Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Food Eater Lad · 09-22-2003, 03:58 PM

The article where Spongemike "answers" his critics is heavy on namecalling, but lacking in actual answers (as usual).

The bank where he opened the CD required a $5000 deposit into a longterm CD.
He seems to think that some nefarious bank robber is going to come in and deposit $5000 in order to obtain a weapon to commit crimes. This is ridiculous.
Has anyone ever heard of a bank robber depositing money into a bank?
If a bank robber has $5000, why wouldn't he use that to purchase a more suitable weapon prior to entering the bank.
Has anyone ever heard of a bank robber using a bolt action deer rifle to rob a bank? The bank offered other types of sporting goods in their promotion such as golf clubs. He intentionally decieves the viewers by trying to make the bank's managment and employees look wreckless and irresponsible, when they have done nothing wrong, dangerous, or illegal.

As for the Martin Murrietta boondoggle...
Spongemike tries to make the lame point that:
"Gee, maybe these kids went-off their rockers and started killing people because the grown-ups in their town make weapons of mass destruction."
Well, it has been exposed that this is a lie. Sorry, Spongemike, it just doesn't wash. A recon satellite is NOT a "weapon of mass destruction".

For the last time: Osama Bin Laden was not "trained by the CIA".
That's bunk. During the Soviet-Afghan war, the CIA provided weapons and funding to the Mujahedin mainly through the Pakistani Intelligence service. This aid mostly went to very pro-wester forces under the leadership of Akmed Shah Masood, who later rose to lead the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden was already wealthy and had his own funding.

He did not address his spurious assertion that: "the U.S. government gave billions of dollars in financial aid to the taliban."
Again, just Moore bunk.
That money was given to the UN for humanitarian aid in Afghanistan, to be used for agricultural and medical purposes. It was administered through the UN and non-governmental agencies.

Apparently, anyone who disagrees with Moore and points out his mendacity is automatically a "Gun nut". So, he believes that he doesn't have to address those inconvenient facts.

He also uses the term "gun deaths" and neglects to tell us that included in that number are deaths caused by self defence. I assume that means that self defence is not a valid reason to use a gun?

My point:
The entire point of Michael Moore's movie (documentary) was to examine American's "culture of violence" and try to divine the reason that Americans are shooting each other at higher rates than in other industrialized nations.
He attempts to find reasons, such as:
Violent music
Violent Video games
Violent movies
The NRA
Easy access to guns
The Militia movement
Charleton Heston
Defense Contractors
K-Mart
Bank (handing out "free" guns)

He asserts through his movie that the big bad boogyman is America itself. That America has a bloodthisty history based on abnormal paranoia and racism.

The facts, however, seem to allude Spongemike.
He seems to miss the rather obvious culprits, which include:
Criminals
the Drug Trade
a lenient criminal justice system
Repeat Felons
Street Gangs

Considering that 75% of violent crime in the U.S. is committed by repeat felons who have been released from prison, maybe....just MAYBE, he might want to examine the penal system's parole, probabtion, and early release policies.
MAYBE, he could even interview some CRIMINALS and ask them why they committed murder?
Instead, he concentrates on people who have never committed a crime and are completely law-abiding citizens. (Kmart manager, Bank employees, etc)

THAT is Moore's schtick! He takes his preconcieved notions and manufactures a movie around them, and disguises it as a documentary. He doesn't do research or examine data, or let facts get in the way of a "good" joke.
Example: Moore Ambush's Charleton Heston about the Kayla Roland shooting which occurred in an elementary school in Mt. Morris, Michigan; as if it is Charleton Heston's fault.
Moore fails to tell his viewers that:
-The gun used to kill Kayla Roland was stolen.
-The murderer was the young nephew of a crack dealer who had bought the gun in exchange for drugs.
-The young shooter's Mother, Grandmother, and Uncle were criminals with records.
-The young shooter was living in his uncle's crack house and had access to drugs, guns, and ammo.
-The family's entire livlihood was a criminal enterprise.

But somehow, to Spongemike....It's all Charleton Heston's fault.
Did it ever occurr to Spongemike to maybe go and interview the crackdealing uncle who left a loaded automatic pistol and drugs lying around
where his nephew could get ahold of them? Huh? Just maybe?
Of course not....it's much easier to verbally ambush and 80 year old man and make him look silly on film.
Plus, Spongemike knows that if he pisses-off that crack dealer he would probably get his fat ass shot off.
THAT's what it has to do with Moore's lying.

09-22-2003, 03:58 PM	#26 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	The article where Spongemike "answers" his critics is heavy on namecalling, but lacking in actual answers (as usual). The bank where he opened the CD required a $5000 deposit into a longterm CD. He seems to think that some nefarious bank robber is going to come in and deposit $5000 in order to obtain a weapon to commit crimes. This is ridiculous. Has anyone ever heard of a bank robber depositing money into a bank? If a bank robber has $5000, why wouldn't he use that to purchase a more suitable weapon prior to entering the bank. Has anyone ever heard of a bank robber using a bolt action deer rifle to rob a bank? The bank offered other types of sporting goods in their promotion such as golf clubs. He intentionally decieves the viewers by trying to make the bank's managment and employees look wreckless and irresponsible, when they have done nothing wrong, dangerous, or illegal. As for the Martin Murrietta boondoggle... Spongemike tries to make the lame point that: "Gee, maybe these kids went-off their rockers and started killing people because the grown-ups in their town make weapons of mass destruction." Well, it has been exposed that this is a lie. Sorry, Spongemike, it just doesn't wash. A recon satellite is NOT a "weapon of mass destruction". For the last time: Osama Bin Laden was not "trained by the CIA". That's bunk. During the Soviet-Afghan war, the CIA provided weapons and funding to the Mujahedin mainly through the Pakistani Intelligence service. This aid mostly went to very pro-wester forces under the leadership of Akmed Shah Masood, who later rose to lead the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden was already wealthy and had his own funding. He did not address his spurious assertion that: "the U.S. government gave billions of dollars in financial aid to the taliban." Again, just Moore bunk. That money was given to the UN for humanitarian aid in Afghanistan, to be used for agricultural and medical purposes. It was administered through the UN and non-governmental agencies. Apparently, anyone who disagrees with Moore and points out his mendacity is automatically a "Gun nut". So, he believes that he doesn't have to address those inconvenient facts. He also uses the term "gun deaths" and neglects to tell us that included in that number are deaths caused by self defence. I assume that means that self defence is not a valid reason to use a gun? My point: The entire point of Michael Moore's movie (documentary) was to examine American's "culture of violence" and try to divine the reason that Americans are shooting each other at higher rates than in other industrialized nations. He attempts to find reasons, such as: Violent music Violent Video games Violent movies The NRA Easy access to guns The Militia movement Charleton Heston Defense Contractors K-Mart Bank (handing out "free" guns) He asserts through his movie that the big bad boogyman is America itself. That America has a bloodthisty history based on abnormal paranoia and racism. The facts, however, seem to allude Spongemike. He seems to miss the rather obvious culprits, which include: Criminals the Drug Trade a lenient criminal justice system Repeat Felons Street Gangs Considering that 75% of violent crime in the U.S. is committed by repeat felons who have been released from prison, maybe....just MAYBE, he might want to examine the penal system's parole, probabtion, and early release policies. MAYBE, he could even interview some CRIMINALS and ask them why they committed murder? Instead, he concentrates on people who have never committed a crime and are completely law-abiding citizens. (Kmart manager, Bank employees, etc) THAT is Moore's schtick! He takes his preconcieved notions and manufactures a movie around them, and disguises it as a documentary. He doesn't do research or examine data, or let facts get in the way of a "good" joke. Example: Moore Ambush's Charleton Heston about the Kayla Roland shooting which occurred in an elementary school in Mt. Morris, Michigan; as if it is Charleton Heston's fault. Moore fails to tell his viewers that: -The gun used to kill Kayla Roland was stolen. -The murderer was the young nephew of a crack dealer who had bought the gun in exchange for drugs. -The young shooter's Mother, Grandmother, and Uncle were criminals with records. -The young shooter was living in his uncle's crack house and had access to drugs, guns, and ammo. -The family's entire livlihood was a criminal enterprise. But somehow, to Spongemike....It's all Charleton Heston's fault. Did it ever occurr to Spongemike to maybe go and interview the crackdealing uncle who left a loaded automatic pistol and drugs lying around where his nephew could get ahold of them? Huh? Just maybe? Of course not....it's much easier to verbally ambush and 80 year old man and make him look silly on film. Plus, Spongemike knows that if he pisses-off that crack dealer he would probably get his fat ass shot off. THAT's what it has to do with Moore's lying. Last edited by Food Eater Lad; 09-22-2003 at 04:10 PM..