael Moore is far left although he certainly is funny. Most people in the US are way right of Moore.
I don't believe in right and left myself except when I am driving of course.
2006-08-29 08:31:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Most Americans are smart enough to recognize a snow job when they see it.
Moore is the master of selective editing, misquoting, and misleading voiceovers.
I can't believe people applaud him for using Hollywood as a podium for his own political agenda.
2006-08-29 08:32:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by cirestan 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
For someone who seems to be so against our government, Moore lacks the ability to understand the bill of rights or the preamble in particular.
He is anti-gun. Being anti-gun is essentially being pro-enslavement.
2006-08-29 08:37:54
·
answer #11
·
answered by cat_Rett_98 4
·
2⤊
1⤋