Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Hmm, interesting.

So it purports to tell the truth, but it starts with a title that seems to me to be a blatant lie.

It has a title which is a prima facie personal attack on the *person* not on what he says.

Its trailers have quotes like "you have to quote people out of context" and "he's utterly brilliant at creating a false impression without saying a false words"

It has "little people" talking about how great America is and how they can "make it", as if Michael Moore somehow has attacked *them* (I don't recall him doing that) for doing so.

And one trailer ends with the film maker saying that "I guess we touched a nerve" because Michael Moore said he was slandered by the maker saying "Michael Moore Hates America".

Well, frankly if someone told such a bald-faced lie about *me*, yes, I think it *would* hit a nerve!

And they think this makes them *better* that Moore somehow?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Moore is trying to stop stuff like the detainees being held without trial in other words trying to give people freedom! That is what America stands for, or at least thats what they claim

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

He Has tried to help stop the gun culture and is against war and the bush administration is the usa why is he constantly being attacked by his right wing enemies claiming he is a lair and so forth? That Film is typical of the american media. You can say what you like but if you dare to actually use that right you will be condemed. They want to revoke his oscar as he used his right to fair speech. Dam gits

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I never said it was a fact. I never even inferred it. I said you'd like to believe it is true. Incidently, isn't talking about his advertising on the blog site of someone who criticizes the film, a little off topic? Just a thought.


No, if want to stoop down to that level, i'd be a bit more direct.


You know, you could try acting your age and not your shoesize. Yes, i'm attacking you personally, and yes i'm descending down to your level, but i'm sick of your attitude. If you can't discuss things rationally and maturely, then don't. Also see the last point.


Again, i'm not sure what this has to do with BFC. F9/11, I may grant you, but it has nothing to do with BFC so let's try and drag this thread back on topic.



I didn't ignore anything. I read it, and responded.


No it is fact. Mikey is actually a versatile fella. He has been quoted as saying that America is both a liberal country, and a conservative one, depending on what he is trying to say. Also, the "wacko attackos" letter is on his website.


"I have been doing e-comms too long to be impressed by this sort of exculpatory argument. ". Sound familiar? It is also exactly te same you said before with different words.

Fair enough, i'll PM you later. Also see the last point.


Funny that. I merely negated what you said, and sudddenly it is out of context? If you say 2 * 2 = 4, and I say no it isn't, it is suddenly in a different context?


It said "free catalogue" in the advert itself, which granted is a bit vague. I could link to the point on Moorewatch where an American explains it but I doubt you'd take much notice, but this is a common thing in America, not just linked to a bank in Michigan. This is how it works: People put money into a bank called a CD, or "Certificate of Deposit". It is time locked, like a savings account. Given America is the land of fast food, and fast everything else, they have came up with an "instant interest scheme". Basically you put X amount of money in a time locked account, and you get the interest for the amount of time, 1, 10, 20 years however much you like, immeadiatly as a lump sum. The bank plays with your money, then it "matures" and then you get your original money back. Sometimes, like a loyalties scheme, instead of offering you a lump sum cash, they can offer you a gift, which is worth more than the interest, but costs the bank the same as the cash they'd give you. If you put $20 in a 1 year account, with the interest scheme, you'd get something small. A dvd voucher maybe. With a $5000 time locked for 20 years, you'd get something like a $1000 rifle maybe. All banks do it.


Not attacking me? Then you have a funny way of showing it.

Look at the way Tez posts in discussions, and look at yours. Regardless of the point or the person, he is always civil, pleasant, respectful. That is the kind of attitude that makes discussing things fun, rather than a chore that makes your blood boil. You both could say the same thing, but i'd respect him for saying it a whole lot more because of his attitude.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

But thats true, you can be conservative in some sense and and liberal in other sense different issues = different wings

I dont see why you keep attacking him his overall aim in this film was to highlight to problem with the culture of fear in the usa

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

It is a bit of a weird movie. He ran out of funing half way through and a new benefactor came in and he seemed to have had to change tack. But anyways.

Michael Moore doesn't hate America. Everyone knows that. If he hated America, he leave his rather nice $1.9m Manhatten apartment, and his $1.2m Michigan lakeside home, and move to Canada or Germany, or even to England, like he is always threatening. Or that is what he'd do if he had principals, which he doesn't. He does hate Americans though. He has called them everything under the sun. One of a big part of this speech tour was proving how stupid Americans are by comparing them to Canadians, and Europeans. He has called them everything under the sun. Idiots, arrogant (:rofl: Nothing like leading by example), money obsessed, oil obsessed, racist, egocentric, and that is what I can just rememeber off the top of his head. He is never shy at bitching about Americans to others (Mostly Europeans) when he wants to.

And he does attack the "little people". Remember when he criticised them for not being at whatever reading level he feels they should be at. They can't find Iraq on map. He questions their integrity. He questions their ambition. The little people seem to get it in the neck as much as the Government does.

But it is funny, how Moore said he'd debate anyone, any time on his issues, books and movies. Except If you are Michael Wilson, who he has deliberately avoided, even when he questions him on stage. Reminds me of Roger & Me, but now who is the "Roger" character and who is the "me" character?

It is a shame though, I was hoping the movie would take dissect MM piece by piece, but it seems to be more of an American promotional movie now, like that "America's Heart & Soul movie".

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Punky i cannot belive you are saying all this!

I have always agreed with our posts before now but these attacks on moore have been amazing. I see no evidence that he hates USA

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

damien i read alot of your posts you dont seem to like mr bush much and u like everyone to be treated fair - bad news pal its a screwed up world

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I said he didn't hate America. That's obvious because he lives here, and despite his vague threats he has never moved out of America.

To be fair, I said he hates Americans, which is a bit strong. He doesn't despise Americans holistically, but he is always quick to put them down. I'll dig out some examples if you want, but when he was on tour in Germany, he "said that Americans were stupid because the kids (or adults) can't find Iraq on the map (or much else), and the adults don't read at a high enough reading level. There is nothing wrong with criticizing your own country or citizens of course, but he is a bit strong, which disaffects even some Moore fans.

Actually I don't hate Moore like it sounds like you think I do. He is a very good film-maker. He is really good at (and this isn't a back-handed compliment at him), at munipulating his audience and invoking thoughts and responses. This guy was born to do anti-drug commercials and films. If he did, using the principals he applied in BFC, F9/11 and SWM/DWMC, then noone would take drugs, ever (providing he didn't lie or dissect it). I won't lie, I despise Moore as a person because of his ethics (or lack thereof), but that is separate from his work. However, I also believe his work is really misleading, to the point of being outright lies, which itself is different from Moore.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

You can still want things to get better

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

In his secound book it mentions the fact that a lot of americans cannot find iraq on the map and gives a figure. Also the low reading age seems to be a problem over there, it keeps coming up in news storys so if its true then its good that he is pointing this out

Also I cannot see any of these 'outright lies'

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Yeah they aren't lies. In fact it is one of the few things he lists a full and complete reference for. Still, it shows he doesn't have a huge love for his people. It is funny, he is on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, and he is ripping his shirt apart to reveal an American flag underneath, superman style. I think he does love America (hence why even though it has all the problems he outlines, he won't leave), but he'll rag on it and everyone in it, because he knows it will sell books, here, and abroad which is fairly lucrative, given anti-Americanism is so strong atm. (apparently, 1 million, out of 4 million Stupid White Men books were sold in Germany alone). You shouldn't be jingoistic but you shouldn't really spout that much hatred either really.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I think all these attacks on moore from the right wing sites and press is working well, they are succeeding in what they want to do.

Do you notice that we have hardly spent any time talking about the issues he raises in the film? We havent talked about the culture of fear, the fact that a young black mother had to work two jobs and never saw her son? We havent talked about the fact that nothing is being done to help out these people?

The attacks on moore from (mainly) the right wing are coving up the issues that NEED and SHOULD be addressed right away, as long as they are attacking moore then these issues are not being dealt with. They are making it about the personality of moore rather than the issues that he bring up and these issues are the important part of the film.

Enough of this personality war dreamt up by enemies of moore and time to talk about the issues he raises

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Punky, I have cut large parts of this "discussion" because they are no longer relevant to the topic.

If you think I am making personal attacks on you, then please feel free to use the "report post" function.

ADDENDUM

Before you reply to this post, I invite you to read the addendum at the bottom.

You don't perhaps think that it could just maybe be *both*?

Also please remember that "conservative" and "liberal" are merely *opinions*. They are not graven in stone anywhere.

Please don't make unwarranted assumptions about what I may or may not do. They don't help your arguments and could be considered "uncivil" or "disrespectful" for instance.

Thank you, but I was not asking for details of how the scheme works, I was asking for cites that "On of the big things that Moore fans say, is that "Why can't that bank offer something other than guns?"

Addendum

I've just read your subsequent posts with Damien etc and noted the following;

I'm pleased to note that you appear to have stepped back from your initial positions and revised some of your views.

I'm not going to re-write this and my subsequent post now because I don't have time, but you may want to reconsider any responses to them.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

But anyways???

His tack changes depending on who is paying the piper and you casually dismiss that as if it's irrelevant?! :eek:

This is nonsense and is attacking Moore personally for what he "is" (according to some) rather than what he *says*.

This is the sort of ridiculous claim that I've seen in other threads such as "if Muslims don't like the UK they should leave" and it's not a worthy argument.

Another sweeping generalisation. He has criticised *some* and yet, somehow, this is parlayed into him hating *all* of them. :rolleyes:

Again, he criticises *some*, not all. But that is like people in the UK criticising some "Little Englanders" or the BNP or some elements of the UKIP and is a valid comment. Unfortunately those who disagree with him want to paint him in the worst possible way so they claim he "hates America" because he doesn't hold to *their* views.

If you wanted to start a debate, would you do it with a personal attack by calling someone a liar or saying they "Hate America"???