Bowling for Columbine
 

I just watched the first 30 mins of this but had to turn it off.
It makes me feel sick, the US is such a screwed up country. :(

Despite not really wanting to watch all of this, I will tomorrow and then I'll watch F9/11 just to "educate" myself...

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

You shouldn't believe anything Michael Moore says. It is up to you, but you should really check out the other side before you decide wether to believe him or not. Given how you started on BFC, this is a good one to start on:

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

And here are 3 of the best ones:

www.moorewatch.com
www.moorelies.com
www.mooreexposed.com

I've just started reading a book about the lies MM trots out. It is a real eye opener to say the last. I've also explained my feelings about him much better here already.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

But from what I've seen, BFC is not lying anywhere.
It's just MM interviewing people and seeing the things they say is a little crazy.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

He doesnt lie that much. I have seen clear lies already in those links punky showed us.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Just becuase someone does not lie in the tape doesnt mean it cant be influenced.
A few editing here and there and cutting a few sentences out and you can mean a whole new thing all together.


I watched this a couple of months ago and what shocked me was that what I was seeing is footage of people actually being killed, shot at, and being put thruogh living hell.
I cant begin to think how these people must have felt, and I dont know why we have to see this. These poor people died and now its being thrown in everyones faces.
I think they should have some respect for those that died and just not show this real footage.

I agree with his stand on guns and all that and that he wants to get rid of them off the streets and control their usage.
I just find that it was a little too much in some areas of that film.
It certainly is shocking.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

ITYM "you shouldn't believe it unquestioningly"

But there again...

Two sites with a *blatant* Pro-Bush, Republican bias ("Let's make a Ronald Regan dollar coin", "Click here to thank Tony Blair (for his help in Iraq)" etc etc. Not exactly what I would call "impartial comment"

A page that criticises Moore for " In producing his Oscar-winner, Moore altered history, misled his viewers, and edited the footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. In one case, he took a speech of a person he desired to target; the problem was that the speech was in fact conciliatory and mild. So he spliced in footage from another speech, cut out paragraphs, and spliced the beginning of one sentence to the ending of another. "

And then goes on to say "[in] -Dude, Where's My Country, (page still under construction.) In this tome we learn "There is no terrorist threat," (p. 95) and Richard Nixon was the last liberal President, (p. 193). (Even more amusingly, in chapter 8 Moore pledges to contribute the limit to whichever Democrat has the best chance of winning (p. 162) and then in chapter 11 tells the reader that the Democrats are "professional losers," that "Democratic Party leaders have told me something they will not admit in public -- that they have basically written off 2004; that they see little chance of defeating George W. Bush" (p. 204) and that they might as well run Oprah Winfrey. (p. 206).)

Now *what* was that again about splicing together sentences and cutting out paragraphs?!

Please note that I'm not saying that Moore is necessarily *right*. But I don't think he's necessarily *wrong* either!!

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

It will be interesting to see what "lies" people claim there are in Farenheigh 9/11, as he has hired a team of independent fact checkers, and has a team of lawyers on stand-by should anyone attempt to defame him. If he is willing to fight his corner in court, that indicates to me a man who is pretty damn confident of his stance.

Regardless of anything else, in Bowling for Columbine he did get WalMart(?) to stop stocking ammunition, and I can`t see anyone defending the ramblings of Charlton Heston at the end of the film, he was quite offensively racist.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

the Charlton Heston piece, where he says the 'from my Cold Dead hands' bit, is painfully edited. Moore shows people grieving for victims of Columbine, then explains that the NRA were going ahead with their conference near Columbine, followed by Heston saying 'I have 5 words for you..........', cuts to the crowd and back to Heston, who then says '....from my cold dead hands'. Pretty callous - until you look again. Charlton changed clothes mid-sentence! Whaddya mean, 2 different speeches, over a year apart?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I thought the bank who offered a free gun as an incentive to open a new account was pretty stupid.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I`m specifically referring to the interview with Heston towards the end of the film. If he had made comments like that in the UK he's probably be up before a judge.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

the bank which gives you the gun. They only actually carry display models for each gun, and they don't give you the gun themselves. You have to wait a month for background checks to be carried out, and the gun is then ordered from the manufacturer. You can't just turn up, open an account and get the gun. But then that would be no use to Mike

No-one is disputing that the bank does give away guns - but the whole point is that Moore is saying that the gun problem is so bad in the States because - LOOK! I CAN WALK STRAIGHT INTO A BANK AND THEY WILL GIVE ME A GUN STRAIGHT AWAY!!!. We'll ignore the fact that you, um, can't. He's highlighting how easy it is to get guns, but doesn't choose the best example. I think that is a lie personallly :)

As for the Heston editing, paraphrasing a speech is one thing, but to purposefully pick and choose bits from different speeches, made months apart is nasty, deceitful and wrong.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Sorry but you're wrong - they had a vault where they kept the guns.
They did do a background check but he walked out with a real gun.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

What do you have to do to qualify for a gun in the us?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

While Michael Moore is an unabashed liberal (and I'm anything but), I have read Stupid White Men and am half way through Dude Where's my Country. I'll try to get a hold of a copy of BFC next week, and intend to see Farnheight 9/11 in the cinema. If Micheal Moore is such a liar, why havent the American authoraties slapped him with so many law suits that he's burried under a tonne of lawyers. Dont get me wrong, I'm a cynic, and dont beleive everything I read, but too many of the things he say's are prooveable. Plus he give's directions to where he finds his background material. So if he is such a liar, he is giving the people he protests against plenty of ammo to shoot him down. If even 25% of what he says is true, then we should all be afraid of the boarderline Retard running the show in America. Who is surrounded by christian zelots who beleive its America's manafest destiny to impost 'The American Way of Life' on the rest of the world. And god help anyone who stand's on the was of cheap oil and globalisation.

My friend's father-in-law was in Belfast for a holiday a couple of weeks ago, his first trip outside the US since he was in Vietnam as a US Army Ranger engaged in Operation Pheonix. Peggy's father was kind enough to renew my open invatation to visit then at any time. But I told him that in good consience I would have to decline. I feel it impinges on my human rights, to be treated as a criminal the moment I step of the plane, just because I wish to visit a foreign country. Namely, I REFUSE TO BE FINGERPRINTED FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN BECAUSE I AM NOT AMERICAN. :rant:

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

i can only assume it was edited like that - the Brady Bill make it so that there is a waiting period before you can purchase a gun signed by bill c


moore spends a lot of time walking into big corps hq and demanding to speak to the head honcho and film them with an upset ex employe when one of moores ex workes did that he had a restraining order put on him - he also send his kids to private school and lives in a very nice place now i dont know his right to have money but id like it if he didnt spend all his time talking about poor people as well

anyway love him hate him he certainly is interesting

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I think you just have to use your common sense when watching films like this. I haven't watched any of his films, but I've read one of his books. He has his own agendas as do the people he does his work about. In my opinion he does tend to start off with his outcome and then weave some of his evidence to point to this. You can find coincidences everywhere in life if you look closley enough. Some of the things he says are undoubtedly true, but others are just coincidence which he backs up by fitting evidence to back his point up. Watch his films, think for yourself, read a bit more about the subjects and then make up your own opinion.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

One of his other great strengths, like him or loathe him, believe him or think he is a liar, is that he provokes debate on important topics.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Just because they are run by right-wingers (not pro-Bush or republicans, there is a crucial difference), does it mean what they say is any less true? Of course not. And if you check out moorewatch.com's blog, you'll see he actually criticizes Bush a lot. Don't forget that a big part of what are on those sites are links to articles in papers etc, that other people have done.

It would be interesting. moorewatch.com has already starting picking holes in F/911. They all said they won't be persuaded from it, which is nice. I don't think they have much to worry about. Remember the "wacko attackos" bit? Laughable response to genuine errors in his films.

The trouble is with law suits is that he is a really known as Teflon Mike - Nothing sticks. Back in Roger & Me he really evilly screwed over a friend and munipulated him on camera. Moore was sued and WB paid out on his behalf, but it was turned over on appeal.

It was K-Mart. Who have since gone out of business I think, or taken over by Target. It wasn't much of a victory though thought, because I think K-Mart were planning it months before, I think.

Again, it isn't what he tells you that are lies, it is what doesn't. Like a true magician. To get your "free gun", you have to open up a $5000 savings account (which is locked for something like 20 years). If someone wanted a gun, they could easily go to a guy on the street and pay less than that with no cooling off period or background check. The bank does both. They allow you to pick the gun up from the bank after the checks are complete, but they are licensed to, so what is the problem? Also note, there is a whole catalog of things you can have instead of a gun. Just opening up a $200 CD and getting a blender doesn't sound as good.


You have it wrong. Only visa holders are subject to the US-VISIT system. Even if you have a visa, I don't think there is anything personally stopping you from travelling under a visa waiver, but he might not be too impressed when he spots your visa and asks why you aren't using it.

This book about him is great (Well, only read the first few chapters so far). It is telling you about his persona and his early days which explains a lot like why he is, who he is. Also just found out, after NBC dropped TV Nation because unsuprisingly it was poo and noone watched it, Fox decided to give it another go. Fancy that. Why have principles when you can have money instead? And then everyone still thought it was poo and noone watched it, so they dropped it.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

You gotta love the add for his new one Fereinheight 9/11.

Bush:
Trust me im gonna do everything in my power to stamp out terrorism.
(Camera shows him with Driver in his hands turning away towards the fairway).
Now watch this sweet drive.

If only he went on to slice it into the rough. :D

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

and thats ok --- thats normal

The dramatic elements are irrelivant. It is the fact that americans are so stupid they think its ok to give a gun as a reward for opening a bank account.

All the attacks on MM and the other fella (The liying liars and the lies they tell- afair and balanced account) are hogwash

MM has bush and his nazi mates on the run

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

There was a whole catalog to choose from. Everything from a tire pressure gauge opening a $20 CD, up through and beyond a gun for $5000 CD. Opening a time locked CD to get a gun is just pointless

One of the things that the anti-Moore sites always says about people who tell them they are wrong is that they never say why or what. Just "you are wrong", never "you are wrong because...". Why are they hogwash?

If there is one good quality about Bush, (there isn't many,granted), is that he really don't a s**t what people thing. I wish I could be so nonchalant about what people say behind my back. I try not to, but it is hard. Bush is the model of it.

And that reminds me of a joke Dennis Miller said before the war, about the protestgers that call Bush, Hitler. He said: "Bush is Hitler. Cheny is Hitler. Rumsfeld is Hitler. The only person who isn't Hitler is the foreign guy with a moustache who wants to eradicate Jews and feed his enemies into the woodchipper." He's a bit too far for me sometimes, but he can be hilarious sometimes too.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I`ll consider it to be a proven lie if Moore loses a case in court.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I watched the rest of it today, not very pleasant - if you don't want to see people getting shot then avoid it!

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Sorry, maybe I should have pointed out the offer of "Bush/ Cheney Magnetic Bumper stickers" or maybe the "52 reasons to re-elect George W Bush" playing cards with the text: "Are you tired of the ugly picture Michael Moore paints of President Bush? We were too! Check out the deck of playing cards that most media outlets are afraid to talk about because it paints the TRUE, positive picture of President Bush."

Now if that's *not* pro-Bush, what is?

I never said it *wasn't* true, I said it wasn't *impartial*. There is a crucial difference...!

He does? Where? I've just scanned through several pages of their drivel and I can't see any criticism of Bush anywhere.

So *other* people are putting advert links into their sites? I don't think so...!

Oh, one other thing...

Good point!

So what's the American Blender Murder Rate again...?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Those are called "Advertisements". People pay him to put what they want, on the site. I'll advertise Tampx tampons on my site if they'd pay me, I don't have to be able to use them, to do that.


A side point, but i'm still struggling to find something that Moore says, that makes me think: "You know, thats a good point, well said." Besides Moore has a big enough mouth, with a big enough army of fans preaching his side. There isn't a very big side that debunks his myths. Moore doesn't need anyone else in his corner.


He has just moved to a new server so it is a bit disorganised, but try these (please note some pages have swearing):

http://right-thinking.com/index.php/oops/ (yeah, the URL really does have oops in it, it isn't a 404 page)

and http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weve_got_bush/


They aren't adverts. They are "Hey this guy said something brilliant go read it", rather than just plagurising someone's thoughts.

Hmmm. I wonder how many people are going to pay a bank $5000 for a gun and go and shoot someone with it. Don't you think they'd pay half that and go to a gun shop? Or half that again and go to someone on the street and avoid all that "pesky" paperwork? Also note if you wanted to shoot someone, you'd have to wait a month from that bank, (which is a licensed gun retailer, it is no different from a gun shop), however, you can get a gun in 3 days from a gun shop where the guns are kept on site. (The guns aren't kept on site regardless of what that idiot bank clerk says, wether you get a rifle or a blender, it has to be ordered from the suppliers.)

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

For gods sake the gun in the bank was just highlighting the fact that the usa is obsessed with guns it nothing important moore himself made a bigger deal over the supermarket selling ammo. He is more worried about the ease to buying a gun in the usa and the gun crime figures show hes right

Also those sites punky showed do not link to any clear evidence to back up their claims while moore links to new storys from people like bbc and such

Also the bank giving out blenders is bad they can KILL people, if they where big enough.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Yes but you target adverts to a audience they clearly are a pro bush site if they are being targeted by the bush campain

Why do you think games are advertsied on games sites

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

So he's going to advertise things that don't fit in with his beliefs? Hmm, so I should take advertising from the Coalition of Decency or the Moral Minority who want to put anti-porn ads on my site...?? :rolleyes:

Oh, note where it says "Fight Socialism! Visit my Advertisers!"

I really can't help you with that. Although given your opinionsof Moore, you're probably very unlikely to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And *why* is that, do you think? People aren't interested? People aren't capable? Or maybe despite his tendency to exaggerate in some places, he *does* actually have a point?

Great, so he's criticising Bush, but frankly that's like shooting fish in a barrel.

But what he's *actually* saying is "get rid of Bush and get us a more credible Republican leader" and that's a different matter.

As to the gun from the bank thing, the point is that a gun has *NO* constructive use! Guns are for *wounding* and *killing* people, they have no other credible use (target shooting etc is just practicing the skills you need). Blenders *do* have constructive uses.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

There's nothing that says you can't. I don't suppose you'll find an advert for MoveOn there, but that doesn't mean all advertisers have to be totally in line with his beliefs

So? He runs a right-wing blog. The clue is in the URL. What is wrong with supporting capitalism? I happen to like it.


And that is what he gets for being a liar. I fell for his crap once, and i'm not going to do it again willingly. When someone gets caught deliberately misleading, then they lose all trust privleges. I actually did watch F9/11 last night, and some of the things he said actually sounded half reasonable, but there were no sources. So i'm not believing it until I personally, or someone else independently verifies or debunks it either way.


Have a point? :rofl: The first thing I thought about after BFC, aside from all the misleading bits and distortions, was that the whole film didn't have a point? It just meandered around and ended with no conclusion. Is it (gun violence) because of so many guns? No. Canada has more. Is it because of race issues? No, he walks around South Central LA (Although I hardly think that proves much). He goes on about music, etc. He never actually accuses anyone or anything as the source of the problem. Which is about right. because if the government knew the source of the problem, there would be no problem.

And why isn't our voice heard? We never really got media interest, it was all word of mouth, but now the press is picking up on it. So is Moore, as he now has a war cabinet of people to debunk things that are said on anti-moore sites. A lot of is to do people just not realising. Can you, hand on heart, say you knew that Charlton Heston's "cold dead hands" speech was said 8 months later in a different city? Did you notice the change in clothing and background? I'm guessing probably not, because that wasn't what Moore wanted you to think. I certainly though that Heston said it 3 days after Columbine. Of course then I found MooreWatch, who provides dated transcripts of the speechs on independent sites, and says look closely for the clothing change. Also, a lot of Moore fans are blissfully unaware of Moore's distortions and like to remain that way. They won't even listen to the other side. It always makes me laugh. They always accuse anti-Moore guys of having closed minds, yet theirs is open just enough to listen to more, but not quite enough to listen to anyone who has an opinion against him.

You're flexible. You desrise him because you though he liked Bush, now you derise him because he doesn't.

Why the hell can't people be republican? Because you aren't? I don't agree that Tony Blair will do the UK any good in the next four years, but that doesn't mean i'll attack anyone that does support Labour.

Incapacitating someone who has entered your home and is willing to use a weapon on you, and cause you're family harm is a pretty credible use i'd say. There are a lot of things, that to me, have no constructive or credible use. That doesn't mean I should stop other people from enjoying them responsibly.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Why not? It's *his* site! He can pick and choose who gets to advertise on it and I doubt very much he's going to allow anyone who is *not* "totally in line with his beliefs" to do so!

He's not *talking* about "supporting capitalism" he's talking about *fighting socialism*! There's a difference!!

So he's "lied" to you. And because *they're* against him, you're willing to believe what unquestioningly what they've said until someone proves them to have lied to you too?

Hang on, what happened to "lose all trust privileges"? Surely if you lost those, you wouldn't be trusted, full stop...!

Ah, I see the movable goalposts are back out of the cupboard again.

My comment that he may have a point was in response to "There isn't a very big side that debunks his myths" but suddenly it becomes about the film (in your opinion) lacking direction.

Sorry, what's this "we" business, paleface?!

Sorry, you seem to have missed me with that big handful of mud you just slung around there. Want to try again??

Ah, now we're onto the "putting words into Graham's mouth" part of the debate...! :rolleyes:

As to the rest of this, I'm not going to get dragged into another gun control argument.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

All those anti-moore sites have clear right wing beliefs. I have read a lot of impartial reviews of the film and reviews of the actual content and independent sources have said that he was usually correct and 'offered convincing evidence to back up his claims'

It hard to get a clear view but moore provides independent sources so i trust him a lot more

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

So?


I think you're taking an off hand humourous joke a bit too far. I know you'd like to believe he is heading some right-wing conservative, capitalist militia hell bent on riding the world of socialists and communists, but he's not.

I don't believe unquestioningly what they said, but at least they provide sources. David Hardy goes to great lengths to prove everything he says is true. Moorewatch always provides links, and very rarely just says something. If he does then it is normally common knowlege that can be accepted. Contrast that with F9/11. There were virtually no sources whatsoever. The only 2 I can rememeber was a brief screenshot of a BBC website, and uncensored copies of Bush's medical records. Everything else we are being forcefed and made to believe. It might be true, but probably isn't. I don't have time to go through every details one by one and either confirm or deny it, but other people do.


What the...? Alright, if someone lies, it is rarely a one-off event. If someone lies then it isn't out of order to be just a little more cynical next time as to wether he is telling the truth or not. If I lie to you, then i'd expect you not to trust me next time, it is normal.

*Sigh*

Wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific. You just said: "Or maybe despite his tendency to exaggerate in some places, he *does* actually have a point?" I'm assuming that "he" = Moore, and considering this topic is "Bowling For Columbine", unless you say otherwise that is what people will assume.

I even answered both sides of the question, what's the problem?


I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people who realise Moore lies, distorts, spins, etc.

Why are you always assuming i'm trying to attack you? You take everything I say, about Moore, Bush, pro and anti-Moore guys as some kind of personal attack against you. I'm just saying what I find funny. If you're included in that group, great. If you aren't great. Either way, im not bothered. It doesn't make what I say any less true. Suffice to say if I wanted to turn this into a fight, i'd find something a bit more hurtful to say.


*sigh* Of course I am Graham. Say that enough it might become true...

I'm not dragging you anywhere. Stop trying to lump everything on me. I'm talking about how Moore is a liar, and BFC is a fantastic work of fiction. I really don't have the time nor inclination to drag you into a well worn argument about gun control. Incidently, you started the point about guns in society, not me.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Well I just watched 9/11, it was not quite as shocking as BFC but still some things were pretty nasty to watch, like the US soldiers getting bombed etc.
It's not that hard hitting to me personally because I've seen a lot of documentaries about 911, Bush, the Iraq war etc and I know what the Bush regime is like (look for something called "Bush Family Fortunes" by the BBC) - that said, some things that were revealed in 9/11 were pretty scary.
No doubt the FBI are watching Michael Moore's every move now... :rolleyes:

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

tut tut you should know now that they help terrorists to kill other terrorists then kill those terriorists with some terrorists. Thats how it works they will get the saudis to get moore then they will get iran to get the saudis then Afghanistan to get Iran and so on ;) :disturbd:

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

That's what I can't really understand. I mean, we all know war is horrible. People die. Bombs cause horrific damage to people and buildings. Is there any real value in showing what we already know? To me it is almost like preaching to the converted. If you watch someone being beheaded, does it make the act worse than if you were merely told about it? I just put it down to filler and trying to wear peoples minds down.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Well actually there was a beheading in the film, I won't describe it here but I think that showing the graphic, violent side can "wake people up" sometimes, i.e. the Bush supporters who think he can do no wrong.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Because we all know war is shocking but we cant put a face to the victims or anything so it does not get to you. It is all very well saying war is bad but until you see the actuall horrors you have no idea.

If you SEE a victim, if you SEE the violence, it brings it home and suddenly the horror is right in your face! I think moore showing that was a stroke of film genius excellent way to show the horror of war and to affect the audience

We all know how bad World war one and two where but we cannot imagine what it must have been like for those fighting.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Damien, what you see on the tv is NOT as horrific as seeing it first hand mate. Trust me on this one. Even though the picture's on tv can show some of the trauma of combat. Actually being on a two way range is much more disturbing. I was out in the Gulf for part one of the Iraq War, in 91, 92. Then in Northern Iraq protecting the Kurds in late 92/ 93, and the Bosnia in 92/ 93.

In Gulf 1 I was assigned to help the Yanks to help open the main Kuaite City - Basra Highway. Which you will possibly remember as the 'Highway Of Death', now there was a charnell house. To stop the Iraq's retreating the US Airforce dropped 500lb snakes (dumb iron bombs) on the front of the traffic heading north to Iraq. After that they followed up with air strikes using CBU's (Cluster Bomb Units). I'll tell you straight mate, I've seen enough boddies, and parts of boddies to last me a lifetime. But no matter how horrible a shot on tv, or film, it cannot compare to the real deal. It's not just the sight, but also the stench of rotting, burned bodies, fecies (sp) but also the smell of burnt clothes, burnt tyres and plastic. Bloody horiffic mate. :(

Edit - although there was something disturbingly beautiful about the burning oilwells. :disturbd:

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I wasnt say that it isnt. I was saying that war is suddenly a lot more shocking when you see the violance and you can attach a face and person to that pain.

Seeing it on TV is more shocking than hearing about was the point i was making on punky but seeing it in real life is more shocking but we where talking about film

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Oh go back and *read* the bloody thread again :rolleyes:

Sorry? What evidence is there that his comment is "an off hand humourous joke"?

And once again Punky tries to put words into my mouth...

Again, where's your proof of this?

So does Moore.

:rofl: It was "common knowledge" that Iraq had WMDs...

I haven't seen it, so I can't comment.

"What the...? *THIS* is "What the...": "I fell for his crap once, and i'm not going to do it again willingly. When someone gets caught deliberately misleading, then they lose all trust privleges."

Now that's not just *being a little more cynical next time* this is "I'm not going to do it again", which is just slightly different!

Yes, that's what I said and yes, that's what I meant. You then tried to shift the goalposts (and all the big *sighs* you give won't change that) by, as I said, talking about the film "lacking direction" rather than referring to your original comment that "There isn't a very big side that debunks his myths" to which I responded "[...] maybe [...] he *does* actually have a point"

If you're going to take things out of context like this, I'm going to point it out.

The point is you weren't specific about who this "we" was and there was no context to base a conclusion on.

I refer you to my recent PM where I explained that I've been doing this too long to be fooled by this sort of thing.

No, you sling mud around and, as you say immediately after:

You don't *care* who gets hit by the mud you sling around willy-nilly and seem to think that if anyone gets hit by it, it's *their* fault for getting in the way!

No, it doesn't make what you say *true* full stop. You make sweeping generalisations and then act all surprised when people get annoyed.

Sorry, did I *say* you wanted to "turn this into a fight"? Oops, no, I didn't...

I refer the honourable gentleman to the evidence given by the examples in this message, not to mention those in the previous ones...

No, you said (once more I quote your exact words)"

"Incapacitating someone who has entered your home and is willing to use a weapon on you, and cause you're family harm is a pretty credible use i'd say. There are a lot of things, that to me, have no constructive or credible use. That doesn't mean I should stop other people from enjoying them responsibly."

This is *not* talking about Moore *or* his being a "liar". This is a discussion point about whether a certain use of a gun is "credible" or not and whether you should "stop other people from enjoying them responsibly" or not.

That is why I declined to comment on it.

"Oh, but Sir, SIR! He started it, Sir!" :rolleyes:

I brought up that point because it was *IN RELATION* to BFC and obtaining a gun from a bank. You then, again, tried to shift the point by bringing blenders into the discussion which was completely irrelevant which was what I was trying to point out.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

None, but if I ever find out he is running a right-wing-anti-socialist-militia, i'll appologise.

That was a joke. Taking what you said to absurdium for comedic value. The joke being if he is right-wing he must be evil, trying to crush socialism, right? Incidently, he said "Fight Socialism", because he believes Capitalism is the way to go. If I said "Fight Racism" because I think tolerance is the way to go, you wouldn't attack that, would you?

I read his blog most days, so I would have found out by now, I would have though. I really doubt he is, I said it as a joke. But if he ever does, i'll let you know.


Yeah, right. One of the big criticisms anti-Moore folk tell Moore is "what are his sources?". It makes it nigh on impossible trying to trace wether what he said is a true and accurate reflection, or not. In his "wacko attackos" (Yeah, we have a different point of view, so we must be violent lunatics, real mature) letter, he eventually started to give his 'sources'. I use inverted commas because they don't resemble any sources i've seen. They are like "CDC". That is an organisation, not a source. It doesn't mean anything. A date, publication title, and an author would make it a source.


You are confusing had and have? Everyone knows Saddam had weapons, because he, you know, used them. The UN spent 12 years trying to get at them. And if you mean have? Well, i'd hardly call the US and UK secret services, "common knowlege".


I was slightly cynical about 2 chapters into "Stupid White Men". By the end of that wonderful work of fiction called "Bowling For Columbine", I'd heard so many distortions, lies, inaccuracies, I was way past slightly cynical.


I didn't move the goalposts. If you actually look at my post, I responded to your point, in the second paragraph, and made an additional one (which I put first only because I thought of it first), because it was at the time relevent. And funny. Just "Point" and "BFC" don't really go together.

Also, he has never made "a point" about us trying to discredit him, aside from calling us "wackos", and if you listen to him, apparently most of America are Stupid White Men, evil anti-Moore conservatives, etc.

No context? I only used the term "anti-Moore guys". The whole paragraph was about it.



Actually, your PM just said the same thing reworded. You didn't explain anything.

That is rich coming from you isn't it? Whose discussional tone is confrontational on an easy day. Who tries to turn every friendly discussion into a virtual fist fight? Who derises anyone who belives in something other than you. Who treats virtually everyone like a piece of s**t?

I don't know what planet you are on but I am very much the opposite. Regardless of people, I refuse to attack them, even if their opinions are way out of line. Even if someone was fanatically racist, I wouldn't agree with them, but I still wouldn't attack them for it. Unlike you I don't like going round picking fights, life's too short.

No I make a point. If you agree, great. I you don't, also great. Incidently, BFC was built on sweeping generalisations, which is one reason anti-Moore guys have a problem with it.



Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. I denied it then and deny it now.


I like how you always flip perspectives whenever it suits you. You bring up the original point, that "Guns aren't constructive to society". So I say: "Yes they are", and give an example, just for clarity. Suddenly i'm the one who is veering from the topic? I just inverted what you said.


No, blenders aren't irrelevent. The point was, to open up that CD you could choose many items, not just guns. On of the big things that Moore fans say, is that "Why can't that bank offer something other than guns?". Well, it does. Moore doesn't like to tell you that though, because it weakens his argument somewhat.

Now, I fully expect you to ignore me, but we can keep this thread on BFC and Moore, and less of you trying to assassinate my character and personality? Thanx.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

So you admit your comment was based solely on your *opinion*, not facts.

No, it wasn't a joke as far as I could see. Starting a joke with the words "I know you'd like to believe..." makes it sound like a personal attack.

Taxi! Follow those goalposts!!

Yes, *had* past tense. But what he may have had the past was *not* a justification for invading *now*.

Whilst ignoring the *prior context*. Hence: Moved goalposts.

No, that's *your* opinion of what he has said.

Funny, I could have sworn that's exactly what I *did* do...

[QUOTE]did I *say* you wanted to "turn this into a fight"? Oops, no, I didn't...

Punky, you really need to learn something about the nature of debate.

You seem to consider that someone disagreeing with you is automatically being "confrontational", but you don't seem to understand that I debate *points* not "personalities".

I do *NOT* "attack people", I have not "attacked" you. The only thing I have "attacked" are your false assumptions, your attempts to put words into my mouth and your taking points out of context to try to make a point.

I do not, despite what you claim, "try to turn every friendly discussion into a virtual fist fight" I most certainly have not treated anyone "like a piece of s**t" and I will thank you not to make comments like that again otherwise I will find it necessary to make an official complaint about *your* personal attacks on me!

If you wish to discuss this further I suggest you put it in a PM instead of a public forum.

And again you miss out the context in which the original remark was posted :rolleyes:

You can back this up with cites? NB *I* have never said "Why can't that bank offer something other than guns?"

What was that expression? Oh yes: "That's a bit rich...!" You want *me* to stop "trying to assassinate my character and personality" (something which I have never done, nor would stoop to) but you couch that in a personal attack on *my* character and personality "I fully expect you to ignore me"


Paging Messers Pott and Kettle-Black.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

couldnt see it posted so i figured why not:
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica....ailer_lrg.html

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"???

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

They are not bothered at moore but if they attack him and bring his personality to the head of the argument meaning the issues he raises doesnt get discussed

The right wing (i.e bush) would rather attack moore on his personality because they dont want to face the issues ahead of the election

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I don't think he hates Americans because he calls them stupid, he hates the stupidity of the general population. I.e. he hates the general ignorance.

I hate the British sport mob mentality but does that mean I hate Britain?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

i have noticed that its mostly euros chatting about mm's films americans are fed up with it all and know it all i suspect

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Are you kidding? they all seem to be talking about it over there

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

It isn't about politically motivated attacks. The book i'm reading has articles by left wing commentators. What he does is wrong wether you are you are left or right. Being forthright and honest doesn't have a political party (or shouldn't have)

I think his personality is really important as to his bellicosity. I am reading a book about Moore atm, and when you read the early stuff, (his work at Mother Jones, TV Nation), it does bring up a fascinating insight into how he works.

I don't agree with the whole "fat attack" that some people who criticise do. (And yeah that is mostly right-wingers that do that), wether he lies or not, his weight shouldn't come into it).

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

The issues are true enough and should not be dismissed

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I already said though, it isn't my style. I'm like Incog, if someone says something bad, i'll just tut and shake my head, and move on. Don't want to be accused of censorship either ;)


No, if that was the case, he'd say it at the same time. I.e. "England is both a liberal and conservative country due to hisheavy multicultural mix". He says things like: "America is so conservative because of ...." and the in another chapter he will say: "America is so liberal because of....". I'll post my response to your addendum here, as it is more relevent here. The reason why I backtracked a bit is because it is so difficult to tie Moore to anything. I said he was a versatile fella, but that is an understatement. Since I found out that what he said were lies, and I fell for it, i've kind of made it life's work at the moment to find out as much as I can about him. For the last year, i've read so much about him. That is a lot of material (one reason it is so hard to find where I saw a particular quote or something). Now, i'd say Moore is X because of Y... After I post that, I rememeber that in a previous book or movie, he said something completely different which contradicts what I have said. I said he hates Americans because of the way he attacks them, but then I rememebered he said something a while ago, which said he loved them. Wether it is deliberate on his part or not, you can't accuse him of something, as the opposite would also be true somewhere.


It may have been an assumption, but it was based on experience. I posted you some Moorewatch stuff, and you treated it with disdain. You could have a totally different outlook if you read something new on Moorewatch, but I doubt it. If you want i'll keep providing links to them when it is relevent.


I'm trying to find where I saw it, but see my above point. It is hard trying to find what commentators said, when that is the only lead I have. What I would also say though is this: It is what Moore wants you to think, by offering guns. You think when you see that, that apart from 'America being a gun-nut country', why can't the bank offer something a bit more constructive?


At the risk of sounding patronising, (which I don't want to do, but can't avoid it), that is the way the world works. He needed funding. People (personal benefactors not large corporations like Disney) will normally only provide funding to people who share their views. Wilson almost shut the film down about 3 times due to lack of money. Unlike Moore, he had noone to sue to make money to fund a film. I prefer a partially relevent film to be released rather than no film released at all.

No, he says that as well. When he goes to Canada, he always says, something along the lines of "Thank God i'm now in a sane safe country", etc. Valid point about attacking his character. Is it fair? Ordinarily I would say no, but Moore attacks everyone elses character, so I would say yes. If you want an example, i'll give you one. I found it out last night and Moore had sunk to a new low.

If you normally gloss over our big posts, I implore you to read this part anyway

A man called Joe Scarborough criticised Moore. Nothing too out of the ordinary, just the usual Heston speech editing, etc. Moore goes ballistic at anyone who criticises him and goes into attack mode. He dug, and dug for dirt, but eventually found out that a woman died in his office. She died of a heart-attack. When Moore found this out, he started up the website: joescarboroughkilledhisintern.com (see the whois here for proof. It is registered to his production company, Dog Eat Dog films in NY. The admin's email is on the michaelmoore.com domain.) Then he preceded to tell people in speeches just that. It isn't clear wether Moore did this before or after the coroners report, but either way it is dispicable. Accusing an innocent man of murder because he criticised your work? And then he poured scorn over the coroner in speeches making him seem incompetent. Even if Moore didn't distort the facts in his book and movies, and I agreed with them, this kind of stunts would make me detest him for life.

You mis-understood me. I meant Americans as in two or more Americans. I didn't say "all Americans" or "Americans in general", etc. He doesn't hate every American, but he does hate some. I'll skip over the next point as it is the same.

The movie title was fixed before he had to change funding sources. Changing the title, was out as it would have killed what little publicity they had. So it lead to the unusual situation that the movie title no longer reflected the tone of the film. He was trying to get Moore for an interview long before the title was set in place. I think it was actually Moore's avoidance of Wilson that lead Wilson to the title and the tone of his movie. Besides, even if he didn't, Moore said "anyone, anytime", and he other places, he said he loves debating "right-wing conservatives" even better. He can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

He does debate with people though!

Also when he was asked for a interview the guy said he was making a film called moorehatesamerica and moore said he wouldnt answer him because he had just been slandered! it is in his own bloody trailer!

The film is just saying how 'good' the usa is, it is filled with people saying stuff about the american dream THATS all they say they keep going on about patriotic stuff without any examples just the normal ramblings about freedom and being successful trying to gloss over some important issues about gun control, media and poverty. At least moore uses his films to push this important issues this guy is making a patriotic film that also attacks moore.

He is just attacking moore for no real reason, there is nothing to be gained by saying how bad moore is. There is a lot to be gained by trying to being up important issues

Yet again those we should be talking about the ISSUES raised in the film instead of moore himself. AM i gonna have to start a different topic here?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Well, the footage Wilson has will tell us either way.

I wouldn't say that was a down side. Most people go on talk shows knowing X chat show host would give them a rough time. I would have thought he would have been happy to get on tape and make Wilson look bad, and kill the movie. Now, Wilson has "Roger & Me" style footage, which could hurt Moore.

I wouldn't say no reason. IMO Moore, through his actions before, deserves anything that really come his way, be it personal, or political. Moore is a bit unusual in that his persona is bigger than his movies. That means personal attacks on him would be more common.

You have a point. I know a few of us opinionated guys are probably a bit tired of rehashing gun control, violence in the media etc. I'm certainly not looking forward to it and might bow out if I have to go all through that again. We just thought it is was 'fresher' to debate Moore's credibility instead.

Can I just say though, thanx for what you said about reading my opinions and agreeing with them (most of the time). I do wonder sometimes if its worth it all. Thanx for saying that. :)

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I dont like Wilson i think he is a **** who is covering up the issues raised and is making a film to cash in on the anti-moore feeling and is doing the same old patriotic crap that makes me sick. He is going around dismissing all the moore trys to point out about media and guns and stopping war by talking to people about how good the country is? I accept it is a good place to live but why cant they face up to the problems raised by moore?

Look at all the people in his film and why they say they love america it is the same old rubbish that keeps getting spouted out.

"if a man has a house, and he looks after his house then he can be somebody"

"We have the freedom to go to school"

?????

Isn't that the same in all western countries?

At least moore raises important issues. This guy is just making money by appealing to the patriotic american. There is nothing to learn here, he is not making a valid point...isnt that what documentaries are? Arent they meant to inform?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

he has a right to point out what moore lies about - people will watch the doc and belive everything is true its a shame

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Apparently F9/11 is being released in the UK on Friday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/3879197.stm

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

What does he lie about? When has he been caught lying

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

oh cant be bothered to go over it again but its in the forum somewhere maybe even this thread -

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Ah, I must have been reading messages in this thread by someone else called "Punky" then... :rolleyes:

Objecting to a personal attack != Censorship.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic of this at all. Just because he *doesn't* say something like "England is both a liberal and conservative country due to hisheavy multicultural mix" in the *same* chapter, but addresses different points in different chapters he is (as far as I can tell from what you're implying) contradicting himself.

This seems to me to be more like him not trying to confuse people by including too many points in one place.

But Moore has *NEVER* said *HE* "hates Americans"! This is something which *others* have said about him.

Yes, I treated the stuff on Moorewatch with disdain because it is being written from a biased viewpoint. If you can post links from a credible, *impartial* source, I will be happy to read them.

In which case it can't be that much of a "big thing", can it?

No, that's your *opinion* of what *you* think Moore wants you to think.

No, I think it's irresponsible for a bank to be offering guns, full stop.

And at the risk of sounding rude: BALDERDASH!!

Who was it who said in post #18 of this thread" "Why have principles when you can have money instead?"

Or in post #51 "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."

And I prefer someone to be honest and true enough to their principles to stick it out, not sacrifice their principles for money!

Ah, now we're back with the "he started it" arguments...

I hope the "you" you are referring to here is to *other* readers of this post, otherwise I would find the implication in this comment to be extremely offensive.

An interesting example. Now let's add a few more facts.

Joe Scarborough is a former Republican Congressman and is now a talk-show host on MSNBC. From some googling on his name it appears that his opinions are of the sort that George W Bush can do no wrong and Michael Moore is the Devil incarnate.

He is a former Congressman because he decided not to stand for re-election after his intern was found dead.

Now whilst I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial, this is a strange confluence of events.

He is also quoted from an interview:

* * * * *

SCARBOROUGH: When he has time for you, just tell him to stop going around calling me a murderer or I`m going to have to call my lawyers. Will you do that for me?

GOLDBERG: Well, I`m sure you can get to him yourself, Joe, but I appreciate you having me on. I really do.

* * * * *

Now *WHY* is he asking an *INTERVIEWER* to tell Michael Moore something? If he has been slandered by falsely accused of murder, why aren't his lawyer slapping injunctions on Moore left, right and centre?

For more about the story of her alledged murder (or, rather the lack of it...) see http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010808Klausutis.html

(I'm not sure, but that site does appear to have a Democratic bias, however it does make some interesting points anyway)

Well given the lack of reporting as detailed in the above link, it's not surprising he had to "dig and dig"

Well that, too, seems somewhat open to question.

And this is "proof"? It may be true, however it *could* also be a "Joe Job" by someone who wants to stitch Moore up.

But again I point out from the above link, that its *NOT JUST* Moore who is doing this.

I agree that it is distasteful, but I think it's not quite as one-sided as you just portrayed it.

Pardon me if the following sounds like a personal attack, but that comment, to me, sounds like what is generally known as "a weasel".

If you meant "some Americans" or "one or two Americans taken together you should have said so or, at least, chosen your words with more care.

I wasn't talking about the *movie* title! I was talking about him standing up at an event Michael Moore was at and *saying* those words!

That is *not* a good way to start a debate.

And you make another sweeping generalisation to finish. You pick *one* example (and a poor one for the reason above) and try to parlay it into a general case.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Arrrrhhhh

We Are Trapped In A Never Ending Circle

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I have always tried to have been nice to you back in the face of such agressive sarcasm and derision. I do have a limit though. Also, I have never red repped or reported your post (and no, that isn't a dig at you from before).


I was just having a laugh, hence the wink.


These are polar points though. They are mostly mutually exclusive. Besides Moore has a long history of massaging the evidence to fit the thesis. Like the Heston speeches. And the bit with Heston at the end.

He says a lot of things. It is hard to find quotes without knowing the exact words. I know it was said in a speech in Germany but I can't find a transcript of it. One thing to bear in mind though, he never says it directly to Americans. I think even ardent Moore fans would be repulsed by Moore preaching anti-American hate to them directly.


Something coming from a biased or unbiased source doesn't dictate wether it is true or not. Merely the amount of spin. Most people have an agenda. Moore has an agenda, does that mean you aren't to trust him either?


The trouble is with anti-Moore sites is they all seem to be run as a blog, so older stuff gets pushed to the bottom and harder to find. It doesn't help that I read a lot of stuff on lots of sites. Some sites push one point, others push another. It isn't all that organised. I do the best I can to find stuff to back up what I say. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter to me. I believe what I believe. If I was trying to recruit an army, i'd be more concerned about evidence. I'm not trying to brainwash anyone. I'll defend my beliefs, but never try and impose them on people.


[quote=Graham
No, that's your *opinion* of what *you* think Moore wants you to think.[/quote]
Yep. That is my intrepretation of it, and not just mine.


It is a fully licensed gun shop. It sounds weird because it is a bank, but they are perfectly legally entitled to sell/give away guns from that branch.


Wilson and Moore aren't even in the same ballpark. Wilson is still producing the film he wants to, albeit even if he has to push another angle, he'd rather not. I mean this isn't a promo for MoveOn. I'm guessing the Wilson thinks the movie would have the desired effect, even if it isn't done with the desired method. There is a lot at stake for him as an aspiring film-maker. A bad movie could kill his career before it started. I doubt, based on that he'd release a film he wasn't happy with or he wanted on his reputation. I could even be wrong, it could just be a conincidence. Or maybe he always wanted to make an American feelgood movie, but pushed the Moore angle for publicity maybe.


If Wilson produced a pro-Moore, or MoveOn movie i'd agree with you. It seems to be a movie of two halves. The first half is about Moore, the second seems to be debunking the myth that America is a bad place to live, especially Moore's point in SWM, when he said: "You'll never be rich. The chances of becoming a millionaire are about one in a million" (So there are 250 millionaries in the US? I don't think so. Virtally all doctors alone will be true millionaires after a few years work given their salaries).


Well of course Moore started it :confused: If he didn't we'd have nothing to talk about?


[quote=Graham
I hope the "you" you are referring to here is to *other* readers of this post, otherwise I would find the implication in this comment to be extremely offensive.[/quote]

Yeah, I was talking to others. I know you go to great lengths and effort to read and reply. I'd admire your tenacity if nothing else. I get the feeling that some/most people here just automatically skip our long arguments/discussions. I thought this was particularly bad and worthy of a special note.


I kind of thought you'd bring up the fact he was a republican Congressman. Wether it was deliberate to try make people think of Gary Conduit and government conspiracies, I don't know. I didn't think it was relevent what his job was so I left it out. I didn't want anyone to prejudice him because he is was in office.

And anyway, what trial? The coroner signed the death as a heart attack. No inquest, no arrests. There was no evidence that the coroner had been influenced either. Although according to that site his reputation isn't that solid. Everyone seems to be happy, including her family. I'm sure if there was the case would have easily been re-opened.

Noone really reported it, because there was no story. It was a natural death. No foul play. People die all the time but we don't get to hear about them unless they are particularly suspicious or famous.


Well that is what the coroner said, and that makes it good enough for me. If someone has some credible evidence that the coroner may have been influenced by Scarbough, then by all means, i'll re-evaluate my thinking.


Because I think he actually admitted it in the speeches he gave at the time. Besides, given how much Moore likes to sue people (He sued Mother Jones, then a struggling independent press magazine (not big like it is now), because of a disagreement of opinions, for $58,000, back before Roger & Me in the 80s), you'd think that would have traced and sued whoever owned it. It is also a crime to register a site with false information, so he'd have the law on his side too.


Well, the site you gave me (only had time for a quick gloss over) seems just imply, in a pretty "safe" way that there may be some foul play at work that some people have overlooked. Questioning people isn't a bad thing, but directly (and falsely) accusing them of murder is something else.


Err cheers for that. I've been called much worse, i'm not going to lose sleep over it. I don't have much free time on the computer, especially here. It is bad enough with these huge posts, but if you are going to scrutinise the semantics of everything I say that closely then i'm not going to bother to even engage it. I don't have time or the inclination to even proof read my posts, let alone worry about semantics. Remember what I said before, can we please debate Moore, not me?

I think he is trying anything to dodge him. The movie will tell us how hard he tried to contact Moore, but that bit at Moore's speech wasn't the first time he tried to talk to Moore.


Not at all. He said he'd debate anyone. I'm desperately trying to find the quote where. I can even see the video in my head, he is on stage in a chair with like 4 other people.

I have an interesting post here to make about Moore. It'll suprise a few of you i'm sure. I'm just waiting for the webpage reference to go online, then i'll post it.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

:cry: :cry: :banghead: :banghead: :tired: :tired: :geez:

Please people.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Trust me, I know how you feel. :)

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Wilson's an idiot. He is making a film glossing over the issues raised by moores films and producing a feel good movie. There is nothing to be learnt from that type of movie so to call it a documentary is stupid. He has already used editing in this trailer (the bit where moore says he doesn't appear in other peoples movies) to a far worse degree than moore has in his films.

I have some questions:

1) Why should moore have to speak to someone who attacks him in the title? Dont forget there is no proof moore hates the usa in fact i think he likes it moore than wilson. Moore raises important issues trying to improve the usa while Wilson trys to gloss over that

2) What is this crap about 'the american dream' that those people go on about in that trailer? Makes you wanna be sick

oh and before someone (not punky, he knows better) trys to say i am anti-American for expressing concerns about the foreign policy of the bush administration then they can get bent. I like the USA but I am allowed to express concerns. Funny how much people in the usa (aka fox news) love to claim free speech but condem people who uuse that right

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

You might well be right. It is a bit presumptous though to judge the movie from the trailers.

He never had to, but it is the entertainment business where image is king. Moore made Roger Smith look like a monster by chasing an interview that Roger never wanted to give. It looks like Wilson is playing Moore at his own game, I can see Moore looking like Roger did.

You ought to speak to my parents about that. 5 years ago, my mum was a bookkeeper, who also ran her own business; my dad was a copper in Holloway, North London. They were fed up with the way this country was being run so decided to emigrate to the place they loved to go. They have their own gripes with Floridians and America of course, but the obvious thing is that life over here is very good for them. They come back to England now and again to see me and sort things out, but it depresses the hell out of them. My dad's business has done very well (he has a property management company, and he is also realtor here). Not only do they earn far more money, it goes a lot further. It is much easier to have a higher quality of life out here. They are much happier. There is nothing wrong in wanting life better for yourself and trying to get it.

Your a (rather passionate) Moore fan. There's nothing wrong with that. I say i'm not trying to recruit anyone over to my "side", and it is true, but I always tell people to read the other evidence as well and decide for themselves. If they change their mind, great. If they don't, then that's also great. At least they read both sides. The way I think of it is this. Moore fans always say to anti-Moore folk. "Open your mind and accept that what he says is true". I'd add to that, "Open your mind a little further and accept what he says may not be true".

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

The film on which this topic is about has thhese issues:

Gun control
A media out of control
A culture of fear

THese are the 3 issues raised by moore, I admit he goes a bit far and uses editing to help prove a point but the points are real and true and deserved to be answered

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

So do I. When someone says "it isn't my style." and "I'll just tut and shake my head, and move on." and then blatantly contradicts themselves, I'm going to point this out!

I would have thought "Moore" and "I hate Americans" shouldn't be too hard to find (unless you're overwhelmed by all those sites that *claim* he says that when he may not actually done so!)

You are the one who said that "Moore has a long history of massaging the evidence to fit the thesis." but surely that doesn't dictate whether it's true or not either, does it?

Well pardon me if it *does* matter to me!

Fine, that's your choice, but I'm not going to accept it just for that reason alone.

Unlike, say, the Bush Administration? (Saddam has WMDs, Saddam has links to Al Qa'eda, Saddam has links to September 11th, Saddam is a threat to the USA...!)

Does Moore do this, though? He's stating an opinion. He's not putting a gun to people's heads and saying *this is how it is*!

He's also not calling people "unpatriotic" for questioning the Republican/ Conservative/ All-American/ Bush/ Mom's Apple Pie line...!

You're right, they're not in the same ballpark. Moore produced the film *he* wanted to without having to pander to someone else's idea of what should be in it!

Now try reading that comment again *in context* :rolleyes:

Of course I'm bringing up that point because it's more than a little relevant! It was not that he was "in office" it was that he was a *Republican* ie one of the people that Moore "attacks". As I also pointed out, it's a little more complicated than the somewhat simplistic view you presented which seemed to be "Moore has a go at this ordinary bloke because he said something criticising him".

That was a figure of speech! I just didn't want anyone jumping up and down and shouting "but that's not 'innocent until proven guilty' nyer, nyer, nyer!"

"Isn't that solid" is being rather charitable, from my reading!

I don't think it's that easy to re-open such a case. There would be lots of objections and, IMO, possibly political pressure applied to deter such a thing from happening.

But there probably won't be such evidence. The point is that what the coroner said was questionable and the circumstances were dubious.

Whether this equates to "murder" or not, I don't know, but to me it's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to want to think.

You're welcome.

Again I point out that if you are going to engage in sweeping generalisations when you try to debate, I am going to point them out. If you are going to use careless wording (either accidentally or with deliberate intent to confuse or obfuscate) then I will point that out too.

And someone stands up and accuses him of "Hating America". Again I point out that this is hardly the way to start a resonable debate.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Pardon my attitude in my post, but i've tried being nice to you, and asking you to do the same.

I've already been through this. Furthermore could we, you know... Stick to the topic maybe?


It wouldn't be hard to find if I could remember some keywords from it.

Nice dodge. You took what I said, reworded it and said it back to me. Hmmm.


I'm not going to tell you what to think. I'll defend my beliefs against criticism but i'm not hell bent on trying to convince everyone to believe what I believe. Now, can we get back on the topic of Moore and BFC and not me?


I'm not asking you to accept it. I don't give a monkey's either way to be frank. I'm not going to lie in bed worrying: "Graham doesn't believe me when I said X...". Now lets get back on topic.


You know, staying on topic might not be a bad idea? Just a thought.


Where did I say Moore tries to do this? Cites?


Yeah, and having millions in corporate sponsership helps doesn't it? Wilson also doesn't have the luxury to sue a poor, struggling, independent magazine because he was a bad editor.

Wilson has never indicated he made the film anything other than what he wanted.


[quote=Graham
Of course I'm bringing up that point because it's more than a little relevant! It was not that he was "in office" it was that he was a *Republican* ie one of the people that Moore "attacks". As I also pointed out, it's a little more complicated than the somewhat simplistic view you presented which seemed to be "Moore has a go at this ordinary bloke because he said something criticising him".[/quote]

No, the fact that he is/was republican has no relevence on wether he killed his intern or not. And it isn't more complicated. Noone said anything until Moore did, which happened after Scarborough criticised him. Moore (rather childishly, I think) decided to discredit Scarborough because he dared criticise him. If he hadn't criticised Moore then Moore wouldn't have said anything.


This is off topic of course, (as is most of our posts, but nevermind). Either way, the case is closed, everyone is happy.


I believe all it takes is a call to the cororoner's office, with one new piece of evidence or angle on the case. And given the coroners history, it shouldn't be too hard i'd think. Let's get back on topic.


Obviously not questionable enough to concern the deceased person's family. Or anyone in the coroners office. Or in the state (I think, although I could be wrong, you don't have to connected with a report to object to and and re-open it, so long as you have some valid evidence. Now let's get back on topic.


I've already said, can we discuss Moore and BFC, and not me?


He avoided Wilson long before Wilson said what the title of his movie would be.

Now I know i'm as bad as you for reciprocating it, but I think it's high time we start trying to keep these posts on topic. I've indicated what points you've made that are nothing to do with Moore directly or BFC. That includes: me, wether Scarbough is a murderer (but not what Moore said about him, or what he said about Moore), Wilson, unless it has some direct link with Moore, etc.

Also, that post I said i'll make, it doesn't look like the document I wanted to refer to will come online at all, but i'll make it anyway either tonight or tomorrow.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

For gods sake moore is not that bad. I have just see the 9/11 movie and it was great, people clapped at the end.

Also one of the main points of the film was not the people who are treated the worst in a country (the people living in poor towns after closure of factory) are usually the first to defend the country. It was a really interesting point at the end of the film. I urge you to watch it and to stop attacking moore as his enemies are far worse

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I have watched it. Although Moore will not admit it, he's learned a lot of lessons (or this war cabinet of his put their foot down), because this movie is much, much tighter (less ambiguity, etc). There are still errors in it though, but we'll see what happens with that. I don't attack Moore per se (pre-emtpively anyway), I just despise him. And if anyone asks me why, i'll tell them. I'd say there is a small but crucial difference.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Whatever you think of his politics you have to admit he is a excellent film maker. Also I dont see why you despise him?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

This is funny

Letterman's Top Ten List: Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":


10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing
*
9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

See, it has nothing to do with his policies. I don't hate left-wingers or socalists. Being a punk, I hang out with lots of others and the vast majority subscribe to that point of view. Being independent/right leaning is very rare for punk culture.

Anyways, here is what I think. The thing I hate most about him, is his ethics or lack thereof. Even his fans and left-wingers think he could do with some improvement there. I was a bit disgusted he'd accuse someone of murder because he criticised him, but wether you view it that way or not is up to you. Also, remember that scene in BFC where he had the gall to comfort Kayleigh's teacher? I thought that was really rich considering he reduced her to tears in the first place. When I actually saw that, it said out aloud: "you b*****d", and actually wanted to hit him. Also, his hypocracy is well noted. He claims capitalism is evil and is a proponent for socialism, yet he has a $2m penthouse and a $1.3m Lake Michigan summer home. He earned it? Well fine, but he is against corporatism, yet he likes to use private jets, and yes, even SUVs when he is on tour. (see here) There is also this. He also said he'd donate Bush's tax break money to a democratic candidate, he hasn't. He tries to get people to fund the democratic party, yet his sole political donation is a $1000 to Hilary Clinton for Senator. (You can check that out here Don't ask me why every donation people make is listed on a government website, but it is. He is under Michael Moore, NY, Filmmaker. Apparently, he doesn't even vote all that much.

That is just him as a person, without mentioning his filming. I said he is a good filmmaker, and he is, in that he can use juxtaposition (filming effect where you make something seem better or worse than it actually is by comparing/sitting it next to something else. I.E. During the violence video montage in BFC, he used Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World" as a soundtrack) better than anyone. He knows how to invoke feelings and emotions. He is very powerful at that. Like I said he really needs to do anti-Drug commericals and stuff. That is good, but it works both ways (it is propaganda essientially). I could still like Moore if he was truely honest, but unethical. Unfortunately even Moore fans say he is a bit easy with the truth. What he should do, is video things and come to a conclusion. What he actually does is come to a conclusion and video some evidence to back it up. Also, he never, ever paints a picture in context. Not suprising considering it hurts his conclusion, but it hurts his image Bush ordered someone to do it. He never even mentioned the Miami voting scandal where dead people and felons manage to vote, which prompted getting Database Technologies getting involved. Also, he mentioned once that Bush circumvented his own campaign donation law, limiting donations to individuals to $2000 per person (To prevent companies "buying" influence in Washington). What he didn't tell you, was that Moore was talking about so called "Soft money donations", which are given to a party in general and not a person. The democrats actually earned more than the republicans. That is full and balanced video documentry making, not what he actually does.

I hope that explains it a bit better anyway.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

First of all what is wrong with confronting the teacher? She had to agree to appear whats what those films are about is the effect on real people. What did you want? Why is he a *******? Talking to the person who was there? It is a powerful moment and there are news items and other things that show people crying! Why is he a ******* for doing it?

Also you go on about money but everyone makes money! You make money does that mean your points are any less valid? If you want to discredit someone then giving them a motive is a good thing to do.

Also he isnt the greatest fan of the democrats ever he said they where the best out of a bad bunch. Also you keep linkking to right wings sources who try to discredit moore and hence the issues are not talked about

Gun control is a problem
The media is a problem
The fact people didnt listain to the kids was a problem

The way the war was decided was a problem
The effects of war are true
The fact that bush proposed to cut soldiers wages and stuff was true
The election was a problem

The reason the right wingers try to personally attack moore is because they know they cannot defend these points. When they stop trying personal insults and talk about the issues and points is the time i will take notice of the anti-moore crowd

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Its like with all things, you can agree with MM or Disagree with him.
Depending on what you are prepared to believe and who you are prepared to believe.
Whilst I admit I havent seen any of his "movies" or read any of his books, mainly because I dont like to read etc about conspiracy theories. I do think that after seeing the trailer for F9/11 I thought it made a good point, what did Bush do? yes he went on vacation.

All these attacks and counter attacks are playing into MM's hands, everytime a politician attacks him, he gets more attention. He counter attacks with things that are extreme, such as accusations of murder, which in my mind must have sat unwell because they didnt sue his arse off.

Either way if you watch with an open mind I am sure you will enjoy it more.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I just thought it was really nasty that he reduced the poor woman to tears (hadn't she suffered enough?) and then he had the gall to comfort her? I just thought it was out of order. One of the ethics points that I didn't put down, is that it is bad enough he had millions out of the misery and death of others, but deliberately upsetting people for the camera is a bit much.

Yeah, but I am pro-capitalist. I am unashamedly very much pro-capitalist. I have never, even during my left-wing years, ever was a socialist or a communist, and neither will I ever be. Moore wants to be. But you can't do both. George Soros is the left wing billionaire, who invests heavily the carlyle group, and formed MoveOn, but that's ok because he isn't a socialist.

I wish they wern't all right-wing sources, and I tried to find as indpendent ones as I can. At the end of the day, Moore attacks the right 90%, and the left 10%. The right have far more to defend against, and more incentive to come with a response.

Check my next post in this thread, i'll make that point I have been meaning to.

The right-wingers don't attack Moore. (Not that i'm really aware of. Some just insult Moore because of his weight, but that is silly). They make points in response to Moore's very loose allegations. See, we say Moore lies, but that isn't strictly speaking true. He decieves. All lies are deceit, but not all deceit involves lies. Moore tells you only what you need to know to form the opinion he wants you to think. He doesn't have to say it, he can make you think it. All we do most of the time, is put it into context. I.E. Moore would like you to believe that the NRA went to Littleton 3 days after Columbine, to "rally the troops", but the opposite is true. That meeting had to go ahead, it is part of corporate law. The date and was fixed well before Columbine, and couldn't be changed. They cut back everything not required by law though. Moore doesn't tell you that. What made it worse, is that Moore manufactured a speech using part Littleton, part another speech 8 months later to make Heston appear callous, when the Columbine speech was quite sensitive. (see here)

I don't know if you are interested, but when I said that F9/11 was tighter, that was till I realised, just how much background he leaves out to make his point valid. If you have some spare time, you should read this

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

What about Schindlers list? that was about the holocaust! And money was made out of that. Millions of people killed and they made money doesn't make them wrong or evil or mean. Also SHE had to agree to appear in the film so she wanted to do it. You are supposed to interview people close to the event!

Also you say he lies etc etc but the points he makes are valid enough. He does use editing to his advantage but this is to make his point hit home. Moore doesnt make stuff up all the things in both films there was already the knowage he just put it together. He does use spin and editing but at the end of the day he the issues he raises are true.

HE does not make up issues and he doesn't make up facts and the distortion isnt really evident. The only thing he doesn't do too show all the facts but at the end of the day the issues and thoughts provoked are true and honest

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

In BFC, Moore makes the point that media is needlessly scaremongering, making us all paranoid, and so dependent on guns. At the time he showed Cops on TV, and interviewed some guy we've never heard of, so the point wasn't very well made. But he may have had a point after all. I was watching the news here, and one article made me think. (unfortunately ABCNews haven't, and looks like they won't put the article on their site).

On "Primetime", which is sort of like "Tonight with Trevor McDonald", a semi-investigative reporting show, that had a segment about the cleaniness of hotel rooms. Cue at least five minutes, omniously talking about how semen and urine was found on the covers, sheets, walls, carpet. They said it was invisible and had to use a backlight. I thought at the time, well if it is invisible, how can the cleaner see it? Then they talked a bit more. It was only after a little while longer did the finally admit that the stains were dried, and sterile, and so completely harmless, and making the report pointless. Then they went on to talk about bedbugs, and how they can hitch a ride home.

To me, that was unncesscessary scaremongering. I know one example doesn't nescessarily prove a point, but i'm going to be a bit more aware of it now.

Also, in BFC, Moore skips something which I would have thought was more valid than 90% of the movie put together. Some states don't require any permits of licenses to have a gun. So long as you pass the background check, you can get a gun. You only need a license if you want the Federal Concealed Weapons permit which means you don't need the 3 step rule (non-licensed carrying means you need 3 steps to use a gun. I.e. open glove compartment, open case, open holster). It wouldn't be news to anyone in America, but would have looked better for international distribution.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Yeah but dispite the level of guns in the usa (they love those guns) the film was trying to find why the level of gun related deaths are so much higher than anywhere else

And i do think this is because of fear, (fox news isnt allowed in canada believe) look at the media in the UK! fear fear fear. One of the funnest moment in 9/11 was when they showed advert for that safe to sit in! :D Then the american said "i can see you sitting here with your favorite drink while the danger is kept away" (or something) and he is sitting is a safe the size of a portable toilet. SO funny

Punky are you saying you agree with the issues he raises but just dislike him

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I believe Spielberg donated a lot of money raised by SL to charity, which is important (see here, point #13. Also, he is an established filmmaker, that made the movie to highlight the Holocaust, not to make money. Thirdly, he is Jewish, which gives him a personal spin on it. Interesting fact though (I'm not like Moore, i'll tell you something even if it weakens my argument, for clarity), is that Oskar Schlinder's wife actually opposed the film. Technically, any film that mentions 9/11 for profit is exploiting it, but I think it comes down to motivations. As Moore is using 9/11 to get Bush out of office, i'd say he isn't exploiting it.

Wasn't it the exact opposite in BFC? Every point he tried to make about gun control he ruled out one by one. Like: more guns produce more gun deaths. He went to Canada to prove that isn't true. He said does inner-city racial lines create gun violence? No, he stood in south-central LA (albeit not that long, and with relative safety in numbers. He generally concludes the film by there isn't an obvious reason for it. Which is true, if someone knew why they had so much gun crime, they'd know how to stop it.

Well I think the distortion is only evident if you read the other side to the story. A wise person once said this: "Ask two people about the same thing. One person will say something, another person will say another thing. The truth is always somewhere in the middle". I'm not saying all Moore fans are wrong and shouldn't like them, but I think they should read all the facts, not just Moore's

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Would you like me to tell you why? It has nothing to do with Fox News. The fact is that Canada has legistlation which prevents too many American shows, of any kind over there. I think it was 60% of all media has to be Canadian produced. Jerrek might know more. When I was there I noticed it and the friend I was staying with told me about it. DirectTV (The North American satelite system) works perfectly well in Canada, but it is illegal. Some people there have cloned DirectTV boxes (so they can get good channels like HBO), but they risk serious trouble if they are caught.

I dislike him as a person for what he has done in the past. Unless he suddenly has an epiphany and changes his values, I don't think it is liable to change much.

With his films, I don't disagree with him, purely to disagree because I hate him. Because I despise him, doesn't mean he is any less right or wrong about something. I take it on a point by point basis. I always read both sides, Moore's, and the anti-Moore's, then I think what I think is the most likely to be true.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Well, I think hating him is weird thing when he hasnt really done much wrong. I know what a while ago someone got it trouble on his website for something and the right wing people had a feild day but he didnt have anything to do with that ( i think he insulted someone in a unfair way, dont know details) but hating him is a bit fair

Also as long as you dont think he lies all the time its alright but the issues he rasises are true.

As for fox news i saw a video on there site where a guy was attacking canada for there teenagers being ignorant and said about fox news are not even allowed to broadcast there so i got the impression there where banned because of the wording and tone of what he said

Why are we debating anyway? He hate him, i like him. That wont change and you agree that he is right on the important fact so whats the point of this :)

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Just in case you were wondering I think you are refering to a comment he made in 12th Sept which was something like: "Why did you do it? The planes were heading for California, they did not vote for Bush!". He removed it a couple of days later.

Well yes, that's a bit simplifed though. I don't judge Moore's honesty in film based on his personality is a better way of putting it.

Both sides as as bad as one another really.

I don't know either TBH :) I've always said it doesn't matter to me personally if you are a Moore fan or not. You've read the other side, sided with Moore, and that is 100% fine. I'm happy anyway :)

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

End of debate :sorry: :hugs: :group:

Nice debate punky :handshake :clap:

Anyway as for the comment it was nothing to do with september 11th and the person who did it got sacked and has shouted at by moore