Greedy Micheal Moore does it again
 

Edit---This is a letter written by a mother of one of the children killed in the columbine shooting. I repeat, this is not written by me, but by a mother of one of the kids killed.

Here is the link
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...356875,00.html

A capitalist wolf in creep's clothing

Recently, a co-worker asked me if I had seen the movie Bowling for Columbine yet, I told her absolutely not! My answer surprised her, given the fact my son, Matthew, was one of the 13 murdered during the deadliest school shooting in our country's history. I explained to her that prior to the public release of the movie the families of the injured and dead were invited by Michael Moore to attend a preview screening. How thoughtful.

Our family and others considered attending because we were genuinely interested in his message to the public regarding gun control and school violence.

However, once we discovered he was going to charge us admission we refrained from doing so.

It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view.


Ann M. Kechter
Evergreen


One of my main criticisms of Michael Moore over the years has been the way he shamelessly prostitutes the memories of the victims of crime to aggrandize himself, feed his ego, and line his pockets. It looks like Mrs. Kechter sees what I see. And let's not forget the comments of Columbine victim Mark Taylor, who said that Moore "screwed [him] over," and that, "He completely used us to make a buck."

Michael Moore is a pathetic, sad individual. His fans, who view him as some kind of populist hero, are the world's biggest dupes.




Here is more of what Mark Taylor had to say. I doubt you will see this in Moore's next documentary.



"I am completely against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide.

"He completely used us to make a buck."

Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Mich. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety.

Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said.

"I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

Oh, what was just cheap! You started your post with a quote that really made it look like it was your son who died in the shooting, etc... Couldn't you have used the quote tag like everyone else who quotes? I was totally mislead!
Also, in the future, could you post a link to the source of the article or, if from some non-internet source (like a magazine), at least, state what that source is?
Thank you...

This does not surprise me very much from him....

That being said, before i really launch into him, it would be nice if you would cite your source, and please put on some quote tags, to make it easier to read, and not mislead the public like Moore did. After reading, its obvious its a quote....but still...

Michael Moore has been intriguing me more and more. My RA loves him and owns many of his movies, but I've been hearing mixed reviews as to his credibility. I'll definitely keep this article in mind.

I added a disclaimer and the link. Sorry for the confusion. Now please comment on the issue.

From Rocky Mountain News:One of my main criticisms of Michael Moore over the years has been the way he shamelessly prostitutes the memories of the victims of crime to aggrandize himself, feed his ego, and line his pockets. It looks like Mrs. Kechter sees what I see. And let's not forget the comments of Columbine victim Mark Taylor, who said that Moore "screwed [him] over," and that, "He completely used us to make a buck."

Michael Moore is a pathetic, sad individual. His fans, who view him as some kind of populist hero, are the world's biggest dupes.

Here is more of what Mark Taylor had to say although I don't know where I got it. If I did, surely I would have told you or given you a link. I doubt you will see this in Moore's next documentary.
"I am completely against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide. "He completely used us to make a buck." Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Mich. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety. Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said. "I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

Sorry, this was just how I thought the post could have been better presented. I was only considering posting it when I accidentally pressed "submit" button. It is right beside the "preview" button. I'd simply delete it but I didn't want to lose the data. Doesn't it look nice?

As for my opinion, I think it's deplorable how Moore manipulates these kids to make a message they didn't intend to make. I guess he did what he did to pay for the three million dollar apartment he owns in Manhattan (or so I'm told).

Y You mean he does have a three million dollar apartment in NYC? He told the View that he has a flat above a gap. Poor Mikey. See how he tells half truths?

Why only a half truth? I bet he does live above a Gap! Ah, who knows. I make no claim that my source is reliable, hence I qualified it as a rumour and didn't give a source...

It's heartening to see folks of several persuasions agree here. This media figure is a charlatan. I'm actually surprised he's revealed himself so transparently to so many. I do recall threads here in which he was vigorously defended. Perhaps there are those who would still defend him. I imagine there are. Nonetheless, I note the discerning observations that have been posted so far.

I am sure he does live above a Gap, but he makes is sound like a modest dwelling, not the three million dollar penthouse that it is. Its typical of the way he picks his words. He can call that the letter of the words was correct, but the message, and the intent are wholy other.

This is a pretty damning analysis of some questionable editing techniques Moore employed in the making of this film. It gets even more interesting when you read his response to the criticisms, which not only fail to defend the specific allegations, but resort to ad hominem attacks on his accusors -- exactly what he claims is being done to him. Not very convincing.

While Moore echos some sentiments I myself hold, he has a lot of explaining to do about this movie. When I watched it, it entertained me -- but my instincts told me it was being less than fair to its subject matter. This author's analysis reveals a level of intentional deception on Moore's part that disturbs me. Even more so because, in this very movie, he accuses the media of doing exactly what he himself is demonstrably guilty of -- distorting reality for the sake of promoting his agenda. And making lots of money.

I don't think all his points are invalid. But I don't want to be tricked into believing something, either.

All said, he strikes me as the far-left's answer to Rush Limbaugh. I think he should stick to presenting his work as entertainment and not truth. He's very good at what he does, but I do not want him representing my beliefs if he's going to present his material in this fashion.

As we here are interested in the truth we have to be pretty damn careful about what our sources are and where our quotes are coming from. I noted that Food Eater Lad's Mark Taylor quote did not have a source.

I hopped onto google to find a source and only came up with the following blog entry dated 30th April 2003 (scroll down):

http://blog.druidic.net/archives/cat_michael_moore.html

Note that the blogger also quotes Richard Castaldo's opinion on the matter. The blog cited http://www.canyoncourier.com/CANYONC...=492&PubID=866 as a source for the article but the link was dead.

I found the actual source article had been relocated here:

http://www.canyoncourier.com/article...ews/news01.txt

It may be long but I better quote the damn thing in its entirety here before it disappears into the "blog void" again ;) - it gives the perspective of a number of different Columbine parents and survivors as well as Moore's response to Taylor's claims.

Macheath - Thanks for the post. It's refreshing when someone takes the time to do the research in the interest of a balanced discussion.

... as opposed to just firing off their opinion and providing only clips of information that support their claim, which deprive the audience of the context and its source. :)

Charge for a private screening on a movie about their dead kids, hahaha. Great guy, I don't think most heartless businessmen could muster that shit.

Macheath

So you are saying that Mark Taylor did NOT say what I posted?

No that's not what he's saying.

What he is saying is that there are two sides to every story.

Michael Moore seems very good at stirring up controversy. Like Limbaugh he seems to be a person either loved or hated. Love him and everythign he presents is gospel. Hate him and everything is a lie. The truth is probably somewhere in the gray area in between.

Oh, another thread in FEL's crusade against Michael Moore. Let me contribute.

Ya sure, he is the evil incarnate and he probably eats babies and earn money off stealing money from grieving mothers as they hold their dying children in their arms. He also lies absolutely all of the time, like when he buys groceries, and they ask him if he needs a bag, he says "no" even though he clearly needs one, if not two, then he comes back and complais about getting no bags and he almost gets the teenager who worked there fired, even tohugh she hadn't done anything wrong and was working to earn money to pay the operation for her little sister, which had brain cancer. It's all true, and can be found somewhere on this web adress :www.google.com, if you make some searches and use your imagination to a certain extent.

Also, he is fat.

This isn't ment as a defense of Rush here, but I don't think he is an anti-rush. I don't think Moore really has the persuasive powers that Limbaugh does, at least not anymore. Moore has marginalized himself, and even turned off people on his own 'side' with his methods.

Most people who hate Limbaugh never really listened to Limbaugh more then a few minutes, if at all, and as such really don't know his style. With Moore I think, most people who 'hate' or don't think he is honest HAVE seen him in action. Perhaps its just because Moore is a much smaller name then Limbaugh, that unless you have seen/read what he puts out, you don't know who he is.

And while writing this, it got me thinking. I wonder if Moore's now infamous outburst at the Oscars, only real purpose was publicity. I figured he did it because it was expected, and to get in deeper in bed with the far left but mentally challenged members of the entertainment industry. I think I was wrong, it gave him a name bigger then it was. No one really cared about Moore outside of the left-right debaters. Now EVERY news/tv show is showing this guy blathering onstage at the Oscars.

He turned himself into a household name by having a temper tantrum at the Oscars. I'll give him or his agent credit for that.

I was grinning until the last line, the fat joke put it into giggling territory, bravo :D

I went to see Moore speak a while back and during the Q&A, he was asked about the fact that he owns a multimillion dollar home while simultaneously railing against capitalist excesses. His response was that he earned the money and had the right to use it as he pleased. As a true liberal, I must say that his response didn't sit too well with me. I was left with an impression similar to Mrs. Kechter's, that Moore is a hypocrite who preaches one thing and does another.
With that said, I can't help but feel that Mr.Taylor's criticism has more to do with the fact that he has an agenda of his own than any actual wrongdoing on Moore's part.

Here's the big question mark for this thread: When did making money make a liberal a hypocrite? Is there a dollar figure amount that a liberal can't make more of?

Success at pursuing the "american dream" is an admirable trait, as I'm sure most conservatives agree. The fact is, what he does doesn't actually HARM anyone, now does it? It's not like he's selling cigarettes to kids, or pumping toxic waste into our rivers.

He's even worse: he is making money on critizising the system. That horrible, horrible man. Let him hang from the city gates, I say!

Perhaps it's his criticism of others who distort truth, manipulate others, and defraud people in the name of a buck. Nah, I'm sure that couldn't be it.

My dislike for Moore has little to do with his political leanings and more to do with his style. I can respect people that have strong beliefs and stand by them, I have little respect for those that push their beliefs on others while deriding others who do the same.

I have seen Moore advocate many points of view, but I can't remember that he at any time said that people shouln't be able to earn money and use them as they wish. Is he hurting anybody?Should he, as a supposed "left-winger" sell all his belongings and live as a monk?

I think the problem people are talking about is he has the same 'me first' attitude that he lampoons others in business for having.

Earning money and spending some of them on living a good life is contrary to his books and films on big business, government and gun-control?

BTW: Not to be an arse FEL, but considering the massive amount of time you waste bickering on about Michael Moore, you might want to start spelling his name correctly.

Too late.

Michael Moore has been recently "outed" as what he really is -- a sensationalist that makes money off of other peoples' fear. Where no problem exists, he distorts the truth in order to create a panic to line his pockets. His work is entirely driven by self-interest, not a desire to better society.

Wasn't the media's use of fear pointed out as one of the main villains in Bowling for Columbine? Something about violence decreasing while media coverage of violence has increased with 600% the last 10 years?

Anyway, you make such rabid points, seregotis, that it is impossible to take you seriously. We are discussing an author and director who has fronted his opinions on several issues and made some money in the process. He is entiteled in every way to make his opinions, and to front them any way he like. He is not forcing anyone to watch or read his works, nor is he harming anyone. If you believe in free speech, you must accept that people are advocating views different from your own, and also respect their points of view, to a certain degree. It is not stated that his books or movies are 100% objective and true, nor is it to be expected.

Pre-emptive arguement: Do not try to throw Coulter at me, for I have never slandered her the way you guys are fanatically attacking Moore.

I am stunned that you really manage to amass so much hate for a person who are using his free speech to voice his opinions on social issues. He is in full right to do this. Wether or not he has his facts right or made the correct conclutions are of course debateable, but for such a debate to be fertile, we need to stop this immature bs.

So Eple, you are defending him charging the parents of the slain children of Columbine to see a movie about their slain kids? You avoided the topic very nicly and did manage a few ad homienum attacks. You have learned much from your studies of Mr Moore.

What I posted was obviously not a direct response to the original post, FEL, but an outburst against some of the the rather fanatic posters in this thread. The price for a free society with free speech, is naturally that you might be shown some points of view which you don't like. Live with it, or move to North Korea.

I now realise that my parody post have been far outclassed by your own posts. Jesus Christ, you are painting an image of Moore chaining weeping parents to chairs, forcing their eyes open Clockwork Orange-style and forcing them to see slow-mo captions of their children dying. Did Moore at some point steal your girl or anything? Why are you trying so hard?
Regarding personal attacks (prefer english over latin when communicating), I am not the only one in this thread (or otherwise) who have resorted to that. However, I am sorry.

Again, you avoided the topic. I dont ask that Moore be anything but examined and judged based on his words and actions. He has free speech and so do others to speak out and call him a fraud, as he is.

Now for the third time, eple, what is your take on this? Are you defending his right to make a buck exploiting the victums he pretends to help or not?

As a Canadian watching from outside the US, I find all the attacks on Moore quite amazing. This is how I see it:

Many of the more right wing oriented who disagree with Moore have done little to address his main points. All I've seen are attacks on the relatively insignificant aspects of his career. Do we REALLY care if parents were to be asked to pay admission to see his film? Do we REALLY care if that Lockheed Martin factory is currently making rockets to send satellites to space as opposed to the more destructive rockets it made in the past? Do you guys see where I'm going?

All the Moore bashers are attacking the minor things in order to discredit him because they're scared of his real points. How come no one is discussing the real themes of Bowling for Columbine? Why doesn't anyone here discuss the amazingly high murder rates in the US? What about the culture of fear and consumption that Moore suggests? These are the real points, not whether Moore edited two clips that unfairly make Charlton Heston look like a bad guy or other such nonsense.

My point is, stop attacking the guy for the relatively minor things (whether or not they're even true) and let's all discuss the real issues. He's brought up extremely valid points that seriously require discussion. Don't tell me he set up a scene at a bank (which he didn't) and then assume we'll all ignore the broader objectives of his narrative.

I'm sorry, but from where I stand the people that are using these tactics come across as scared to face what's really important.

SLM3

Why discuse the real themes of Bowling for Columbine when Moore didnt even discuse them? Why did he try to link the murders to a plant in Littletown that doesnt make weapons of mass destruction? Why did he not talk about the killers history of mental problems, medications, being teased by the community, and Nazi fetishes, and the fact that they chose Hitler's birthday to kill.
Had Moore done this, as all the reall journalists and psychologists examining the Columbine Killings have done, then he would not have had a sexy cool movie to sell.
I find it odd that such a "documentary Maker" as Moore didnt even mention, not once, the most probable cause for the Columbine Shootings.

So again, if Moore avoided the issue in his own movie, and further more, delibratly inserted false and misleading information into his ficticious film, why should its "true message" be discussed?

Yes, I am defending his right of free speech (or do you believe he should be denied his right to express himself trough books and/or films?).

Do you mean the real journalists and psychologists blaming marilyn manson and video games? Because that is what i remember hearing from the "real" journalists and psychologists. Those causes certainly aren't sensationalized in the least. What are you talking about when you say "the most probable cause for the Columbine Shootings"? I'm pretty sure he mentioned the teasing which IMO is probably the largest contributing factor.
Because he brings up valid points: Regardless of who says it and how, gun homicides in america are ridiculously high. We live in a culture of fear. You've got to be able to look beyond the bullshit and analyze content beyond just trying to discredit someone.

FoodEaterLad, you do seem hung up on Michael Moore.

As ive stated on other threads you have started about him, i think he raises some interesting points of view- which cannot be a bad thing seeing as we live in a democracy and all. If he did change a dead kids mum money to see his film than that does seem a low act. Having someone look closely at govenment operations and obvious cultural problems cannot be a bad thing. In most democracised countries in the western world people are heeps more critical of thier politicians (Clinton said the hardest questions ever posed to him while in office were by students). Personally i dont think spending hours googling obscure dirt on one man is a necessarily constructive process. But hey, whatever blows your hair back.

What I find most amazing about MM is he was given an Oscar for a "documentary" and it has been shown Bowling for Columbine was anything but a documentary. MM has the right to make as much money as he wants. I have an issue with his hypocrasy. Riding in on a white horse as a champion of social conscience while living high on the hog.

Who said a documentary must be flawless?
Most of the "proof" against Moore shown thus far have been doubtful, mostly based on obvious misinterpretations and minor at best. Anyway, it is surprising to see all you right-wingers cry out against someone who have succeded on pursuing the american dream. It's not like Moore have denied people the right to earn money off their craft.

And how is it Moore's fault that he won an academy award? Did he force it to happen trough his alleged notorious lying and fatness?

PS: I am still waiting for an answer FEL: Do you believe Moore's freedom of speech should be restricted? Surely, this is the natural wayof stopping him from pulling through with his evil schemes of cruelty against the human race? Who else should get their freedom of speech restricted?

Im sure that through all the smoke that the constant flame wars create over MM (through the Media, through message boards, through every medium where people disagree)..

Even if MM's process is somehow flawed, if his information is not 100% unbiased (like anyone's is).. He is doing what few have been able to do.. He makes people argue..

When people argue, they think and even if they don't agree, if alot of people are all thinking about the issues, then there is more chance of something being done.

Michael Moore's books reach the top of the best seller lists where only the books by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly belong. Moore's opinions challenge the viewpoints of these other, conservative, authors. He must be a liar. He must be discredited. Let us not rest until he is silenced.

Don't cha think?

I like MM.
Dude, where is my country indeed.

I assume now that you dont even read my posts as I answerd this clearly a page back.

No not true. He IS a liar. There is a difference.

A documentary must be true. That is in the rules of the oscars, and as such BFC doesnt fit in with the rules.

As far as your last sentence, I am sure the writers that were not paid for their work on " The Awful Truth" would severly disagree with you. They were denied their rights to earn money off their craft.

NO I mean the real journalists and psychologists talking about mental illness, alienation, and Nazi fetishes, as I posted. Nice straw man though.


So I assume you think Coulter, Limbaugh and O reilly are wonderful since they bring up valid points?



PS if Moore's points are so valid, why does he need to lie, mislead and distort his evidence rather than just show the facts?

....Must....keep....civil.....when.....faced....with....ultimate.... irgnorance....stupidity attacking sanity.....brain....shutting....down.....self-narration fading.....

Eple,

that brain freeze is exactly what allows Moore fans to continue functioning.

Maybe you should start making distinctions between the "real" journalists and psychologists you are refering to and the rest of the "real" psychologists and journalists whose opinions you care not for. You could say, "The real journalists or psychologist who believe this, not the real journalists or psychologists who believe this.
Your straw man is you pretending to care about "the issues" when it seems you really only care about the idea that michael moore has nothing at all important or relevant to say.


Well, if you think any of those folks have any more "journalistic integrity" than mm i think we may need to call a doctor for you.
I think valid points are wonderful, i don't care where they come from. If i hear coulter or limbaugh, or even hitler say something that makes sense to me, and seems relatively credible then i will consider it, ponder what it means in relation to what i believe. I don't stick my fingers in my ears and scream LALALALALALALALALALA just because someone shows a lack of integrity. Shit, if it was only about integrity where would you get your news? Do you think every thing in the NYT is completely and patently false just because lacks integrity as "part of the liberal media?"

Who in the public eye doesn't lie, mislead, and distort his/her evidence rather than just show the facts? That is politics as usual. It doesn't start with mm and it doesn't stop with him. Do you think the president has been completely honest and forthright in all that he has said to the american people? You think g.w.bush or bill clinton, for that matter, never lied, mislead, and distorted their motivations instead of just showing the facts. Are you trying to hold mm to a higher standard than the president of the united states of america?

So let me understand what you are saying, you want me to say the real journalists and psycologists that talked about mental illness, alienation, and Nazi fetishes, like I did. Then you falsly claimed " like the ones that say rock and roll music" and get called on it? What is your point?

Second, you dont like Couter and co cause they have no crediblity. I assume they have no crediblity cause they lied. But Moore has crediblity EVEN THOUGH, and despite the fact that he lies. So again, what is your point? It must be nice to be a hypocrite.

no FEL, that brain freeze was a dicert result of trying to argue with a fanatic (yeah, that's you) for too long. Your crusade agains Moore aren't really that interesting, and you will obviously not change your mind about this no matter what evidence or arguements we give you. Why do you even keep posting threads like these when you try to discard any type of debate? If you don't want discussion, why do you start threads? It is nothing but trolling.

Evidence against me? The only thing Moore supporters have said was" Yes, He lies, but I like him anyway," While at the other side of their mouths they say" Coulter and Co, lie and they are hypocirites ( at best)."

Not one person has, Moore Fan or not, has said that he DID not lie. What I am seeing is that if you are liberal, you dont care if he lies, as long as he bases Bush.

Well, I was going to point out that you don't really pay attention to what people are trying to say to you and navigate through predjudice, put you dust did that for me.

I have not attacked Coulter or any other right-wing writers in this thread, nor have I said that Moore is right, just that he HAS THE RIGHT to say what he says. Get it?

Sure, and when did I ever say he doesnt have the right to lie? Please quote me so I can then see for myself that i advocted stripping this man of his right to spew lies?

As seen here, you asked wether or not I defended his right to make money off his documentaries. I said yes, I defend his right to express himself, no matter how false or biased his views are. I don't really think MM is such an evil guy, but I won't go down that road arguing over every bit of material he has produced. I am simply saing that he is entiteled the same freedom of speech as everobody else. Maybe he is lying, maybe he is speaking the truth, no matter what, I won't be the one restricting his freedom of speech.

Nice evasion on two direct questions. I asked if he was right to make a buck ON THE FAMILIES OF COLUMBINE, not wether he could make movies.

Second I asked you to repost where I said Moore has no right to speak.

Why the evasions? is your plateform made of thin wood?

Well, as I said, unfortunately he has. Unless those families want to sue, he can't really be denied making movies.

And of course, you never said that FEL, you just asked questions that indicated that restricitions on free speech would have to be the solutoin. I was neglecting your question as it seemed pretty rethorical to me.

Again avoiding direct questions. If you cant stand up for your principals and answer direct questions, then I guess you dont have much to offer in a debate. Sorry, I expected more. Staw man argument, Eple?

Well, i never said that i don't like coulter, in fact if you could look through the venomous tint on your sunglasses of interpretation you would see that i said:
I was essentially trying to say that credibilty is in the eye of the beholder. Even though i know that coulter has an axe to grind, just like everybody else who has any kind of voice in the media, if she says something that seems credible, and also seems to make sense, i will think about it.


What i am refering to, falsely according to you, was that there were a lot of differing opinions on why the columbine shooters did what they did. You're trying to claim that mm isn't credible because he didn't address what all the "real journalists and psychologists" said was the motivation of the shooters. I was trying to point out that there hasn't really been a consensus as to what caused the shooters to snap. It depends on who you ask. The gun control groups think it was easy access to guns, tipper gore thinks it was marilyn manson, jocks think that it was because they were a bunch of faggots. It depends on who you ask, contrary to what you may think, not all psychologist and journalists agree with eachother on everything.

What i am saying is yes, he may lie, but he also brings up valid points and unlike you, i can't try to speak on behalf of all mm supporters or liberals. You might look a few posts above this one where i said a very similar statement about coulter. i.e. I don't trust her but i won't discount everything she says just because i don't trust her.

Maybe you should attempt to see people as more than just mouthpieces for the "liberal agenda" maybe you should try to look at people like you at least think that they can form their own ideas and perspectives. It is pretty fucking lazy to just write someone off as a liberal just because they don't agree with you. As far as i can tell not one person arguing for mm has tried to write off your opposition to him as a function of your conservative ideals.

Isn't making money of the suffering of others the american way? How would the medical and the funeral industries even exist if it was unethical to profit from suffering, much less your local evening news? How unpatriotic, and frankly liberal ;), of you to question how he makes his money?

So you admit that liberal means unpatriotic? LOL

So are comparing Moore, who pretended to make a film that explains the Colombine shooters while charging the survivors and family to see it, to a Doctor? Wow this is the same kind of false assoication that Moore would use. No wonder you defend him.

And last I checked tipper gore was neither a journalist nor a psychologist, so again your comment was without real merit. I will stand by my statement that a movie that seeks to explain why the Columbine shootings occured should do more to than say " A factory that makes WMD caused it, even though they dont make WMD" Why anyone is defending this is beyond me.



and PS, I love all the talk that I want to take away Moore's rights to talk. I dont want that, I want a populace that is intellegent enough to know shit from shinola. And every time Moore open;s his mouth, a huge steaming pile of shit comes out. And the funnything is, again I will stand by this comment, even his biggest defenders call him a liar.


And the same peolpe blast Rush for lying. So I conclude that Liberals are ok with lies as long as said lies further their agenda.




PSS I am waitin for Eple to be a man and answer my questions.

I did....

See?
Question one: Is Moore right in doing this?
Answer one: Yes, Moore cannot be denied making movies. as I have said before, he HAS, the right, wether or not he IS right, is another debate, and I hope it is ok if I don't have any strong opinions on that.
Question two: Did you say that he sould be denied his free speech?
answer two: No, you didn't say that straight out, but I believe you insinuated this. If I am wrong, do correct me.


Are you content?

So you support Moore in making movies, and expoiting the people he is pretending to help. Ok clear.


And thanks, I never said he should be stripped of his rights, nor did I ever insinuate this.

So If I make a movie that uses your family had they been in a tradgedy, you would support me not paying your family and then charging them to see it? I assume you are dandy with this, as per your defence of that Troll Mre Moore.

Er...well I would be pretty pissed, and I would probably complaint, maybe even sue you, but I never said that Moore was right, just that he had the right...as you would have had the right to do that against me and my family. You are arguing as if I we disagree, but I don't really see the conflict here, if you agree that Moore has te right to do this. Wether or not he IS right, is an issue I won't go into. If you hadn't been so determined on arguing, you could have avoided my previous 5 posts or so, which have pretty much stated the same opinion over and over again.

Maybe you could explain the false association? I'll grant you that it might not be in the best taste. Is it more or less ethical to take advantage of death by charging people for burial? Is it more or less ethical to charge people incredibly inflated prices on necessary medications and medical care because when given the choice between death and destitution people will pay it? So mm is a capitalist, what's wrong with that? If some of them payed it, he got more money, it certainly hasn't hurt the movie's take at the box office, or in rentals. Maybe mm is actually more ethical because he isn't forcing the victim's relatives to choose between 1. paying incredibly inflated costs and/or incurring crippling debt or 2. dying and/or suffering damaged health. If they don't want to pay it, that's fine, thay just don't get to go to the special sneak preview. That is the american way. Maybe you should complain about that american value before you single mm out for being a good capitalist.


That part of my comment may lack merit in your eyes, but that is only one sentence. Maybe you could explain this idea of yours that all "real" psychologists and journalists agree on the causes of the columbine shooting.

I think the movie actually does much more than say that. But then again, you seem to not be able to get past the idea that one false paragraph renders everything else in the book unbelievable and irrelevant. It is bullshit and is the only thing you can cling to to try and pretend that mm has nothing valid to say about anything. Honestly, i think if mm released a statement tomorrow saying that the sky is in fact blue, you would call bullshit on him.

Being a liar and having nothing good to say are two completely different things. I haven't heard you claim that anyone else, coulter, limbaugh, bush, anyone in the media, is above lying too. You act as if he is the only one and the only one who should be discounted.

I conclude that you either lack the ability or are just too lazy to grasp the difference between the opinions of individual people and your percieved opinions of anybody you can loosely put under the umbrella of the word liberal.

I am waiting for you to be a "man" and deal with me on a point by point basis like i've been dealing with you. No more of this pointing out a technical flaw in one sentence out of one paragraph as a way of rebutting what i typed.

I just thought it might be easier for you to understand if i put it into rhetoric you are used to.

First off, I'm not right wing, but I do dislike Moore. The first time I saw Bowling for Columbine, I thought it was great. I thought it was good insight, even if Moore did jump around a lot. It seems like he got distracted about his ultimate statement in Bowling, switching focus from gun control to being anti-corpate. Asides from that, Bowling was a -very - misleading documentary. He leads you to jumping to the wrong conclusions. For instance, a lot of the NRA meetings that he leads you to belive happened right after the incidents, did NOT happen immediately after that incidents, which is why in the interview with Heston, Heston seemed confused about what Moore was asking about. It was edited in such a way as to completely draw the viewer in the wrong direction. Another example is about [Lockheed? I forget which aero space company he was talking about, I think it's Lockheed Martin] where he points you towards thinking that they are a missle maker. Which is incorrect. They are a rocket/aeronautics manufacture, not a missile company. The size the rockets he shows, and the way he phrases his statements would make the average person think they're building ICBM's.. There a lot of other examples you can find of inaccuracies and lack of integreity in Bowling for Columbine if you go around, fact check, and google search.

That has all been covered in various other threads on the tfp. A search shall show you the way. What i and some other people are trying to say is that mm, while using some deception, does also make some good points about the culture of fear in the us and the amazingly high homicide by handgun rate.

So does Rush limbaugh make good points with his deceptions? Coulter? or just Moore?

PS look at the Rush thread where I talk about him being an asshole. I didnt talk about Rush on this thread cause it was off topic. I also didnt talk about Snoop Doggy Dog either.

Can anyone comment on the reliability/credability to Moore's statistics? Does he blatently skew to get his point across?

-SF

Aparently point out his lies doesnt mean anything to his fans. If you do, they say, "well he is still valid due to the point he was trying to make."

If Coulter, Rush or any con was as sloppy as Moore their points would still be worthless, as per the Moore fans.


And keep in mind, no where did I ever defend Coulter or Rush. In fact in the RUsh thread i trash him too for innacuries, and NOT one person said his points were still valid. Weird huh?

From of all the places, the San Francisco Cronicle


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...DG0R2LB101.DTL

EDITORIAL
Bowling for credibility

Thursday, October 30, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I was awakened to a pleasant surprise this morning. For some reason, my alarm radio wasn't tuned to the usual right-wing hate-spewing station I like to wake up to, but instead I was treated to the soothing, dulcinous squawking of Michael Moore.
After a rambling diatribe against Rush Limbaugh's pill-hopping hypocrisy, Mike attacked the evils of our capitalist system and how it exploits the working class (but he's not a socialist, or anything).
I found this enlightening because unlike Rush Limbaugh - Mike is no hypocrite. He doesn't profit from the blood, sweat, and tears of the working man. On the contrary - Mike divides all the profits from his books and movies equally amongst the people who produce them. Everyone from the folks who work the presses that print his wonderful books, down to the gal who brings him his quadrtuple shot latte' every six minutes - they all get a big fat check from Mike. The only profit Mike takes from his work is the satisfaction that some poor working slob, who deserves the money far more than he, won't be living in abject squalor because a rich corporate fat cat took all the loot for himself. Even more astonishing is that Mike relinquishes all creative control over his books and films to the people who actually do the work. The famous rabbit scene in Roger & Me? That was the idea of Todd, the college intern who follows Mike around and picks up his empty beer cans and candy bar wrappers. The part in Bowling for Columbine where Mike gets a free gun at the bank? That was actually suggested by Rico, the undocumented worker who details Mike's Lexus every Tuesday, then voted on by committee, and finally submitted to Mike for inclusion in the film. You see, Michael doesn't only PREACH the doctine of socialism, he also LIVES it. Of course, there aren't the usual 10 million dead peasants that usually precede socialist utopias, but have patience, Mike's working on it

All the luxuries that Moore is enjoying right now, from the perspective of Time Warner, are part of Moore's compensation package. A compensation package is comprised of two parts a cash component, which is taxed, and a service component, which is not taxed. Both parties beneft, Time Warner pays Mike less and Moore bellies up to the trough. A quick example with made up numbers: if Moore paid for the private jet and good food, it would cost him 30,000 dollars, however, he has to make 40,000 first so he can have 30,000 after taxes. This is also why some employers pay for employee health care. The ultimate point being: it is cheaper to pay for the service, then to pay the employee in dollars that are then taxed to pay for the same service.

This brings up another question. If Moore does not want the trough, and is only opportunisticall spounging off of Time Warner, why, does he not insist that instead of wasting the money on him, the company should disperse it in the form of an additional dividend to their stock holders. After all, more than 50% of Americans own stock! Moore claims to be a man of the people, he should ask that the money be given to the shareholders.

If this is not acceptable, then, as a man of the people and member of the highest tax bracket, Time Warner should just give the money to him so that through taxation, the government can be funded, and little Jimmy can learn to read.

The point of this absurdity is that Moore has chosen to live this lifestyle. He says that he would never pay for it, implying that it has no value to him, but, he is still consuming it! He has chosen to suckle from the corporate tit and in doing so enjoys the same "excesses" of the men he railed against.

There's one other point I'd like to address here. Mike spewed the following idiocy.

Moore said politicians can manipulate voters because we grow up in a system of "enforced ignorance" in the United States.

"Everything is about trying to keep us as stupid as possible," he said. "If you don't know what's going on, you won't rise up, will you?"

Moore cited a National Geographic poll of American 18- to 25-year-olds. Eighty-five percent couldn't find the country of Iraq on a map, 60 percent couldn't find Great Britain and 11 percent couldn't point out the United States.

"That's how the Bush administration has gotten away with what it's done -- fear and lies and an ignorant nation," Moore said.

Somehow, in Mike's delusional mind, George Bush is responsible for the ignorance of Americans who were at least 15 years old when he took office three years ago. Let us not forget that the entire education system in this country is dominated by the liberals Mike supports and the unions that Mike loves. Let us also not forget that the United States spends more money per student on education than any other nation on earth. So, if students in this country are graduating from high school and college wholly ignorant of the world around them, it has nothing to do with Bush and everything with Mikey and his leftist ilk.
A. The majority of 18 to 25 year olds are too stupid to be able to find prominent countries on a map.
B. Their stupidity is somehow Bush's fault, instead of being the fault of their parents, teachers, and principals. (Bush wasn't even elected to a national office until year 2000)
C. Very few 18-25 year olds vote. The vast majority of them are not even registered to vote. So, how is their ignorance responsible for Bush being elected, when most Bush voters are middle-aged career people who not only could find those countries on a map, but actually name the country's leaders, units of currency, form of governments, and capital cities?

Actually:
The majority of Moore's audience and followers are those same brainless 18-25 year olds who he derides as being stupid. It is Moore who is exploiting ignorance. His fawning little Moore-dilettantes never even bother to question his faulty reasoning, blatantly false statements, selective ommissions of relevent facts, theft of creative ideas, and his flawed cause-and-effect assumptions.
Without ignorance, Moore wouldn't even have an audience.