It wasn't Clinton supporters that stopped the movie it was Clinton himself that stopped the movie. And I agree. The movie makes everyone out to look bad, from what I understand, not just Clinton.
2006-09-10 15:26:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by FaerieWhings 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm keeping an open mind until I see it.
However, what's being said is that the movie was pre-screened for members of the Republican Party, that the Republican Party approved of the contents, that the Democrats found out about the contents only because those contents were "leaked" to them by concerned people who had seen it and knew that parts of the movie were highly inaccurate, and that the movie is being shown without commercial interruption over two nights.
So, of course, "Cyn-ical moi" suspects that this whole thing is going to turn out to be some big pre-election promo for the Republican National Committee. Am I saying that the RNC directly paid for this movie's airing? No, but I'd suspect that the nominal sponsors are big supporters of the Republican Party.
Someone mentioned "Fahrenheit 911." I agree: That was character assassination. But do you expect anything of a fair, balanced, and respectful nature from the likes of Michael Moore? Nope! No more than one could expect suchlike from Ann Coulter. And the people who went to see "F911" paid to go see it--it wasn't being screened into their living rooms, free of charge (and even commercial-free, to boot!).
People-in-general are pretty credulous. If something purports to be a documentary, the vast majority of them wil take it as the Gospel Truth. That's why it's so important to make sure that "docu-dramas" are carefuly labeled as such. This particular "docu-drama" was not being promoted as such, at least not until the Democrats started crying, "Foul!" I saw those promos, and it definitely WAS being promoted as an entirely-true-to-the-facts "documentary."
2006-09-10 22:45:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Cyn 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yep, Michael Moore can say whatever he wants, but this movie has to be censored?! Bush was president for 8 months before 9/11 and Clinton was president for 8 YEARS. Yet, it's still all Bush's fault?
2006-09-10 22:30:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Amy H 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Oh how soon they forget.
Does anyone recall the Reagan mini series that was to air on CBS? And the Republicans got all upity due to what they said were a bunch of "lies" in the series? Anyone??
Easily forgotten when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it??
2006-09-10 23:04:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I guess what ppl are thinking is that no matter what, we, American's will NEVER get the truth. No one knows it, except the President and his 'homies'...we are left in the dark, and y'know what? I think that a majority of the American's rather be there...in the dark where they don't know anything.
2006-09-10 22:26:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by texasgrants 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yeah, word up. If the series had been anti-bush, none of this would be happening. It's a case of the liberal media using it's power to influence what america sees.
2006-09-10 22:27:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Wocka wocka 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
Clinton was too worried about other things.
2006-09-10 22:26:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jen G 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush is the biggest terrorist this world has ever known
2006-09-10 22:26:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by justme 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
thats interesting.
2006-09-10 22:25:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by I ♥ Nick Jonas 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
if you say so
2006-09-10 22:30:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bob 4
·
0⤊
1⤋