How do you think parents in Columbine who work at Lockheed feel when someone tells them THEIR JOB was the possible cause of their kids' murders?

You think that's funny?

/raises hands

you got me--that's exactly what I said. I think it's funny.

Actually you said "the shit just keeps getting better!".

Anyway, if Mr. Moore made comedies, finding his films laughable would not be a cause for concern. Unfortunately, he purports to make fact-based documentaries.

The only film that Moore made that was not funny was Canadian Bacon.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jimmy4
[B]The USA didn't do shoddy research. They've relied on intel from every single major country (yes, France and Germany included) that said Iraq had WMD's and likely had not destroyed them. They also relied on the British intelligence that the British still say is true. There has been no evidence of WMD's yet, but many UN weapon inspectors have said many times how easy they are to hide. Even though, if no WMD's are found, the Coalition acted on intel acknowledged by all of the major world powers.

Dude, c'mon. WMD's are the currently hiding in the same bunker that Peter Pan and the Tooth Fairy occupy. The whole thing is a farce. Rice said in early 2001 that Saddam had been disarmed and was no threat. Im glad that in Britain they are actually angrily following up all the deceit and Blair might actually lose his job over it. I wish the patriotic citizens of the US would do the same.

Dude, c'mon. Even democrats can be quoted in 2001 saying we need to get rid of Saddam.

Except of course that MM lied there as well.

The Waterton plant produces rockets for satellites.

It hasn't produced missles since it produced MX missles in the early 80's...before Kliebold and Harris were even born.

"Boohooo Moore pulled the gun lobby's pants down, man are we pissed now. He wasn't right, you know, look, here's a grammatic error, and here is proof that one of the scenes might have been cut for dramatic effect."

Jesus, some of you need to listen to yourself blabbering. Moore makes his own case most brilliantly, and let me put attention to an important fact he pointed out:

There has been no law suits.

Why? is it because the NRA are too poor to sue? Maybe they have such high standards that they will only sue in extreme cases, even though someone is, as some people here say: blatantly lying to damage them. Or maybe there has been no lawsuits because:

THERE ARE NO EVIDENCE OF LIES, DECEPTION OR OTHERWISE FLAWED ARGUMENTATION IN BFC THAT WOULD COME THROUGH IN COURT.

Now if fox would sue Al Franken for satire, doesen't it seem weird that Moore has, according to some of you, lied outright to the american people and gotten away with it despite powerful corporate enemies.

Sorry guys, telling the same bs 200 times in a row won't make it true.

Eple, i guess you didnt see the two posts of heston's acutual speach and the speach edited for BFC that was WAY more than a grammar error.

Interesting.

A quick search of this site will bring up several threads where MM's lies have been well documented, from the staged bank gun "give-away" to the Lockheed-Martin WMD plant, to the B52 plaque outside the Airforce Academy, and to the Charleton Heston speech.

Let me repeat in case you can't hear me through your caps lock:

Well documented.

So if you can refute that documentation, then maybe you have a leg to stand on here.

Otherwise, maybe you should take your own advice:

Dude you never managed to explain how he was never sued over these obvious lies, as you so finely put it. Plz try harder or get caught in forever repeating blabber.

The hallmark of whether a statement is true or not, is not whether or not you get sued for it but whether or not it matches the known facts.

So in otherwords, you are using faulty logic, since the two conditions are not causally linked.

.....nope, not in America. Not with a hurt and angry NRA as an enemy, not on that issue. In this case, not getting sued is a tremendous achievement, and in every way a sign of truth.

Al Franken got sued for being Ironic ffs.

So in other words, you cannot be logically reasoned with.

Ok, thanks for the conversation.

or, in yet other words, you had no answer to that...

Moore's response to the gun people

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wa...acko/index.php

I love how Micheal Moore ran for president of the NRA, and then when he was rejected, he demonises them. Just as he does mom and pop shops cause they didnt like his politics.

Ok, now lets go to logic.

For what possible reason does the NRA need to sue?

Has their image been damaged? No. Moore is a blatant liar, there are many documented sources, and their members don't give a fuck either way if they're represented because they're the N-R-FUCK'IN-A. They're massive. One stupid piece of false propaganda isn't going to harm their image. If it somehow did, then maybe they would sue.

Don't believe me?

There, lies, deception, AND flawed arguementation. So why doesn't the NRA sue? Actually, I don't think they really could. You see, the NRA would probably need to show that their organization suffered damages because of BFC, there's a few problems with that however.

On almost internet posting board someone like me will come back with straight facts like this from websites like this: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html which is very well documented, has many examples, and has side by side examples of many speeches.

Would anyone from the media want to attack the NRA right now with all of this evidence against them? Not unless their editor wants to be drowned in mail from NRA members or people that just plain hate morons that can't tell the truth.

So, I guess I will conceed, the NRA can't sue. Mostly because the NRA is too big and doesn't want to waste a couple million on a lawsuit for which it would have trouble winning because A) Michael Moore is too fucking stupid and too petty to pay attention to and B) The NRA is too huge to be affected by something so blatantly false.

eple, thank you for just proving yourself ignorant of our legal system, and of how BFC is false.

er....no. This is what the NRA are doing when they can't sue. They try to attack and discredit Moore trough the media. You kind of got the point all upside down here....The NRA couldnt sue, so they went on an "Moore is a liar" rampage, it's not like the NRA didn't want to sue. Believe me, if they had any real proof of lies or otherwise incriminating behaviour from Moore , they would sue faster than you can say "dumb fuck".

As previously stated, if a satirist like Al Franken gets a hopeless case against him based on dodgy accusations, rest assured Moore would have suffered the same fate, had he not based his movies on hard facts. The fact that Moore created a best-selling movie seen by great masses of people in bothe the US and Europe, shows that this is not something the NRA would overlook, if they had any chanse to sue over this movie, they would.

I am not ignorant of your legal system, as far as I can see, it's working perfectly when a satirist can create a movie illuminating very serious, yet very unpopular issues without getting thrown out of town by mobs with torches and pitchforks.

As far as I can see, this blatant propaganda against Moore is the NRA's pathetic struggling to regain some credibility after the public humiliation they got. Thank god, most of us won't get fooled by their bs.

Yeah, I checked that out.

I see that his main defense is that he only stretches the truth and makes innuendos, not out right lies, such as only implying the the Lockheed-Martin plant currently produces ICBM's and implying that Charlton Heston rushed to Denver for a gun rally when in fact he was attending a pre-planned NRA convention, which the NRA drastically scaled back after Columbine and held only the annual meeting of members as required by the NRA by-laws.

Yeah, I feel much better about MM knowing that he only implies his lies for the gullable to swallow instead of stating them bluntly.


(btw, I note that his website doesn't deal with the other lies that are documented on hardy.net. I wonder why...)

You know, I was just sitting around for a minute, when I realized, "wait a minute, this moron doesn't have a clue what he's talking about"

See the word slander in there once? You're just like Michael Moore, making up things that don't exist. Want to read the rest?

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/i...in80703cmp.pdf

Read the entire complaint, it's about trademark infringement of "Fair and Balanced" not about slander. In fact, the word "slander" is not even in the complaint.

Thank god I wasn't fooled by your bs.

Now please, make up another baseless argument I can shoot down.

So Coulter wasnt sued either, so her book must then be true.

hahah FEL, You have slain the troll! ;)

You know Michael Moore is a huge fat liar. America doesnt have a problem with guns. Columbine never happened. Those kids who'd been shot, they were just actors. And the yearly gun homocide rate that was just a complete fabrication too. Those militia groups are all completely sound of mind and spirit. Michael Moore trying to join the dots between all our social problems, how dare he. Did i mention he was fat?

No one said Colombine didnt happen. We are saying Moore is a liar.

Maybe Coulter's "enemies" have less money/a higher tolerance against criticism... Besides, Coulter didn't pick on one major corporation the way Moore picked on NRA or Franken FOX.

Heh, they lacked any basis for real sues, so they tried a longshot conserning copyrights. It doesen't matter what they are complaining on, once they can get a sue of any kind through in court , it's so much easier to discredit the whole book or film.


PS: Uh, no need to point out the insults and personal attacks I guess.

Yes Hollywood has no money to sue Coulter. Its amazing how Moore Ons are so skewed. THey make up any defences on the spot.

So someone has to sue or whatever anyone says is automatically right? The NRA doesn't have to sue to prove it's wrong, we here have highlighted websites that have already proved that. So why does the NRA need to sue? Money? They're fine. Respect? Their members already know it's full of shit, so why waste their money on a suit saying what everyone (except a few ignorant people) already know. Now, I already shot down your ignorant arguement of them suing, so please, come up with something else.

Moore lied repeatedly. Don't believe it? Go check the video tapes themselves. Go find the actual speeches and such, what do you find? Well, I'll be damned, they're different.

Heh, I am sorry, but you have repeatedly ignored my argumentation here. I am not saying that Any claim no matter what will have to be tested in court in order to be discredited. What I am saying is that if BFC was such a big pile of BS as many of you would make me believe, then BFC would without doubt have to be tested in court. It seems very unlikely that NRA, Lockheed or any other major interest group seeing this movie, would miss an oppurunity to discredit the claims made in BFC in public, and in court.

The criticists are carrying a major burden of evidence here, and if you really are right in all your accusation of lies, then why would the NRA, Lockheed, Charlton Heston or any other corporation or individual criticised in this movie bend over and take it? They would not just make a dodgy website reachin out to a few tohusand angry gunowners, they would sue, and scream out to the world with law in hand exactly what lies and accusation Moore is spreading to millions of people all over the world.

Please, get serious, and answer me on this for once.

Cause most people dont take Moore seriously?

I like how you dismissed my Coulter claim. So Coulter is correct cause no one has sued her. Rush Limbaugh is correct cause no one sued him. Mike Savage is correct cause no one sued him. And so on. In fact, every pundit's book is correct! What a wonderful world we live in, when anyone can say anything, and as long as no one sued, its the truth!


I guess you looking at the evidence and making up your mind is not enough, you need a court to make it up for you, cause we all know the courts never make an error.

PS. I think the best thing to be done is being done. A movie is being made called "Micheal More Hates America" So if Moore doesnt sue, will that mean Moore hates america?

Well duh, of course.

How is the Hardylaw website dodgy? Because it has well documented evidence to support his points?

Also eple, what about every single tabloid out there? How many celebrities are mocked in those? An extremely large number. How many sue? A very select few. Why? Because they don't want to waste their time on something everyone already knows isn't true.

Oh wait, it actually is true because they didn't sue, I'm sorry, forgot that "fact".

To be portrayed in The Sun with a new girlfriend or rumors of a new boob-job is not the same as getting exposed as indifferent to, and partially guilty of, the remarkambly high level of gun-related killings in the USA per year. I guess that fact speaks for itself. I already responsed to your "blahblah just because it's not sued doesen't make it right"-arguement, so please re-read my post, and comment if you wish. It is of little use for any of us to repeat our messages.

Let me instead repeat something someone else wrote earlier, to whitch nobody seemed to be able to respond: What about the facts he didn't make up? Is his film irrelevant and his message BS if the statistics conserning gun-related murders per year is true? (as far as I can see, he has his statistic shit covered). What about the problems with news coverage of violence creating paranioa and fear among the people (violence down 12% last 10 years, media coverage of violence up 600% IIRC)?

Screaming about minor changes, dodgy cutting, altered speaches or possible staged scenes doesen't really alter the statistics used or the problems portrayed does it?

NO one is arguing that there are many gun murders in America. What we are arguing is that Moore is a liar. He explicitaly said that the Columbine murders were caused by the fact that the LIttletown plant makes WMD. This is not true. And Moore STILL says they make them. This makes him a liar.

Moore explicitally tried to show that Heston came to Columbine to have a pro gun rally in defiance of the the town's wishes. He used an altered speach to back this up. The true, un altered speach showed a sympathetic man lending his support and grief to the town. This makes Moore a liar.

Moore showed how easy it was to purchase bullits in Canadian Wallmarts, when the Canadian government said that this could not have happened as Moore is American and Walmart can not sell him ammo. So showing this in a documentary is a lie.

He tries to build a case that the NRA was formed by the KKK, when history clearly shows that it elected men that have activally targeted the KKK as terrorists as its president. And enouraged blacks to join up to protect themselves from the KKK. So this makes Moore a liar.
And so on.

Ok So why would a man make a documentary, and fill it will blatant, easily debunked lies? Why sue over this bunk? Do political canidates sue over their competitors lies and misrepresentations?
So why would YOU believe the conclusions of a film that BLATANTLY used misrepresention, and lies to make a poor point?
The fact that Moore lovers even like this film is laughable. It defeats its own premise at the end.
As far as why the NRA doesnt sue, they dont have to. It's members know the truth and the only ones that belive Moore are people that wouldnt joing the organisation anyway.
Moore sets up false dichotomies, and draws poor conclusions that HE HIMSELF expresses doubts in.

Why is America high in murders? Dont ask Moore, he clearly doesnt have a clue. He fails to prove it to guns. He fails to prove it to Media ( as England, Canada, France and Germany all have more sensational media).
So what was his point? America is dangerous cause its dangerous? Gee thanks Mike, you really helped.

Heston was the only one to come close to a real answer. He said America was dangerous cause we are the most racially mixed nation. That racism and intolerance was a big factor. Why did Mike not take this and run? Why go after Walmart, The NRA, and Dick CLark?
Why not acutally go into dangerous areas, prisons, and crackhouses and ask the murderers why they murder? I guess its not as easy as going after an 80 year old man with alzheimers.

Mike is a farce.

I also have to say that I get the feeling that the same people that say "Mike bend the truth, or exagerated a bit to make a point" or some such are the same that go nuts when Coulter does the same. If its bad for Coulter, its bad for Mikey. But you will never hear them say that.

The problem here is that you constantly refer to these minor changes and humouros comments which you claim are false, calling Moore a liar but never really explaining how this would affect the message of the movie or the facts behind. So what if Moore used dirty tricks putting the NRA, Heston or Lockheed in a bad light? Even if your constatnly repeating arguementation was right, this wouldn't really prove much more than that Moore is slightly altering facts to harm some people. What does that have to do with the US blowing the scale on gun-related murder? Instead of confronting Moore on theme here, you choose to look quite pedantic bickering away about some supposedly faked speeches or oddly-cut schenes. maybe you have some comments on his opinions conserning how to reduce violence and gun-murders? Maybe you have own solutions to show? Maybe you want to add something worthwhile to the debate? 11000 killed a year, and you keep on attacking the messenger calling him fat and complaining about "lies" which hardly conserns the debate at all.

Moore delivered a great message which needed to be heard. The world got to know some basic facts conserning the US and gun-related issues. His movie title was not "LOL Heston is stoopid", nor "Lockheed kills our children" neither was this his main message. It was about fear, violence, gun-ownership and disaster. Now please try and see if you can add anyting of interest to these issues.

eple,

I know I bowed out of this earlier, but just one foot note.

The problem with BFC is that the "World" as you put it, got to know lots of things about America that aren't true. You're own case is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

I don't expect you to know it being Norwegian, but the "Mile High City" that I am from refers to Denver, Colorado and I live about 10 miles due north of Columbine HS. I have friends that graduated from Columbine. I've toured the Lockheed-Martin Waterton canyon plant and seen the rockets being built. I've seen the B52 outside the Airforce Academy on Black Forest Road. I went to Columbine and climbed Rebel Hill to add my own candle. And I am an NRA member.

So MM's misportrayal of America hits very close to home with me.

No one can deny that there are a lot of gun deaths in America but I think the reasons are not guns, but rather the violence bread by the racial diversity of America combined with incomplete integration. This is exacerbated by an insane drug policy that allows gangs to flourish on the illegal drug trade.

So what if Moore used dirty tricks putting the NRA, Heston Or lockheed in a bad likght? So if you like the message, any method is excusable? You my friend, have lost your crediblity.

I can not coment on Moore's ideas on how to reduce gun crimes as he never gives any.

And I assume that you didnt even see the film as Moore contridicts himself at the end and in no way shows that our gun laws and atitudes about guns creat the violence. When did Moore say that gun owners cause the problems, cause this would make him, a gun owner, and card carrying NRA member, part of the problem.

Moore goes on about fear, and says the media is to blame about fear. I said that European media is more sensational than American, so again Moore falls flat.

Your argument is this.

"Yes, Moore is a liar, but he is credible cause I like his message, even though he creates his own facts." This is hypocritical.

Again, the only one in the film with a reasonable explaination for america's violence was Heston. The same man Moore tried to make look foolish.