The definition of irony - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 11:31 AM

I usually don't bother with long winded replies in "Politics" these days, as many others are willing to take up the slack, but I will allow myself to be so moved now.

It is blatant hypocisy of the first degree to decree that America is full of "Stupid White Men" and that we have a gun culture that is propagated and perpetuated by the media and THEN hire ARMED body guards who don't even bother to know and follow the gun laws.

It is hypocrisy to complain that there are lax gun laws then hire body guards that don't bother to know and follow said gun laws.

It is hypocisy to claim to be a documentarian (documentaries by DEFINITION being things that deal with FACTS) and then create "documentaries" that twist facts, present out and out falsehoods, and character assassinate people and organizations by use of clever editing. That MM does so using an "aw shucks, I'm just an average Joe" persona only adds insult.

It is hypocisy that MM decries multimillion dollar coporations while he himself lives in a multimillion dollar NYC loft in an exclusive building.

It is hypocrisy that MM demands accountability from the president, saying that Bush lied to the American people to advance his agenda while ignoring the critics and the overwhelming evidence that MM himself has done just that himself.

And it is unfathomable to me that there are people that support this man when there are better spokespersons for their causes to be had.

sprocket · 01-21-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

What difference does this make? The point is that this overweight, self-hating jackass is a hypocrite and contradicts himself countless times, by making a lie-filled shitfest of a film (better known as Bowling for Columbine), stating that all guns should be banned, and then having an armed bodyguard. Sounds like a classic case of "do what I say but not as I do"

Have you seen Bowling For Columbine? The movie doesnt have an anti-gun message at all. At all. Its not in the movie. Thats not what its about. I really dont like MM or think his material is particularly intelligent or even factual.. but BFC was not an anti-gun movie... theres nothing ironic in the article that i can see..

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

What is the total effect of BFC? Is he responsible for misinterpretation by others?

You are still arguing that MM is pro-gun even after that link above to his own website where he admits in his Donohue interview that he is in favor of banning all hand guns?

And will you still argue that it is not hypocritical to then hire a bodyguard, an armed gunman, a mercenary for his personal protection?

(I use the word mercenary as those on the left insisted that the armed guards that were murdered in Iraq were indeed mercinaries, which seemed to imply that they were legimate targets.)

Manx · 01-21-2005, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

You are still arguing that MM is pro-gun

Which portion of the reply you quoted is an argument that Michael Moore is pro-gun? All I see are two questions, both of which are specific to BfC. Are you going to answer those two questions?

Quote:

And will you still argue that it is not hypocritical to then hire a bodyguard, an armed gunman, a mercenary for his personal protection?

Of course it is not hypocritical. You can, in fact, be anti-gun while owning a gun without being even remotely hypocritical. A gun can be used for protection from people with guns. To be anti-gun does not mean one must remove a primary form of protection from that which you oppose. For someone who is anti-gun, the ideal world is one in which there are no guns and therefore one of the primary reasons for having a gun is removed. But we do not live in any ideal world, so there remains a primary reason for having a gun even while one is opposed to the ability to possess a gun.

roachboy · 01-21-2005, 11:50 AM

this was a tabloid-style story from a tabloid-style "news" outlet framed to generate precisely this kind of one-dimensional response.
what is obviously the crux is that some folk simply do not like michael moore, nothing more, nothing less.
at this point, after thread after thread on f911 and probably an equal if not greater number on bfc, i am not sure why continued demonstration of the fact that some folk do not llike michael moore continues to be interesting.

RangerDick · 01-21-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Of course it is not hypocritical. You can, in fact, be anti-gun while owning a gun without being even remotely hypocritical. A gun can be used for protection from people with guns.

Manx, I mean no disrespect here, but I actually laughed out loud at that statement.

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

You can, in fact, be anti-gun while owning a gun without being even remotely hypocritical.

I was formulating my response when I ran into the above comment and frankly, I don't have a response to it.

Yes, I read your qualifying statements, but I don't see that they help.

If you truly think this, then I give up, you win.

Manx · 01-21-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

Manx, I mean no disrespect here, but I actually laughed out loud at that statement.

None taken. Whether you find it humorous or disagree with it does not change that fact that it is accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I give up, you win.

Good idea, I know.

Yakk · 01-21-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

It is hypocisy that MM decries multimillion dollar coporations while he himself lives in a multimillion dollar NYC loft in an exclusive building.

This one I'd disagree with. I don't know of any MM propoganda that says having money is itself bad -- from what I can tell, MM says "getting money in bad ways is bad".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

It is hypocrisy that MM demands accountability from the president, saying that Bush lied to the American people to advance his agenda while ignoring the critics and the overwhelming evidence that MM himself has done just that himself.

I've seen a number of responses by MM to such attacks. So, "ignore" doesn't seem to be the right verb here. Discount maybe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

And it is unfathomable to me that there are people that support this man when there are better spokespersons for their causes to be had.

Personally, I view him as a light-weight "Fox News" on the left. He does "Documentaries" and Fox is "Fair and Balanced". Although, given the respective budgets, possibly comparing him to the mooney-funded Washington Times propoganda source.

Against such admittedly low standards, he shows up as much shinier!

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

I've seen a number of responses by MM to such attacks. So, "ignore" doesn't seem to be the right verb here. Discount maybe?

The only responses I've seen of his are on his "Whacko Attacko" page, where the responses don't actually seem to address the criticisms.

The one I remember is his response to the charge that the Lockheed Martin Waterton plant doesn't make WMD's. His response was something like, well, they do make rockets that launch satellites that the military uses... which of course aren't WMD's He made some more comments to explain himself, which of course, never addresses the fact that he LIED when he said the plant made WMD's. It seems that to his logic, it sorta makes WMD's, because the military uses satelites that may be launched on it's rockets and because LM is a major military contractor.

And I wouldn't have a problem with how he lives either if he didn't pretend to be a champion for the little guy while running down the corporations who are also out for a buck.

Yakk · 01-21-2005, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The only responses I've seen of his are on his "Whacko Attacko" page, where the responses don't actually seem to address the criticisms.

Some are pretty good. Others are pretty weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell"

The one I remember is his response to the charge that the Lockheed Martin Waterton plant doesn't make WMD's. His response was something like, well, they do make rockets that launch satellites that the military uses... which of course aren't WMD's He made some more comments to explain himself, which of course, never addresses the fact that he LIED when he said the plant made WMD's. It seems that to his logic, it sorta makes WMD's, because the military uses satelites that may be launched on it's rockets and because LM is a major military contractor.

Here it is:

Quote:

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.

In addition to the arguements you listed, the factory also made ICBM's and ICBM parts from the 50s through to the 80s.

Do you have the original quote from BFC?

Remember, I'm just saying that 'ignore' is the wrong verb. If you want to get silly about it, I could accuse you of 'lieing' because you claimed he ignored the attacks. This would make you a hypocrit for accusing someone of being a hypocrit about lieing with a lie!

But, like I said, that would be silly. =p~

Locobot · 01-21-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The only responses I've seen of his are on his "Whacko Attacko" page, where the responses don't actually seem to address the criticisms.

The one I remember is his response to the charge that the Lockheed Martin Waterton plant doesn't make WMD's. His response was something like, well, they do make rockets that launch satellites that the military uses... which of course aren't WMD's He made some more comments to explain himself, which of course, never addresses the fact that he LIED when he said the plant made WMD's. It seems that to his logic, it sorta makes WMD's, because the military uses satelites that may be launched on it's rockets and because LM is a major military contractor.

And I wouldn't have a problem with how he lives either if he didn't pretend to be a champion for the little guy while running down the corporations who are also out for a buck.

wrong, try again here's an actual quote, are you sure you read this?

Quote:

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.

edit:
damn, yakk you beat me in calling bullshit first!

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 12:54 PM

To you both, yes I read it and yes, it says exactly what I said it says.

(But no, I couldn't find it again easily.)

So to distill, he still doesn't say that the plant he says are making (present tense) WMDs is in fact not.

The last missle produced at that plant was in the mid 80's and as I recall, before Kliebold and Harris was even born.

So what do we have? We have a larger philosophical argument, that LM as a company makes weapons systems (they never made the actual bombs, but they did make rockets), vs what MM actually says.

Is this just 'artistic liscense'? I don't beleive so, because MM is trying to get the viewer to believe some connection between that particular plant and the massacre at Columbine. I say this because he NEVER tries to correct or explain himself. Instead, he continues this same obfusication again in Colorado Springs when he deliberately lies about what a plaque under a B52 says and again, when he deliberately edits several Heston speeches to make the view believe that Heston gave a speech that he never in reality gave.

This is not the marks of a documentary or of journalistic integrity, they are are the marks of propaganda.

powerclown · 01-21-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Of course it is not hypocritical. You can, in fact, be anti-gun while owning a gun without being even remotely hypocritical.

How can one argue with such nonsense?
Get a pair of fucking 200lb mastiffs if your worried about burglars with guns. Get a taser gun. Get pepper spray. Get a baseball bat for christ sake.

Manx, you argue just to watch yourself type.

you can be anti-gun and own a gun...fucking brilliant.

filtherton · 01-21-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

"If it were up to me, I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in -- turn them all in."

Dianne Feinstein, to Lesley Stahl during an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" on Feb. 24, 1995.

" The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated."

Hon. Major R. Owens (Rep. NY, Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993, Extension of Remarks - September 23, 1993. Congressional Record, 103rd Congress, 1993-1994)

"Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun . There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year."

Senator John H. Chafee, Rhode Island (June 11, 1992, Congressional Record, 102nd Congress, 1991-1992)

While this "thinking" may not be universal, it's certainly widespread. There are thousand of documented statements like this from constitution-haters at various levels. Someone should explain how this isn't "fear-mongering." Oh, that's right--that's only done by Republicans.

It isn't universal, and even in the quotes you provided, there isn't any context. There is no way to tell whether they want to ban civilians from handgun ownership or whether they want to ban everyone from using handguns.

Quote:

I take it you consider insignificant those people who have a legitimate defense-based need to use them?

Show me proof that all citizens have a "legitimate" defense-based need for packing heat.

Quote:

You accidentally slipped an accuracy in here. When you call the cops, they MAY show up. They're not required to.

A couple of girls who became rape victims in their apartment established the above in a court case. Seems they were held captive for 12 hours. The police never responded to their emergency call.

I know, i've had to call the cops on drunks before.

Look, i'm not for gun control in general. I do think this article about mm's bodyguard is silly, because it hasn't been established the the body guard was even with moore at the time of his arrest.

Manx · 01-21-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

How can one argue with such nonsense?
Get a pair of fucking 200lb mastiffs if your worried about burglars with guns. Get a taser gun. Get pepper spray. Get a baseball bat for christ sake.

Manx, you argue just to watch yourself type.

you can be anti-gun and own a gun...fucking brilliant.

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the logic of my argument, regardless of how vehmently you may disagree or find it confusing.

I am anti-money, but I own money because society requires it and it is my (idealistic) goal to eliminate the need for money within society. There is nothing hypocritical about my use of money. I am anti-gas guzzling cars but I still own one because it is far more beneficial to achieve my agenda of non-oil based cars if I am able to travel quickly across distances. Again, there is nothing hypocritical about that position.

It would be hypocritical to be anti-gun and take pleasure in target practice, but for the protection from guns that a gun will provide, there is no hypocrisy.

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 02:03 PM

The difference is that there are alternatives to owning a gun for protection, while there are no viable alternatives to using money.

I would also add that there are alternatives to owning a gas guzzler.

I mean, what would you say to a fundamentalist Christian who argues,

"You can be anti-abortion and still have an abortion..."

Manx · 01-21-2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The difference is that there are alternatives to owning a gun for protection, while there are no viable alternatives to using money.

I would also add that there are alternatives to owning a gas guzzler.

There are alternatives to everything, but practicality is key. It is not practical to hire a bunch of guard dogs to walk around with you all day (nor would they be very effective anyway). It is not practical to defend yourself from an attacker armed with a gun by using a baseball bat. It is practical to hire an armed body guard. It is not practical to live a life without gasoline thereby removing your ability to travel great distances in a timely manner if your goal is to promote change in a wide area.

Quote:

I mean, what would you say to a fundamentalist Christian who argues,

"You can be anti-abortion and still have an abortion..."

I'd say right on, but I expect I will never run into a fundamentalist Christian who would make that argument. But to your point, if you could demonstrate a specific scenario where there is a practical need for an abortion, then I would certainly state that there is no hypocrisy in an anti-abortionist having an abortion.

Lebell · 01-21-2005, 02:22 PM

So then, since I can't afford the practical measure of hiring a body guard, but I can afford to buy a pistol and get a concealed weapons permit, I take it from your arguments that you would support me in this?

Manx · 01-21-2005, 03:43 PM

If you were anti-gun. But you're not. So I don't.

Then again, I'm not anti-gun either, so when we consider that, I do support you.

FoolThemAll · 01-21-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

If you were anti-gun. But you're not. So I don't.

Wait, what? The justification for an anti-gunner to own a firearm is to deal practically with a world in which firearms are pervasive, right?

Why can't a pro-gunner use that justification as well? If those against guns see a need for them (presently), why wouldn't others see the need as well?

Manx · 01-21-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Why can't a pro-gunner use that justification as well?

Because no one is accusing a pro-gunner who owns a gun of being a hypocrite, so there is nothing to justify.

FoolThemAll · 01-21-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Because no one is accusing a pro-gunner who owns a gun of being a hypocrite, so there is nothing to justify.

Uh, yes there is. I'm talking about justifying possession of a firearm.

Anti-gunner: I need a gun to protect me from the dangers of a gun-infested world.
Pro-gunner: I need a gun to protect me from the dangers of a gun-infested world.

If you were that anti-gunner, would you support the pro-gunner's ability to own a firearm as well (assuming all other things equal)?

filtherton · 01-21-2005, 05:21 PM

or perhaps...

anti-gunner: i need a gun to protect me from the dangers of a gun infested world, and i also support efforts to decrease the amount of guns in the world.

RangerDick · 01-21-2005, 05:25 PM

Ahhhhh, hypocrisy. By human nature, we are all hypocrits. Is it hypocritical of me to tell my kids not to smoke, when I smoke a pack a day? Yes. Is it hypocritical of me to tell my kids never to drive after they have been drinking, when I have gotten behind the wheel of a car after one too many drinks? Yes. I think that this may have been what Manx has been trying to say (but without acknowledging that this is, by definition, hypocrisy - correct me if I've read you wrong). Except for those who lead a spot free lifestyle (and I can't think of anyone off hand who does), there is a little bit of hypocrisy in us all. The one major difference is that most of us don't become multi-millionaire's on a platform of standards that we reject in our own lives (cue Michael Moore). It's just funny that some people seem to have difficulty callling a spade a spade, and are using the old "smoke and mirrors" technique in an attempt to defend this prime example.

FoolThemAll · 01-21-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

anti-gunner: i need a gun to protect me from the dangers of a gun infested world, and i also support efforts to decrease the amount of guns in the world.

The question: if such anti-gunners see reason (the reason being the dangers of a gun infested world) to own a gun, why wouldn't they see the same reason for pro-gunners to own a gun?

Or would they?

filtherton · 01-21-2005, 06:32 PM

I can't speak for anyone but myself, so i can't argue on behalf of all anti-gunners. I was just saying that a gun owner can be pro-gun control and not be a hypocrite.

Yakk · 01-21-2005, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

To you both, yes I read it and yes, it says exactly what I said it says.

(But no, I couldn't find it again easily.)

Speaking of finding things on the internet, the quote from the original movie:

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

This is not the marks of a documentary or of journalistic integrity, they are are the marks of propaganda.

Oh, of course Moore documentaries contain propoganda. Has he ever claimed otherwise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

when he deliberately edits several Heston speeches to make the view believe that Heston gave a speech that he never in reality gave.

By no measure did Moore edit together "several" speeches.

Before Moore introduced the event, Moore showed Heston repeating a standard motto of the NRA: "From my Cold Dead Hands".

He then introduced the NRA having a meeting near Columbine, and every other clip is from the same speach. I believe the rest of the quotes are all in sequence as well.

Moore did cut out most of Heston's speech.

several(a): (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many; "several letters came in the mail"; "several people were injured in the accident"

The second exagerration you've made while attacking Moore.

Remember, I'm disagreeing with you on technical grounds. First, you used 'ignore', when Moore did respond to the attacks -- possibly insufficiently, but he's not ignoring them.

Does this make your posts propoganda?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

The question: if such anti-gunners see reason (the reason being the dangers of a gun infested world) to own a gun, why wouldn't they see the same reason for pro-gunners to own a gun?

Or would they?

Ok, here goes. There is a thing in economics called 'negative externalities'.

There can be things that, individually, make your life better, but collectively make the community worse off.

One could argue that making guns harder to get, or even banning them, might fall under this category.

So, for each person, getting a gun, given that there are lots of guns out there, might be a good thing.

At the same time, for the society as a whole, making guns harder to get might benefit everyone.

Thus, one could be anti-gun, in that one wants guns to be harder to get, in order to benefit everyone. At the same time, one might believe that until guns are harder to get, it is useful to have a gun.

Alternatively, you could be in a situation with multiple optimal points.

Imagine four cities:
A> In one, everyone has a gun. 1,000 people die from gunshots every day.
B> In another, nobody has a gun. Nobody dies from gunshots.
C> In the third, half the people have a gun. 500 people with guns die from gunshots. 1000 people without guns die from gunshots.
D> In the forth, 1% of the population has a gun. 30 people with guns die from gunshots, and 100 people without guns die from gunshots.

Notice that B is the safest city (no guns). But, everyone having a gun is safer than half the population having a gun. And, if half the population has a gun, buying a gun is the easiest way to reduce your death rate from guns.

If someone made guns harder to get, and you moved to situation D, you would have a 10 fold drop in gun deaths.

Now, this is a hypothetical situation, but it does demonstrate how you could have two different points that are locally optimal. Getting from one to the other can't be done easily, without lots of effort.

stevo · 01-21-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Ok, here goes. There is a thing in economics called 'negative externalities'.

There can be things that, individually, make your life better, but collectively make the community worse off.

One could argue that making guns harder to get, or even banning them, might fall under this category.

So, for each person, getting a gun, given that there are lots of guns out there, might be a good thing.

At the same time, for the society as a whole, making guns harder to get might benefit everyone.

Thus, one could be anti-gun, in that one wants guns to be harder to get, in order to benefit everyone. At the same time, one might believe that until guns are harder to get, it is useful to have a gun.

Alternatively, you could be in a situation with multiple optimal points.

Imagine four cities:
A> In one, everyone has a gun. 1,000 people die from gunshots every day.
B> In another, nobody has a gun. Nobody dies from gunshots.
C> In the third, half the people have a gun. 500 people with guns die from gunshots. 1000 people without guns die from gunshots.
D> In the forth, 1% of the population has a gun. 30 people with guns die from gunshots, and 100 people without guns die from gunshots.

Notice that B is the safest city (no guns). But, everyone having a gun is safer than half the population having a gun. And, if half the population has a gun, buying a gun is the easiest way to reduce your death rate from guns.

If someone made guns harder to get, and you moved to situation D, you would have a 10 fold drop in gun deaths.

Now, this is a hypothetical situation, but it does demonstrate how you could have two different points that are locally optimal. Getting from one to the other can't be done easily, without lots of effort.

So game theory does have a use outside the classroom. So what's that, like, 2 nash equilibrims? That was fun, but next time draw out the matirx so it is easier to picture.

Quote:

I mean, what would you say to a fundamentalist Christian who argues, "You can be anti-abortion and still have an abortion..."
..........................
I'd say right on...

But some people will never admit to hypocrisy if they don't even know what it is

RangerDick · 01-21-2005, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Alternatively, you could be in a situation with multiple optimal points.

Imagine four cities:
A> In one, everyone has a gun. 1,000 people die from gunshots every day.
B> In another, nobody has a gun. Nobody dies from gunshots.
C> In the third, half the people have a gun. 500 people with guns die from gunshots. 1000 people without guns die from gunshots.
D> In the forth, 1% of the population has a gun. 30 people with guns die from gunshots, and 100 people without guns die from gunshots.

Notice that B is the safest city (no guns). But, everyone having a gun is safer than half the population having a gun. And, if half the population has a gun, buying a gun is the easiest way to reduce your death rate from guns.

If someone made guns harder to get, and you moved to situation D, you would have a 10 fold drop in gun deaths.

Now, this is a hypothetical situation, but it does demonstrate how you could have two different points that are locally optimal. Getting from one to the other can't be done easily, without lots of effort.

This is a prime example of the difference in the worlds between a liberal's world and the real world, where up is down and down is up, nothing in the previous statement makes a lick of sense. For example, it was stated that,
"Notice that B is the safest city (no guns). But, everyone having a gun is safer than half the population having a gun. And, if half the population has a gun, buying a gun is the easiest way to reduce your death rate from guns."

Can someone please help me make sense out of that statement, or is it me?

almostaugust · 01-21-2005, 11:45 PM

LOL Another Michael Moore regurgitation fest. If i had to try and mentally process the amount of seethingly spiteful posts directed towards him, my head would explode. And, if he had half an ounce of intelligence he would hire armed security guards because of it.
Michael Moore's films are terrific propoganda. He acknowledges it. He tries to deliver a message with his films. He shoots, interviews and edits toward this end. If you want to start questioning the integrity of the man, maybe you want to have a look at the american media. Wasnt it Bill Clinton who declared that the hardest questions ever posed to him in office were by college students? The US media took all of the administrations falsehoods hook line and sinker when invading Iraq. They reported it all at face value, never asking the glaringly obvious questions because of some absurd code of 'unity'. Where was their integrity? And still we hardly see the true images of what is going on over there (but its ok when a Tsunami strikes to gratuitously splash blackened dead babies on the news).
And now that there isnt any WMDs, 100,000 lives lost, shit loads injured and an american public which still oddly insists (well a large percentage) that Saddam was somehow accountable for 9/11, who is gonna start asking the questions? If not Moore, than who?

RangerDick · 01-22-2005, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Alternatively, you could be in a situation with multiple optimal points.

Imagine four cities:
A> In one, everyone has a gun. 1,000 people die from gunshots every day.
B> In another, nobody has a gun. Nobody dies from gunshots.
C> In the third, half the people have a gun. 500 people with guns die from gunshots. 1000 people without guns die from gunshots.
D> In the forth, 1% of the population has a gun. 30 people with guns die from gunshots, and 100 people without guns die from gunshots.

Notice that B is the safest city (no guns). But, everyone having a gun is safer than half the population having a gun. And, if half the population has a gun, buying a gun is the easiest way to reduce your death rate from guns.

If someone made guns harder to get, and you moved to situation D, you would have a 10 fold drop in gun deaths.

Now, this is a hypothetical situation, but it does demonstrate how you could have two different points that are locally optimal. Getting from one to the other can't be done easily, without lots of effort.

Seriously YaK, what the hell are you trying to say?

FoolThemAll · 01-22-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Now, this is a hypothetical situation, but it does demonstrate how you could have two different points that are locally optimal. Getting from one to the other can't be done easily, without lots of effort.

What I got from your post, particularly this last paragraph: it's a difficult choice for anti-gunners. I didn't get a sense that:

anti-gunners who owned guns for a given reason and wished to deny pro-gunners (who invoked the same reason) the guns they desire

aren't being inconsistent. All I saw was that they were in a conundrum that could easily lead to that inconsistency. They should realize that trying to get from city C to city D involves denying many people the protection that they themselves are unwilling to give up. That is a a problem of inconsistency, one that could be resolved by being an example to others first.

Unless they can come up with a reason why they should have guns, but a given other person should not. Possible, but city D becomes much less likely when anti-gunners don't seek to deprive every average citizen of guns. And city C goes from highly improbable to certifiably impossible.

edited for grammar

Lebell · 01-22-2005, 01:09 PM

Yakk,

My use of "several" is correct.

The "Cold, dead hands" snippit comes from a different speech that occurred a year later in Charlotte, NC. Heston NEVER said it in his Denver speech.

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

But hey, if it sells the movie, what's a little "creative editing", right?

And thanks for the quote, since it illustrates exactly the lie Moore tries to sell in this instance.

chateau_margaux · 01-22-2005, 02:23 PM

After Bowling for Columbine, you now have to view Moore's objectives as questionable. Where does he stand?

Amnesia620 · 01-22-2005, 02:33 PM

Comedian Sabrina Matthews said it well: The definition of Irony is not a black fly in your chardonnay...it's naming the airport after the President of the United States who fired all of pilots who worked at that airport.

matthew330 · 01-22-2005, 04:19 PM

"I don't know of any MM propoganda that says having money is itself bad -- from what I can tell, MM says "getting money in bad ways is bad"."

HAHAHAHHA MOTHER FUCKING HA.

You do realize that Michael Moore's target is the younger generation - the only people that will swallow his BS as truth - and this is "getting money in a good way." At least you characters recognize it as BS, you just have a million and one reasons to justify it.

"If i had to try and mentally process the amount of seethingly spiteful posts directed towards him, my head would explode."

Try being a Bush supporter.

host · 01-23-2005, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I usually don't bother with long winded replies in "Politics" these days, as many others are willing to take up the slack, but I will allow myself to be so moved now.

It is blatant hypocisy of the first degree to decree that America is full of "Stupid White Men" and that we have a gun culture that is propagated and perpetuated by the media and THEN hire ARMED body guards who don't even bother to know and follow the gun laws.

It is hypocrisy to complain that there are lax gun laws then hire body guards that don't bother to know and follow said gun laws.

It is hypocisy to claim to be a documentarian (documentaries by DEFINITION being things that deal with FACTS) and then create "documentaries" that twist facts, present out and out falsehoods, and character assassinate people and organizations by use of clever editing. That MM does so using an "aw shucks, I'm just an average Joe" persona only adds insult.

It is hypocisy that MM decries multimillion dollar coporations while he himself lives in a multimillion dollar NYC loft in an exclusive building.

It is hypocrisy that MM demands accountability from the president, saying that Bush lied to the American people to advance his agenda while ignoring the critics and the overwhelming evidence that MM himself has done just that himself.

And it is unfathomable to me that there are people that support this man when there are better spokespersons for their causes to be had.

I look to Moore for his slant on American politics and American society.
He is a filter of the slices of current events that he chooses to hold up
to the light of his camera.

I look to the President of the United States to lead. It outrages me when
I see the President mislead, and then fail to admit it, when the result is avoidable war of aggression that causes the deaths and maiming of
many young American troops and countless innocent Iraqis and other
foreigners.

I see Michael Moore as someone who shares my outrage. Michael Moore
has projected a message that is misleading at times. Moore has not
caused avoidable death and destruction on a very large scale.

You seem much more disturbed by Michael Moore's deception, even though
it is harmless compared to the deception of George Bush and his political
appointees. You seem to give Bush a pass for changing the reasons numerous times for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and for his record of never
taking personal responsibility for the numerous miscalculations and
poor decisions he has made regarding Iraq, or for not holding officials such
as Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, Tenent, Gonzales, or General Myers accountable for their failures of administration or judgment in the performance of their
respective national security functions. Rumsfeld ignored advice from
State Dept. planners and some senior generals, resulting in the botched
post invasion Iraqi occupation, and is responsible for the Abu Grhaib torture
mess, and the avoidable casualties caused by lack of adequate body and
vehicle armor. Rumsfeld is one of only a few cabinet members asked by
Bush to stay on. Rice is promoted after presiding over pre and post 9/11
intelligence failures. She and Bush blame Tenent's CIA for faulty intelligence,
while both claim that they made no misleading statements to make the
case for Iraq invasion. Recently, Bush awarded Tenent the highest award
bestowed on a civilian for exemplary national service. Myers' competence
or lack thereof was made painfully clear in post 9/11 congressional
questioning concerning air defense readiness and response on 9/11.

Gonzales is promoted to AG after writing the brilliant legal opinions that
fronted for Bush's plan to act above and outside U.S. and international
law and the Geneva convention. Neither Bush nor Gonzales admit any
misstep in seeking to justify unprecedented harsh and arbitrary treatment of
those captured in Bush's war on terror, despite what has been uncovered
concerning the Bush sanctioned torture of prisoners held in "off shore"
locations, at the hands of U.S. military and intelligence sub-contractors and
by surrogates in foreign intelligence services and locations.

Lebell, I'm at least as bothered by many of Moore's critics apparent lack of concern regarding the issues I described here related to Bush and his appointees, and the resultant consequences, <br>unfolded and unfolding, disclosed and to be disclosed, as many of Moore's critics are concerning the productions, deeds, and statements of Michael Moore.

The points you have made on this thread have influenced me to take a
closer and more critical look at Moore and his BFC production. I'll also
continue to offer linked info from mainstream sources related to Bushco
deficiencies in judgment and execution:

Quote:

Gas and electricity shortages enervate Iraq
War-torn nation struggles with energy crisis amid unusually cold winter
By Colin McMahon
Chicago Tribune
Originally published January 16, 2005
BAGHDAD - If Iraq's vote is about delivering power to the people, average Iraqis can only hope elections work better than the nation's energy system.

More than 20 months after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq is shrouded in a different kind of darkness. Insurgent sabotage, faulty electrical equipment and maintenance problems are robbing the nation of heat and light. Gasoline lines stretch for miles. Generators sit idle. Even cooking gas is scarce.

Electricity output is down about 20 percent from before the war and down a third from its high of a few months ago, despite more than $500 million in investment by the United States. For more than a month, the average Baghdad resident has been getting about one hour of electricity followed by 10 hours of blackout, though things improved this week after interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has promised changes.

Gasoline on the black market - three jerrycans, no waiting - costs more in oil-rich Iraq than it does in the high-tax, environmentally conscious nations of Western Europe.

People don't know whether to be baffled or enraged.

"I can't believe the government can do nothing to solve this crisis," said Sabah Abed Mouslih, 42, who was waiting in line for gas for his taxi last week.
<a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.iraqvote16jan16,1,3043758.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true">http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.iraqvote16jan16,1,3043758.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true</a>

Yakk · 01-23-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So game theory does have a use outside the classroom. So what's that, like, 2 nash equilibrims? That was fun, but next time draw out the matirx so it is easier to picture.

I have found that doing explicit math in a public forum leads to ... lack of understanding. =)

Tossing out a matrix, and saying "this demonstrates how pro-gun control and wanting to own a gun are consistent" would result in even fewer people understanding my point, I suspect!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

This is a prime example of the difference in the worlds between a liberal's world and the real world, where up is down and down is up, nothing in the previous statement makes a lick of sense. For example, it was stated that,
"Notice that B is the safest city (no guns). But, everyone having a gun is safer than half the population having a gun. And, if half the population has a gun, buying a gun is the easiest way to reduce your death rate from guns."

Can someone please help me make sense out of that statement, or is it me?

Look at case C.

Quote:

C> In the third, half the people have a gun. 500 people with guns die from gunshots. 1000 people without guns die from gunshots.

Your chance of dieing from being shot is doubled if you don't have a gun.

So, each person should think "I should buy a gun to make myself safer!

Now, look at case D:

Quote:

D> In the forth, 1% of the population has a gun. 30 people with guns die from gunshots, and 100 people without guns die from gunshots.

By case D, this is no longer the case: buying a gun is foolish.

In this hypothetical city, buying a gun makes sense if more than a certain percentage of the population has guns. This continues, possibly, until everyone owns a gun.

If less than a certain percentage of the population has guns, buying a gun doesn't make sense. This logic continues, possibly, until nobody owns a gun.

This is a case of two 'locally optimal points'. Everyone has a gun, or nobody has a gun.

Looking at the two points (A and B)

Quote:

A> In one, everyone has a gun. 1,000 people die from gunshots every day.
B> In another, nobody has a gun. Nobody dies from gunshots.

You will notice that fewer people die in case B than in case A, at least from gunshots.

This isn't a proof that gun control makes sense: it is just an attempt to illustrate how gun ownership and pro-gun restriction can be consistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

My use of "several" is correct.

The "Cold, dead hands" snippit comes from a different speech that occurred a year later in Charlotte, NC. Heston NEVER said it in his Denver speech.

Shit man, did you even read my post?

I gave a definition of 'several'. It means 'more than two or three' in the case of it being used to count nouns.

2 is not more than 2 or 3. Two speeches where used in the movie. And they where not edited together, but placed one after another, with the second speech having an introduction.

At least, that is what I read about the contravercy. Did it happen differently than that?

However, here you are, using lie-filled arguements to attack Moore about lieing. Several is not the correct word to use for the number '2', it's use was a lie.

And yes, that is hyperbole. I don't think you are lieing as much as you are using hyperbole and exagerrative language to argue your point.

EDIT: Deleted some over-the-top hyperbole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

And thanks for the quote, since it illustrates exactly the lie Moore tries to sell in this instance.

Actually, that quote was the wrong one. It didn't contain a lie -- the language was inclusive enough for it to be talking about America and Americans as a whole, and thus makes Moore's defence consistent. The one with the lie or error has to do with transporting of missiles through the neighbourhood at night.

My error, sorry about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

You do realize that Michael Moore's target is the younger generation - the only people that will swallow his BS as truth - and this is "getting money in a good way." At least you characters recognize it as BS, you just have a million and one reasons to justify it.

Huh? Please clarify.

host · 01-23-2005, 10:32 AM

Michael Moore's response:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/index.php">http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/index.php</a>

..................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"

Thanks, Michael.....keep up the good work!

01-21-2005, 11:31 AM	#41 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I usually don't bother with long winded replies in "Politics" these days, as many others are willing to take up the slack, but I will allow myself to be so moved now. It is blatant hypocisy of the first degree to decree that America is full of "Stupid White Men" and that we have a gun culture that is propagated and perpetuated by the media and THEN hire ARMED body guards who don't even bother to know and follow the gun laws. It is hypocrisy to complain that there are lax gun laws then hire body guards that don't bother to know and follow said gun laws. It is hypocisy to claim to be a documentarian (documentaries by DEFINITION being things that deal with FACTS) and then create "documentaries" that twist facts, present out and out falsehoods, and character assassinate people and organizations by use of clever editing. That MM does so using an "aw shucks, I'm just an average Joe" persona only adds insult. It is hypocisy that MM decries multimillion dollar coporations while he himself lives in a multimillion dollar NYC loft in an exclusive building. It is hypocrisy that MM demands accountability from the president, saying that Bush lied to the American people to advance his agenda while ignoring the critics and the overwhelming evidence that MM himself has done just that himself. And it is unfathomable to me that there are people that support this man when there are better spokespersons for their causes to be had. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-21-2005, 11:50 AM	#45 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this was a tabloid-style story from a tabloid-style "news" outlet framed to generate precisely this kind of one-dimensional response. what is obviously the crux is that some folk simply do not like michael moore, nothing more, nothing less. at this point, after thread after thread on f911 and probably an equal if not greater number on bfc, i am not sure why continued demonstration of the fact that some folk do not llike michael moore continues to be interesting. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-21-2005, 12:54 PM	#53 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	To you both, yes I read it and yes, it says exactly what I said it says. (But no, I couldn't find it again easily.) So to distill, he still doesn't say that the plant he says are making (present tense) WMDs is in fact not. The last missle produced at that plant was in the mid 80's and as I recall, before Kliebold and Harris was even born. So what do we have? We have a larger philosophical argument, that LM as a company makes weapons systems (they never made the actual bombs, but they did make rockets), vs what MM actually says. Is this just 'artistic liscense'? I don't beleive so, because MM is trying to get the viewer to believe some connection between that particular plant and the massacre at Columbine. I say this because he NEVER tries to correct or explain himself. Instead, he continues this same obfusication again in Colorado Springs when he deliberately lies about what a plaque under a B52 says and again, when he deliberately edits several Heston speeches to make the view believe that Heston gave a speech that he never in reality gave. This is not the marks of a documentary or of journalistic integrity, they are are the marks of propaganda. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-21-2005, 02:03 PM	#57 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	The difference is that there are alternatives to owning a gun for protection, while there are no viable alternatives to using money. I would also add that there are alternatives to owning a gas guzzler. I mean, what would you say to a fundamentalist Christian who argues, "You can be anti-abortion and still have an abortion..." __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-21-2005, 02:22 PM	#59 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	So then, since I can't afford the practical measure of hiring a body guard, but I can afford to buy a pistol and get a concealed weapons permit, I take it from your arguments that you would support me in this? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-21-2005, 03:43 PM	#60 (permalink)
Manx Loser	If you were anti-gun. But you're not. So I don't. Then again, I'm not anti-gun either, so when we consider that, I do support you.

01-21-2005, 05:21 PM	#64 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	or perhaps... anti-gunner: i need a gun to protect me from the dangers of a gun infested world, and i also support efforts to decrease the amount of guns in the world.

01-21-2005, 05:25 PM	#65 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	Ahhhhh, hypocrisy. By human nature, we are all hypocrits. Is it hypocritical of me to tell my kids not to smoke, when I smoke a pack a day? Yes. Is it hypocritical of me to tell my kids never to drive after they have been drinking, when I have gotten behind the wheel of a car after one too many drinks? Yes. I think that this may have been what Manx has been trying to say (but without acknowledging that this is, by definition, hypocrisy - correct me if I've read you wrong). Except for those who lead a spot free lifestyle (and I can't think of anyone off hand who does), there is a little bit of hypocrisy in us all. The one major difference is that most of us don't become multi-millionaire's on a platform of standards that we reject in our own lives (cue Michael Moore). It's just funny that some people seem to have difficulty callling a spade a spade, and are using the old "smoke and mirrors" technique in an attempt to defend this prime example.

01-21-2005, 06:32 PM	#67 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I can't speak for anyone but myself, so i can't argue on behalf of all anti-gunners. I was just saying that a gun owner can be pro-gun control and not be a hypocrite.

01-21-2005, 11:45 PM	#71 (permalink)
almostaugust Junkie Location: Oz	LOL Another Michael Moore regurgitation fest. If i had to try and mentally process the amount of seethingly spiteful posts directed towards him, my head would explode. And, if he had half an ounce of intelligence he would hire armed security guards because of it. Michael Moore's films are terrific propoganda. He acknowledges it. He tries to deliver a message with his films. He shoots, interviews and edits toward this end. If you want to start questioning the integrity of the man, maybe you want to have a look at the american media. Wasnt it Bill Clinton who declared that the hardest questions ever posed to him in office were by college students? The US media took all of the administrations falsehoods hook line and sinker when invading Iraq. They reported it all at face value, never asking the glaringly obvious questions because of some absurd code of 'unity'. Where was their integrity? And still we hardly see the true images of what is going on over there (but its ok when a Tsunami strikes to gratuitously splash blackened dead babies on the news). And now that there isnt any WMDs, 100,000 lives lost, shit loads injured and an american public which still oddly insists (well a large percentage) that Saddam was somehow accountable for 9/11, who is gonna start asking the questions? If not Moore, than who? __________________ 'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe Maybe this year will be better than the last I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself To hold on to these moments as they pass'

01-22-2005, 01:09 PM	#74 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Yakk, My use of "several" is correct. The "Cold, dead hands" snippit comes from a different speech that occurred a year later in Charlotte, NC. Heston NEVER said it in his Denver speech. http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html But hey, if it sells the movie, what's a little "creative editing", right? And thanks for the quote, since it illustrates exactly the lie Moore tries to sell in this instance. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-22-2005, 02:23 PM	#75 (permalink)
chateau_margaux Upright	After Bowling for Columbine, you now have to view Moore's objectives as questionable. Where does he stand?

01-22-2005, 02:33 PM	#76 (permalink)
Amnesia620 Forget me not... Location: See that dot on the map? I don't live there.	Comedian Sabrina Matthews said it well: The definition of Irony is not a black fly in your chardonnay...it's naming the airport after the President of the United States who fired all of pilots who worked at that airport. __________________ For example, I find that a lot of college girls are barbie doll carbon copies with few differences...Sadly, they're dumb, ditzy, immature, snotty, fake, or they are the gravitational center to orbiting drama. - Amnesia620

01-22-2005, 04:19 PM	#77 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"I don't know of any MM propoganda that says having money is itself bad -- from what I can tell, MM says "getting money in bad ways is bad"." HAHAHAHHA MOTHER FUCKING HA. You do realize that Michael Moore's target is the younger generation - the only people that will swallow his BS as truth - and this is "getting money in a good way." At least you characters recognize it as BS, you just have a million and one reasons to justify it. "If i had to try and mentally process the amount of seethingly spiteful posts directed towards him, my head would explode." Try being a Bush supporter.