That way Al Gore and Michael Moore don't get in the way of people making good REAL documentaries, that aren't STRONGLY one-sided and edited to promote a certain point of view.
I think "The Day After Tomorrow" had more truth than "An Inconvenient Truth"
2007-02-26 05:58:10 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, why not?
I about gagged when they talked about the "best" documentary. It's not the best, it's the one the most Academy members voted for. There's a big difference.
I wonder who they would have voted for if Moore had one in the running this year???
2007-02-26 06:02:45 · answer #1 · answered by Sean 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First, I would like to say, "I am not an Al Gore supporter, nor am I a Democrat" but, I am concerned about the condition of the planet. I am 63 years old and not too likely to be around when the "Ship hits the sand" if no action is taken. However, my children may and my grandchildren certainly will.
Aside from the obvious political barbs thrown at the Republican Party and George Bush in particular. The presentation was excellent, the data provided was very thought provoking, and the actual pictures, of the before and after were extremely attention getting.
I think you better watch the movie and save your comments until after. This is not a political party crises, this is a real crises for all mankind!
2007-02-26 17:31:18 · answer #2 · answered by William W 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole point of a documentary is to document the findings. I wish this country would focus more on education because you really look like an idiot for your question. Just because you don't like Al Gore or Michael Moore, that doesn't mean that Global Warming isn't real. Wake up and get a clue. Ignorance is the easiest thing to fix. Thank you and may GOD help you.
2007-02-26 14:02:13 · answer #3 · answered by cookie 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Be HONEST! Have you actually seen An Inconvenient Truth? If so, can you give us any two elements of plot? For example, Gore relates events and places from his past. Can you tell us any two examples to let us know that you're on the level.
I didn't think so.
Another Con that has formed their opinion by ignoring the 650,000 year record of scientifically-derived temperature/CO2 data presented by Gore in favor of the rantings of a hate radio host that has taken 650,000 oxycontin pills.
Truly despicable!
2007-02-26 14:06:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow! You must have been one very busy person going through all of that scientific data to come to the conclusion that is was either collected incorrectly or presented with the bias you speak of.
Please share you interpretation of the hard factual data that you have collected that disputes the findings shown in the documentary.
Or would that be too .......
INCONVENIENT!!?
2007-02-26 14:07:24 · answer #5 · answered by lunatic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would be money that you did NOT see either documentary. The irony of you question is that most people that complain the loudest are the ones that have not seen the films.
2007-02-26 14:02:36 · answer #6 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
And which 'real' documentraies are those? The ones that aren't motivated with an agenda, or biased towards their research? I would LOVE to know which ones those are...
2007-02-26 14:03:10 · answer #7 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes...and the official "911 Commission Report" should be the winner!
2007-02-26 14:02:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think those that went to the trouble and expense to do real documentaries would be eternally grateful.
2007-02-26 14:01:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I agree with your point. It is sad that they have to resort to distortion of facts and fabrication to further their ill conceived political agenda.
2007-02-26 14:02:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋