Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Micheal Moore, big fat liar? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/28254-micheal-moore-big-fat-liar.html)

Food Eater Lad 09-21-2003 11:36 AM

Micheal Moore, big fat liar?
 
Its been a while since I debated Micheal Moore. Anyone up for it? I will let you start.

Lebell 09-21-2003 11:42 AM

I think MM has been debated to death on these boards, with most people agreeing that he lies and the rest thinking that he "stretches the truth" in order to tell a good story (i.e. he lies).

Phaenx 09-21-2003 11:47 AM

He should lose some weight, guy's going to die from a heart attack here any minute.

BigGov 09-21-2003 12:00 PM

Some? More like a ton. The guy puts on 50 more pounds and he'll be one of those fat guys you see on Springer that stay in bed all day because they're too fat to move.

Food Eater Lad 09-21-2003 12:20 PM

I am new, didnt realise that we all agree that he is a stinking liar.

BigGov 09-21-2003 12:31 PM

Well it's hard not to call him a stinking liar with evidence like this:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

eple 09-21-2003 01:14 PM

Re: Micheal Moore, big fat liar?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Its been a while since I debated Micheal Moore. Anyone up for it? I will let you start.
Well I heard he is capable of spelling his name correctly.

eple 09-21-2003 01:24 PM

Seriously though: the dude may have streched the truth, but I guess I do prefer leftist simplified messages over right-wing propaganda. He shows that it is possible to be populistic and popular and leftist at the same time. Showing that there is a big marked for non-conservative, non-insane opinions in the US. This is positive, and whether or not he has all his facts right is less important.

I believe the movies and books he has produces are all pointing at very important issues, fronting views which should by all means be represented in the debate. If I was american, I would support strict gun-control and be enraged by the corporate corruption taking place all to obviously in my country, just like Moore. It is clear that Moore has been successful at provoking, and creating debate in the US and elsewhere, thus he gets big, fat chunks of respect from me, for speaking up against the raging patriot-hordes. The republican masses obviously feels a need to fling all sorts of insults and seemingly incredibly pedantic complaints against him.

almostaugust 09-21-2003 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Seriously though: the dude may have streched the truth, but I guess I do prefer leftist simplified messages over right-wing propaganda. He shows that it is possible to be populistic and popular and leftist at the same time. Showing that there is a big marked for non-conservative, non-insane opinions in the US. This is positive, and whether or not he has all his facts right is less important.

I believe the movies and books he has produces are all pointing at very important issues, fronting views which should by all means be represented in the debate. If I was american, I would support strict gun-control and be enraged by the corporate corruption taking place all to obviously in my country, just like Moore. It is clear that Moore has been successful at provoking, and creating debate in the US and elsewhere, thus he gets big, fat chunks of respect from me, for speaking up against the raging patriot-hordes. The republican masses obviously feels a need to fling all sorts of insults and seemingly incredibly pedantic complaints against him.


I agree completely, very well put. I'd like to add that there are alot of things in his documentary that you cannot ignore, such as the death statistics. I really liked the film and am glad it got made.

Food Eater Lad 09-21-2003 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Seriously though: the dude may have streched the truth, but I guess I do prefer leftist simplified messages over right-wing propaganda. He shows that it is possible to be populistic and popular and leftist at the same time. Showing that there is a big marked for non-conservative, non-insane opinions in the US. This is positive, and whether or not he has all his facts right is less important.

I believe the movies and books he has produces are all pointing at very important issues, fronting views which should by all means be represented in the debate. If I was american, I would support strict gun-control and be enraged by the corporate corruption taking place all to obviously in my country, just like Moore. It is clear that Moore has been successful at provoking, and creating debate in the US and elsewhere, thus he gets big, fat chunks of respect from me, for speaking up against the raging patriot-hordes. The republican masses obviously feels a need to fling all sorts of insults and seemingly incredibly pedantic complaints against him.


Seriously though: Ann Coulter may have streched the truth, but I guess I do prefer rightist simplified messages over left-wing propaganda. She e shows that it is possible to be populistic and popular and rightist at the same time. Showing that there is a big marked for conservative, non-insane opinions in the US. This is positive, and whether or not she has all her facts right is less important.

I believe the books she has produced are all pointing at very important issues, fronting views which should by all means be represented in the debate. If I was american, I wouldn t support strict gun-control and be enraged by the liberal socialist corruption taking place all to obviously in my country, just like Coulter. It is clear that Coulter has been successful at provoking, and creating debate in the US and elsewhere, thus she gets big, fat chunks of respect from me, for speaking up against the raging knee jerk, emotional liberals. The Liberal masses obviously feels a need to fling all sorts of insults and seemingly incredibly pedantic complaints against her.


Do you buy this argument? I dont buy yours. a liar by any other name or reason, is still a liar.

eple 09-21-2003 02:40 PM

Heh, good point, but the difference as far as I can see is that Moore is fronting a view less popular, without dobt simplifying the message in the process. I believe the Issues Moore is debating are way too important to be restricted to intellectual elite only. There is a need for Popular, populistic messages from leftists as well as conservatives, you shouldnt have to be ivy-league to be a democrat or to support gun control. It's as simple as that.

Food Eater Lad 09-21-2003 03:33 PM

So Moore is allowed to lie to make his points, but Say Coulter is not? Are Coulter's points not important cause they are popular ( you said Moore was unpopular so I am assuming you mean that Coulter is then popular)

Anyone can argue anything. I just have a problem with him lying about it, and doing shoddy research and then having the never to harp about "ficticious times".
I guess the ultimate irony is that in these ficticious times, an oscar was given to a ficticious documentary.

james t kirk 09-21-2003 03:38 PM

Moore never claimed to have the answers in bowling for Columbine now did he.

The right wingers typically don't like the guy cause he made a movie that asked questions about America's gun culture. Any time you say anything to do with "hey, this current gun situation has a lot of problems" and you are bound to rile up a lot of people it would seem. These days, if anyone says anything even remotely against the status quo in the USA, they are almost tarred and feathered as being anti-american.

I saw Bowling for Columbine, and Roger and me and liked them both.

I have read the articles about how moore "lied" and all i have to say about that is that the points made are so small they are frankly irrelevant.

By the way, the bit about Torontonians not looking their doors is largely true. If i am home, the door is never locked. I have also run out over to the store even and left the front door wide open. The only time i lock the door is when i leave for the day, or sleep (and even then i forget sometimes.)

ARTelevision 09-21-2003 03:40 PM

To respond succintly and directly to the question posed by the thread starter.

Yes.

Food Eater Lad 09-21-2003 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Moore never claimed to have the answers in bowling for Columbine now did he.

The right wingers typically don't like the guy cause he made a movie that asked questions about America's gun culture. Any time you say anything to do with "hey, this current gun situation has a lot of problems" and you are bound to rile up a lot of people it would seem. These days, if anyone says anything even remotely against the status quo in the USA, they are almost tarred and feathered as being anti-american.

I saw Bowling for Columbine, and Roger and me and liked them both.

I have read the articles about how moore "lied" and all i have to say about that is that the points made are so small they are frankly irrelevant.

By the way, the bit about Torontonians not looking their doors is largely true. If i am home, the door is never locked. I have also run out over to the store even and left the front door wide open. The only time i lock the door is when i leave for the day, or sleep (and even then i forget sometimes.)

I live in NYC and I dont lock the door.


I am a right winger and I dont care if Moore asks questions. I dont think any right winger cares that he asks questions. I care that he took three Heston speaches and edited them. I care that he did shody research. I care that he LIED. I care that he said that the Littleton Plant made WMD when it didnt. I care he is a liar.

No one is a liar if they ask questions, they are a liar when they lie.

BigGov 09-21-2003 04:46 PM

Quote:

I have read the articles about how moore "lied" and all i have to say about that is that the points made are so small they are frankly irrelevant.
Except that he blantantly mis-quotes and edits speeches. I don't mean cut a little bit, I mean taking one part from a speech in say North Carolina, and taking a part from a completely different speech in Denver not even on the same topic.

I don't think you quite understand that, so let me explain it better for you.

HE BLATANTLY FABRICATES SPEECHES AND MISLEADS HIS AUDIENCE.

Documentary my ass. What he does is equivlent to watching the Discovery Channel and right when the cheetah is about to chase down the gazelle it cuts to a three-year-old's drawing of a Gazelle turning around and taking a chainsaw to the cheetah and cutting back to video of a dead cheetah. You wouldn't believe that, so why are you stupid enough to believe Michael Moore?

eple 09-22-2003 06:39 AM

So at some point in this dicussion some people me included tried to elevate this debate to something more than a rambling shitfest of "YO MICALE MOORE IS GOD MAN" VS "NO MAN HE LIES AND RAPES BABIES", could the various people trying to drag this debate down please try to maintain a higher level of discussion?

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
So Moore is allowed to lie to make his points, but Say Coulter is not? Are Coulter's points not important cause they are popular ( you said Moore was unpopular so I am assuming you mean that Coulter is then popular)

I never said that Coulter is without right to front her views in exactly the same ways as Moore.

Darkblack 09-22-2003 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
I live in NYC and I dont lock the door.


I am a right winger and I dont care if Moore asks questions. I dont think any right winger cares that he asks questions. I care that he took three Heston speaches and edited them. I care that he did shody research. I care that he LIED. I care that he said that the Littleton Plant made WMD when it didnt. I care he is a liar.

No one is a liar if they ask questions, they are a liar when they lie.

Do you care that our current administration took edited or false evidence that Iraq had WMD, was trying to buy nukes from Africa, or was able to strike the USA with said WMD? Do you care that they did shoddy research before going to war? Do you care that they LIED?

Just curious.

Anytime anyone brings up gun control people will try their best to discredit the speaker. It is not the slight errors or the stretches made by him it is the topic. IF it were the lies we would have another impeached president.

BigGov 09-22-2003 08:46 AM

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.

Moore fabricates speeches, putting sentences from many different speeches together to assemble a false message. Moore didn't make slight errors, or stretch the truth a little bit, he ripped truth out of the "documentary".

eple 09-22-2003 10:03 AM

So there aren't 11000 gun-related homocides per year in the US after all? Gun control would have no effect?

that's nice, good to see there are no problems. OMG that Moore dude sure was stupid, making up a problem and its causalties and even suggesting possible solutions to a non-existant problem. Even a oscar-nominee. Man, is that dumb, when all he says are lies. AND OM HE IS FAT TOO SO HE HAS TO BE WRONG.

seriously though: I earlier adviced some people to try their hardest to elevate their arguements a bit above the "Moore is a lying liar who lies and thus have no points or right to live whatsoever" mantra. Plz try harder.

johnnymysto 09-22-2003 11:24 AM

Well, eple, I just read the website given at the top of the page, and it seems pretty clear that Mr. Moore lied to create this movie. So what would you have us say? The evidence shows that he is, in fact, a liar. He is a tabloid filmmaker. Is that better?

seretogis 09-22-2003 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
So there aren't 11000 gun-related homocides per year in the US after all? Gun control would have no effect?
This has been done to death before, so please do a search for "gun control" on this forum. In general, gun control policy in the US is simply not effective, and has been proven so time and time again. What works is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who have no idea how to safely use them.

Food Eater Lad 09-22-2003 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
So at some point in this dicussion some people me included tried to elevate this debate to something more than a rambling shitfest of "YO MICALE MOORE IS GOD MAN" VS "NO MAN HE LIES AND RAPES BABIES", could the various people trying to drag this debate down please try to maintain a higher level of discussion?

I am asking this out of sincere honesty, not sarcasm. Was my arugments like you said? I tried to keep my posts on a higher level of discusion. If I did drag it down, I apologise.

SkanK0r 09-22-2003 02:45 PM

I gotta say, that link is indeed very informative. I'm very liberal, but honestly don't give a crap one way or the other about gun control - I watched Bowling For Columbine for the first time last week and thought it was a little lame. It was just cheesy and relied to much on the "GOTCHA!" style that Moore loves to use.

In another thread, I think someone sai that the right-wing pundits like Coulter and O'Reilly were no different than Al Franken, and I defended Franken. But I won't defend Moore. If what is said in that link is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't, but that's hardly a good reason to believe anything), then I too will agree that Moore is a fraud. Even a "lying liar."

smooth 09-22-2003 03:40 PM

How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"
by Michael Moore

One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about you. For instance, I have read in quite respectable and trustworthy publications that a) I'm a college graduate (I'm not), b) I was a factory worker (I quit the first day), and c) I have two brothers (I have none). Newsweek wrote that I live in a penthouse on Central Park West (I live above a Baby Gap store, and not on any park), and the Internet Movie Database once listed me as the director of the Elvis movie, "Blue Hawaii" ( I was 6 at the time the film was made, but I was quite skilled in directing my sisters in building me a snowman). Lately, my favorite mistake is the one many reviewers made crediting the cartoon in "Bowling for Columbine" as being the work of the "South Park" creators. It isn't. I wrote it and my buddy Harold Moss's animation studio drew it.

I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of stuff that isn't true.

Of course, it would take a lot of my time to contact all these sites and media outlets to correct their errors and I think it's more important I spend my time on my next book or movie so I just let it ride. But is that fair to you, the reader, who has now been told something that isn't true?

With the unexpected and overwhelming success of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men," the fiction that has been written or spoken about me and my work has reached a whole new level of storytelling. It's no longer about making some simple errors or calling me "Roger" Moore. It is now about organized groups going full blast trying to discredit me by knowingly making up lies and repeating them over and over in the hopes that people will believe them ? and, then, stop listening to me.

Oh, that it would be so easy!

Fortunately, they are so wound up in their anger and hatred that they have ended up discrediting themselves.

Look, I accept the fact that, if I go after the Thief-in-Chief ? and more people buy my book than any other nonfiction book last year ? then that is naturally going to send a few of his henchmen after me. Fine. That's okay. I knew that before I got into this and I ain't whining about it now.

I also realize that you just don't go after the NRA and its supporters and then not expect them to come back at you with both barrels (so to speak). These are not nice people and they don't play nice ? that's how they got to be so powerful.

So, a whole host of gun lobby groups and individual gun nuts have put up websites where the smears on me range from the pre-adolescent (I'm a "crapweasel," and a "fat fucking piece of shit") to Orwellian-style venom ("Michael Moore hates America!").

I have mostly ignored this silliness. But a few weeks ago, this lunatic crap hit the mainstream fan. CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive.

Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control?has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie.

So, what do you do when the nutcases succeed in getting on CNN? Do you just keep ignoring them? How do you handle people who say the Holocaust never happened or that monkeys fly? Ignore them and they'll go away? If you give them any attention, all the nuts will come out of the woodwork.

And that's what happened. I saw another one of these lunatics, this time on MSNBC. A guy named John Lofton. He went on and on about how my movie is all made up. The anchor on MSNBC never challenged him on his lies and never told the viewers who he really was ? a right wing crazy who believes Bush is too liberal. He was once an advisor to Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign, and was a direct-mail writer for Jesse Helms. Writing in opposition to Hate Crime bills in the conservative Washington Times (where he was a columnist from '83 to '89), Lofton explained:
Take, for example, this business of so-called "anti-gay violence." This bill will be used to go after only those who commit crimes against people because they are homosexuals. But this is not the most pernicious form of "anti-gay violence." Not by a long shot.
The most violent - indeed fatal 100 percent of the time - form of "anti-gay violence" has been committed not by so-called "homophobes" who bash homosexuals - but by male homosexuals and bisexuals against other male bisexuals and homosexuals.
To date, tens of thousands of male bisexual and homosexual men are dead in our country because of AIDS, because they engaged in high-risk homosexual sex.
Is this not "anti-gay violence" which numbers its victims far beyond anything any "homophobes" have done?

Well, I figured I better deal with this because the nutters were now being turned into "respectable critics" by a media that either had an agenda or were just plain lazy.

So, how crazy are the things they've said about "Bowling for Columbine?" Here are my favorites:
"That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!"

Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh?

Or...

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country ? "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" ? that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 ? and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") ? which I am filling out here for the first time ? the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database?which includes all federally approved gun dealers?lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on.

Here's another whopper I've had to listen to from the pro-gun groups:
"The Lockheed factory in Littleton, Colorado, has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction!"

That's right! That big honkin' rocket sitting behind the Lockheed spokesman in "Bowling for Columbine"-- the one with "US AIRFORCE" written on it in BIG ASS letters ? well, I admit it, I snuck in and painted that on that Titan IV rocket when Lockheed wasn't looking! After all, those rockets were only being used for the Weather Channel! Ha Ha Ha! I sure fooled everyone!!

Or....

The Truth: Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons-maker in the world. The Littleton facility has been manufacturing missiles, missile components, and other weapons systems for almost half a century. In the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear warhead on the Soviet Union; in the mid-80s, they were partially assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM, a space laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as Brilliant Pebbles.

In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles."

As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me, "They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large national security satellites, some we can't talk about." (see him say it here)

Since that interview, the Titan IV rockets manufactured in Littleton have been critical to the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These rockets launched advanced satellites that were "instrumental in providing command-and-control operations over Iraq...for the rapid targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes and clandestine communications with Special Operations Forces." (view source here).

That Lockheed lets the occasional weather or TV satellite hitch a ride on one of its rockets should not distract anyone from Lockheed's main mission and moneymaker in Littleton: to make instruments that help kill people. That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss.

The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:
"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."

Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word ? read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image ? hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?

I've also been accused of making up the gun homicide counts in the United States and various countries around the world. That is, like all the rest of this stuff, a bald-face lie. Every statistic in the film is true. They all come directly from the government. Here are the facts, right from the sources:

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Finally, I've even been asked about whether the two killers were at bowling class on the morning of the shootings. Well, that's what their teacher told the investigators, and that's what was corroborated by several eyewitness reports of students to the police, the FBI, and the District Attorney's office. I'll tell you who wasn't there -- me! That's why in the film I pose it as a question:
"So did Dylan and Eric show up that morning and bowl two games before moving on to shoot up the school? And did they just chuck the balls down the lane? Did this mean something?"

Of course, it's a silly discussion, and it misses the whole, larger point: that blaming bowling for their killing spree would be as dumb as blaming Marilyn Manson.

But the gun nuts don't want to discuss either specific points or larger issues because when that debate is held, they lose. Most Americans want stronger gun laws (among others, see the 2001 National Gun Policy Survey from the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center) ? and the gun lobbies know it. That is why it's critical to distract and alter the debate ? and go after anyone who questions why we have so many gun deaths in America (especially if he does it in best selling books and popular films).

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country ? every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't ? because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true ? and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film ? or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).

Well, there you have it. I suppose the people who tell their make-believe stories about me and my work will continue to do so. Maybe they should be sued for knowingly libeling me. Or maybe I'll just keep laughing ? laughing all the way to the end of the Bush Administration -- scheduled, I believe, for sometime in November of next year.

Yours,

Michael Moore
Director, "Bowling for Columbine"

PS. From now on, I will deal with all wacko attackos on this page. If you hear something about me that doesn't sound quite right, check in here.

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.



Food Eater Lad 09-22-2003 04:02 PM

I would also llike to point out that a nation with 285 million will most likely have a higher gun death rate then a nation with a fraction of its population.


Another thing Moore neglects is that in 1996 England enacted a gun ban. As of 2003 gun homocides have skyrocketed 43% as per the bbc.

Gun deaths in the same year in the USA DOWN 11%. It looks like Mikes dreams of violent america with freedom to bear arms is in direct conflict with No guns in englands super violent new gun culture.

Why are gun deaths going up in a nation that outlaws guns? Please answer me that MIkey.

Zeld2.0 09-22-2003 04:10 PM

Heh I think though his vision is that if there were no guns in the hands of *anyone*.

The truth is, thats not possible unless the government seriously went around and banned any possible way of getting guns and took every gun away. Then yes, *ideally* no one would have guns and there would no longer be such a thin as gun deaths.

Thats the *ideal* image.

While to many its whack, personally, if people are all willing to achieve it, rather than shrug it off saying its not feasible, then I think it *could* succeed.

There are many cases where guns NEED to stay out of the hands of people. For instance, just a few days ago, at Dodger stadium, a guy was killed (supposedly a Giants fan) over a fucking parking dispute. A FUCKING PARKING DISPUTE.

There is no fucking reason a 25 year old trying to enjoy his team should get shot dead over a damn parking dispute. In those cases, yes guns are to blame for even giving people a reason to kill.

Food Eater Lad 09-22-2003 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Heh I think though his vision is that if there were no guns in the hands of *anyone*.

The truth is, thats not possible unless the government seriously went around and banned any possible way of getting guns and took every gun away. Then yes, *ideally* no one would have guns and there would no longer be such a thin as gun deaths.

Thats the *ideal* image.

While to many its whack, personally, if people are all willing to achieve it, rather than shrug it off saying its not feasible, then I think it *could* succeed.

There are many cases where guns NEED to stay out of the hands of people. For instance, just a few days ago, at Dodger stadium, a guy was killed (supposedly a Giants fan) over a fucking parking dispute. A FUCKING PARKING DISPUTE.

There is no fucking reason a 25 year old trying to enjoy his team should get shot dead over a damn parking dispute. In those cases, yes guns are to blame for even giving people a reason to kill.

Take away all legal means of getting a gun and what you are are left with are those that get their guns from blackmarket means such as the Russian Mafia. YOu are describing the situation in England. No one can get a gun LEGALLY. So the criminals still get their guns and shoot each other and regular joes. This is why the homocide rate in England is up 43%.

james t kirk 09-22-2003 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
I would also llike to point out that a nation with 285 million will most likely have a higher gun death rate then a nation with a fraction of its population.


Another thing Moore neglects is that in 1996 England enacted a gun ban. As of 2003 gun homocides have skyrocketed 43% as per the bbc.

Gun deaths in the same year in the USA DOWN 11%. It looks like Mikes dreams of violent america with freedom to bear arms is in direct conflict with No guns in englands super violent new gun culture.

Why are gun deaths going up in a nation that outlaws guns? Please answer me that MIkey.

Please post your link.....

I would like to confirm your post.

Off hand, without any hard numbers, i would say that in 1996 Britain had 100 gun murders, but in 2003 they had 143 verses 11,000 in the USA. Or, maybe Britain had 10 gun murders in 1996 and in 2003 they had 14.

Americans love to quote percentages. You see the talking heads on the news day in and day out quoting the percentage of this verses the percentage of that.

According to the article by moore, there were 68 gun deaths in the UNITED KINGDOM. Well, that includes Northern Ireland then if he is quoting the UNITED KINGDOM i believe. Either way, so in 1996 the UK had 45 gun related homicides and now they have 68. In percentage terms that sounds a lot, but in actual numbers it's insignificant.

Have you ever been to Britain???? The COPS DON'T EVEN CARRY GUNS.


That was a great article written by moore by the way.

I maintain that Bowling was an excellent movie, i saw it in the theatres, i own the DVD.

The amount of out and out hatred leveled at moore by the hysterical right is completely over the top. You say anything about their precious little guns and they get their ovaries in an uproar.

My lasting impressions of BFC was that:

1. Dick Clarke came across as a complete asshole.

2. Marlynne Manson was suprisingly intelligent and made the most sense of anyone there.

3. Charleton Heston is a confused old man who is suffering from the ravages of Alzheimers and Moore should not have picked on him when it was clear that Heston was confused. The scene where Moore left the photo of the little girl was a bit over the top in my eyes.

4. I am shocked that Moore is an NRA member.


BigGov 09-22-2003 05:29 PM

Since no one is paying attention to the obvious evidence, I point you again: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Quote:

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word ? read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.
Again, a fabricated piece of shit like the rest of Moore's work.

Quote:

. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. [No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.]


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.



Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.
Anyone doubt this and want sources? Want more reasoning? Want complete and utter proof shown in not only photographs but transcripts? Then read that website I posted at the beginning because this is straight from it.

[EDIT]

I'm too tired to argue the Britain vs. America deal, so I'll just point you to someone else that will say about the same thing: http://www.claytoncramer.com/Britain.pdf

Food Eater Lad 09-22-2003 05:50 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2069400.st

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3112818.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2632163.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/1057562.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/246962.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ts/2131318.stm

james t kirk 09-22-2003 06:42 PM



Your first link didn't work.

Your second link said 23 people were murdered with guns last year in Britain. (Washington or Detroit will suffer more than that in a weekend)

The third revealed this interesting tid bit

"Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms"

Exactly what moore was arguing in BFC that in america there exists this "culture of fear" that leads to the sense that everyone out there is sick and twisted and wants to bring harm to you.

Your choice of ariticle would appear to back up his claim.

The raw numbers do not show a major problem with gun murders in Britain, though, it would appear that crime is on the increase.

Food Eater Lad 09-22-2003 06:50 PM

The first link works for me. It says gun crime in England up 49%.
Yes I can see how Gun Crime up 35%, and Gun Homocide up 49% can MISLEAD you into thinking that England has gun problems.


So in england its not guns that kill, but culture. And in America its guns that kill? Odd.:rolleyes:

james t kirk 09-22-2003 07:09 PM

gun crimes can mean a lot of things.

It could be something as simple as owning a hand gun since that is against the law in Britain, or maybe some guy was out shooting at tin cans and the cops got called.

Bottom line, it would appear that very few people are getting blasted by guns in Britain (23) verses over 11,000 in the USA.

Food Eater Lad 09-22-2003 07:20 PM

But gun homicides up 49% one year can only mean one thing. And how much next year? The USA is still down 11%. I doubt it will be going down soon, as the guns are pouring in to England from ex soviet block nations.

England is going to have some scary times in the next few years.

Food Eater Lad 09-22-2003 07:23 PM

Hey for those that still doubt Moore as a liar, check out the Heston Speach.

Here is what Moore showed in his film:


Heston's Denver speech as edited by Moore







Weeping children outside Columbine, explaining how near they had come to death and how their friends had just been murdered before their eyes;



Cut to Charleton Heston holding a musket over his head and happily proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'" to a cheering NRA crowd.

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore in voiceover intones: "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charleton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association." [But for this break, the viewer would spot that two different speeches are being merged, since Heston has lavender shirt and tie in the above speech, and white shirt and red tie in the one below.]

Heston (supposedly) continues speech...

"Good Morning. Thank you all for coming, and thank you for supporting your organization. I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today." [Footage of protest outside] "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. [picture of Webb, then back to Heston] He sent me this, and said 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I said to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. [cut to crowd cheering, then back to Heston] Don't come here? We're already here."




Heston's speech as actually given [link is to www.freedaily.com/articles/990504n1.html]

In the transcript below, the portions used by Moore are italicized. Note how they come from entirely different parts of the speech. Moore takes video and audio of seven sentences and assembles them into a speech which was never given. He covers the audio edits by breaking to images of the crowd and of protestors. This is not slipshod; this is the creation of a lie.



["Cold dead hands" is nowhere in speech. It is actually from a speech given by Heston in Charlotte, N.C., a year later. By swapping in the billboard and his narration, Moore covers the splice.]















Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. I am very happy to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. Thank you all for coming and thank you for supporting your organization.

I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Or course, you have a right to be here. As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.

But it's fitting and proper that we should do this. Because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity.

I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing. But the mayor said don't come.

I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing, don't come here. This is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.

They say we'll create a media distraction, but we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. They say we'll create political distraction, but it's not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation.

Still they say don't come here. I guess what saddens me the most is how that suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and 80 million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care. We don't care as much as they do, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.

Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd because we live here. There are thousands of NRA members in Denver, and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado.

NRA members labor in Denver's factories, they populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the Front Range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment.

NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.



So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.



One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.

Leander 09-22-2003 07:53 PM

Ok, I saw BFC a couple of times and I daresay that several people have missed the boat. The main thrust of BFC is not that guns are bad, rather the theme is what makes American Society so violent. I already knew that the bank scene was not as advertised. I know that just eliminating guns is not the answer. The film succeeded because it asked questions about American society. Why in hell are we so violent? I still don't know and I'm sure Moore doesn't either, but we have a culture of firearms that make such an easy target.
I come from a line of gun owners and don't believe banning them is a panacea. I do beleieve that asking questions about the society we live in is just as valid as the 2nd Ammendment. We as a people have work to do and it doesn't just involve guns.

healyk 09-22-2003 08:11 PM

Thanks for the link, Jimmy4. All this time I thought Michael Moore was someone who misrepresented the facts to suit his own convictions but was able to rationalize it to himself because he was so convinced of the righteousness of his cause. Now I see that he's just a liar.

His inablility to see how his fabrications do nothing to help society and cause real harm to many people suggests self-delusion on a grand scale.

But his is making lots of money. That must give him a warm feeling inside.

smooth 09-22-2003 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by healyk
cause real harm to many people
the shit just keeps getting better! :rolleyes:

healyk 09-22-2003 08:20 PM

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?

smooth 09-22-2003 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by healyk
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.

healyk 09-22-2003 08:39 PM

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.

Food Eater Lad 09-22-2003 08:46 PM

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

almostaugust 09-22-2003 10:56 PM

[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.

BigGov 09-22-2003 11:06 PM

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

Lebell 09-22-2003 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
/raises hands

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

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.

eple 09-23-2003 11:27 AM

"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.

Food Eater Lad 09-23-2003 12:25 PM

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.

Lebell 09-23-2003 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
"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 trough.

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:

Quote:


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

eple 09-23-2003 01:22 PM

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.

Lebell 09-23-2003 01:26 PM

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.

eple 09-23-2003 01:43 PM

.....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.

Lebell 09-23-2003 02:11 PM

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

Ok, thanks for the conversation.

eple 09-23-2003 02:14 PM

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

almostaugust 09-24-2003 09:04 PM

Moore's response to the gun people

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

Food Eater Lad 09-24-2003 09:29 PM

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.

BigGov 09-24-2003 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
"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.

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?

Quote:

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. [No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.]


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.



Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."



I recently discovered that Moore has set up a new webpage to respond to a chosen few points of criticism, one of which is his, er, creative editing of Heston's speech. Click here for a link to his page, and for my response to his attempted defense of what he did. Basically, Moore contends that he didn't mean for the viewer to get the impression that "cold dead hands" was spoken at Denver -- that just "appears as Heston is being introduced in narration." As for the rest, well, "Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was." Sure. That's why he left out:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings."

"So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

"NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."
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.

eple 09-24-2003 11:02 PM

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.

Lebell 09-24-2003 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by almostaugust
Moore's response to the gun people

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

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...)

BigGov 09-25-2003 04:58 PM

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"

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
There has been no law suits.

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.

Quote:

Directly from FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), INC. and ALAN S. FRANKEN
Plaintiff Fox News Network, LLC ("Fox News" or "Plaintiff"), by its undersigned counsel, for its Complaint against defendants Penguin Group (USA), Inc. ("Penguin") and Alan S. Franken ("Franken") (collectively "Defendants") alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages. Fox News seeks relief against the defendants for trademark infringement and trademark dilution under federal and New York statutory law, and unfair competition under federal and New York statutory and common law.

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.

Food Eater Lad 09-25-2003 05:35 PM

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

seretogis 09-25-2003 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
So Coulter wasnt sued either, so her book must then be true.
hahah FEL, You have slain the troll! ;)

almostaugust 09-25-2003 07:43 PM

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?

Food Eater Lad 09-25-2003 07:45 PM

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

eple 09-26-2003 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
So Coulter wasnt sued either, so her book must then be true.
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.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy4
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.
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.

Food Eater Lad 09-26-2003 11:49 AM

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

eple 09-26-2003 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Yes Hollywood has no money to sue Coulter. Its amazing how Moore Ons are so skewed. THey make up any defences on the spot.
Quote:

Originally posted by eple
a higher tolerance against criticism...


BigGov 09-26-2003 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
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.
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.

Lebell 09-26-2003 02:44 PM

Folks,

Please tone it down, a bit.

Stick to your arguements and leave the name calling over at Fark.

Thanks.

eple 09-27-2003 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy4
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.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 06:17 AM

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.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 06:19 AM

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?

BigGov 09-27-2003 06:29 AM

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".

eple 09-27-2003 06:59 AM

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?

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 07:19 AM

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.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 07:31 AM

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.

eple 09-27-2003 09:46 AM

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.

Lebell 09-27-2003 10:11 AM

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.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 10:18 AM

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.

eple 09-27-2003 01:07 PM

Uh....well I have seen the film and found it amusing and thought-provoking to an extent. I guess my problem when understanding your anger here might be not relating personally to this issue You, however, likewise suffer from being too subjective. You become enraged by minor "lies" and things that really don't interfere with the big issues presented. Gun murders per year don't change wether or not Moore staged a scene in a bank. Highly increasing media coverage of violence does not change wether or not Moore has edited a speech by som altzheimer-stricken old gun-nut.

Being a Noregian, I saw the movie first and foremost as a way of adressing a serious issue. And since most of the people who viewed this movie had a similar objective experience, we all got a message of high body counts and some theories regarding this: Theories not involving "violent history", "too many immigrants", "popular music" or other stereotype explanations.

I believe your emotional reactions, anger towars Moore seriously cripple your ability to discuss this issue. Your anger towards mr.Moore seems misplaced, and somethimes come trough as quite ridiculous "Moore is a fatty liar LOL".

Most of us don't view the movie as an attack at the NRA or Lockheed or Heston, thus, claims of lies conserning any of these aren't really too interesting.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 01:10 PM

Minor lies? The whole movie was based on either lies or staged events. You can not present a documentary based on lies or staged events.

My question to you, is why do you draw conclusions on a movie that needed to lie and stage events to make a point?

eple 09-27-2003 01:22 PM

eh....the movie as far as I can see was based on statistics conserning gun-related killings in the US, and different opinions/problems/solutions. I can't really see how he faked it all. What you are saying is that there is no gun-related probnlems in the US. I thought we had already agreed that this is not a fact. The movie is not based on lies, it might contain elements which can be debated or doubted, but the gun-related problems in the US are not made up by Moore, n'est pas?

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 02:04 PM

Where did I say there were no gun problems in the US? Please post that part. I am saying that Moore is a liar. something you agreed with me on in more than one post.

So BFC, to you, boils down to when Moore showed the gun homcide rates, and that was it. The rest could have been Tom and JErry cartoons and his point would have been made?


PS his stats were off. He included death by police in justifed shootings, and self defence. The FBI puts the gun MURDER rates at 8500 or so, I forget the actual number. This is too high also, but its just another example of Moore padding his numbers. I dont include self defence deaths as part of the reason for gun control. Self defence and police use are exactly what gun use is supposed to be for.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 02:15 PM

I also think it telling that Moore never touched on the fact that the shooters in columbine were harrassed daily. That the day before the shootings they were run off the road by the local jocks and told that "next time we will kill you for real".
The fact that school personal were aware of the teasing and abuse to the shooters and did nothing about it had nothing to do with the killings in Moore's eyes. It had to be the Lie that the littleton plant made WMD ( they didnt and still dont).
Moore could have played hours of taped footage of the survivors of Littleton talking about "those queers" faggots" and other names the shooters were called in the first few days after the shootings. The fact that the whole school picked on these kids and made them fearful had not one iota to do with them snapping and lashing out. They had to be killers because their parents made WMD ( again they didnt)

Why Moore choose to create a lie and then use this lie to explain the shootings is LAUGHABLE! Not one second of the film talked about the abuse the shooters went through.
This is why I cant stand Moore. He ignores the evidence that makes the most sense, and picks and chooses the evidence that he wants to use to present his agenda. And if that evidence is not there, he makes it up.

I dont know about Norway, but where I come from, a liar is not someone to be admired or respected.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 03:05 PM

As an aside, since Moore didnt sue Hardy, does that make Hardy's claims true?

eple 09-27-2003 03:57 PM

Hmmm...
I guess this is where the debate ends for me. I won't change my mind, neither will you. I view Moore's movie as a clearly populistic, still thought-provoking movie, you view it as a cook-up of lies. Both stances are subjective, and thus none of them infintively wrong or right. Maybe I would keep on arguing until we end up insulting each other further, but right now I just saw Good Will Hunting and got all thoughtful and shit. Sorry if I have insulted any you in any way in the heat of battle ;)

Thanks for an interesting debate, though.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 08:36 PM

Not insulted one bit. You were civil, probably more so than I.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 08:37 PM

The lies you can not explain away,

1 Editing Heston's speach to misrepresent him. No I dont expect to see every word he said, but I do expect the CORRECT context and intention. I guess you dont expect that from Moore, and to tell the truth, neither do I. You even said the speaches were different. Now read them both and tell me seriously if the contex of both speaches was the same. It clearly is not.

2 The NRA never helped the KKK, in fact, the NRA are and were a major thorn in the side of the KKK, but Moore is allowed to say other wise cause its a cartoon.

3 The US government never supported the Taliban as Moore said in his film.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html


4 The Canadian Government says that Moore could not legally buy ammo in that K Mart.

5 A NY resident can not get a gun in Michigan, like Moore claims to have done in the bank. If you have proof that he lived in Michigan when he was a NY resident at the time, please post it.

6 And the biggest lie, the whole blaming the Massacre at Columbine on the parents makeing WMD, when NOT ONE Parent made WMD. In fact they did the opposite. THey took weapons and made them into communication equipment. Again, you seem to be the only person that didnt see that Moore blamed Lockheed Martin. I guess you have the special edition. Here is the quote. Moore intones that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep." Moore asks whether knowledge that weapons of "mass destruction" were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooter. Not that the shooters here harrassed and abused by the other school students.
Here is another quote to be dismissed by Shrod.

"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds missiles of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"

The difference is, as Shrod even said, the parents DONT make Weapons of mass destruction.

7 Other silly lies and misrepresentations are the plague, Moore didnt paraphrase it, he misrepresented it. I guess the soliders in ww2 didnt kill combatants but "german villiagers?" O please. The whole reason the plague was created was to celebrate the fact that in a B-52 / fighter encounter, the B-52 almost always went down. It had very little defensive armament -- one gun mount in the tail -- a LOT less than a WWII bomber. Even if the fighter had already used its missiles, it had only to come in from above, below, or the sides, and the B-52 had no defense at all.

The plaque isn't celebrating killing (for all we know, the enemy pilot bailed out), but the fact that the American bomber came off the better in a fight where all the odds were against it.
Moore wants us to think that the plague was for "killing Veitnamese on Christmas Eve" The man is pathological.

8 the lie that Heston showed up in flint to promote guns 48 hours after kayla's shooting. Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally." When the fact that it was 8 months later and for "rock the vote" doesnt enter the film. Again, if you freeze the DVD you can see the people Heston is talking to holding signs that say rock the vote, and Vote Bush.



Moore Lies. Lets hear your rationalisations for these lies.

smooth 09-27-2003 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
The lies you can not explain away,

6 And the biggest lie, the whole blaming the Massacre at Columbine on the parents makeing WMD:

Quote:

"Pentagon payloads"
Please post what the plant made and whether it sold any product to the Pentagon.

Quote:

Moore asks whether knowledge that weapons of "mass destruction" were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooter.
Are you claiming that Moore's question regarding the interviewee's opinion is a lie?

How can a question be a lie?

Quote:

"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds missiles of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"
This is a question--your answer to the above questions will apply to this as well.

Is positing a hypothesis a lie? One usually posits a hypothesis and then attempts to determine if it is accurate or not--I've never heard anyone called a liar due to an incorrent hypothesis.

This is a statement regarding children's perceptions. Young children do not distinguish between rockets used for satellites or rockets used for weapons. They are viewing rockets used for WMD currently. That is the definition of a rocket to many children.

Older students might make the distinction between peaceful rockets and warfare rockets--but then they might not know or care that the government defense project in their neighborhood is conducting peaceful military production.

In light of what you are claiming regarding their background they might have felt justified in making a defense. And their culture, which justifies military action in defense and generally opposes offensive military excursions, seems to support such a conclusion.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 11:00 PM

Why would they ask that question when the Littleton Plant doesnt make WMDs? I am sure the parents in the town know what their jobs were. And the funny thing that Moore leaves out is that one of the parents of the shooters was an anti gun activist that wouldnt even let the shooter play with guns as a child. By Moore's poor logic he could just have easily said that anti gun activisim caused the massacre. I mean it is just as silly as imagined killer rockets.

The problem with your question is you assume that no kid in town actually speaks to their parents. I think the parents that are the engineers could tell that they were designing killer rockets or communication equipment.

And there wasnt knowledge of making nearby WMD as it was not happening. So there was no knowledge of it.

Food Eater Lad 09-27-2003 11:02 PM

The pentagon payloads are satellites that detect incoming rockets and notify us. Hardy killer rockets or weapons of mass destruction. But that wouldnt make quite the point Moore wanted, so he lied.

splck 09-29-2003 05:52 AM

Here's another response to the "Truth about bowling for Columbine" website that I stumbled across. I doubt it will change anyone's opinion on the movie, but you never know.

Link

eple 09-29-2003 07:01 AM

Thank you splck, that guy made some good points.

Lebell 09-29-2003 08:29 AM

Thanks for the link, splck.

At least this guy admits his bias.

Unfortunately, he more or less proves the points we've been trying to make.

BigGov 09-29-2003 04:06 PM

Now the defense for parts like the NRA/KKK cartoon is "oh, you can't take that seriously, that's meant all in humor, not the slightest bit true."

Lets see all you Moore supporters respond to this.

http://www.hardylaw.net/hestonfilming.html

Now, if you've ever flimed anything with a camera, you know exactly where you would need to be standing. When you see Heston, the only area that the camera could be that has that exact shot of Moore magically disappears.

Conclamo Ludus 09-29-2003 04:12 PM

If Michael Moore is really interested in the blinding truth, why would he employ any of these tactics. If his message is so strong it should speak for itself. He shouldn't have to do any of these camera and editing tricks to persuade you. I saw another documentary that was just as good. Best in Show. Its hilarious. No really, everyone should see it. Its the same type of documentary style. I think they call it mockumentary or something like that.

eple 09-29-2003 04:41 PM

If he shouldn't have used any dramatic effect, humour or otherwise, Moore could have saved a lot of money just posting all the important facts on big-ass posters all over the US. But then again, movies have a greater impact, and a movie usualy reqiures more than just 5 mins of scrolling statistics.

Now please, stop claiming any use of dramatic effect or humour is an attempt to lie to the people. I believe most of you are smarter than that, and easily able to spot the ironic twists and dramatic parts if you try not being 100% focused on shooting the messenger.

Zeld2.0 09-29-2003 04:53 PM

Heh I think he accomplished his message just fine - the fact that people are arguing over it now means its obviously left an impression of people for good or worse.

And as for the entire actual columbine incident - I don't think anyone should point out what happened to the kids and give them an excuse of whether they are picked or not. It should never have happened for *any* reason - and everyone was at fault.

Food Eater Lad 09-29-2003 05:37 PM

I was not at fault for Columbine.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360