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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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

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.

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

[punky]

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.

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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! 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

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

(fox news isnt allowed in canada believe)

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

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

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

Both sides as as bad as one another really.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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

End of debate

Nice debate punky

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

Originally Posted by punky

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

You have not "tried to be nice", you have dodged, obfuscated, evaded, generalised and skirted points instead of engaging in debate. Every time I point this out, however, you complain "can we stay on topic" and "stop talking about me" as if *I* am the one in the wrong!

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

What a great idea? What were we talking about? Oh yes, Michael Moore's films. Hasn't he just produced one about the September 11th attacks? Something about Bush invading Iraq on the back of it? That is *definitely* off topic, isn't it...?

I'll defend my beliefs, but never try and impose them on people.

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

Where did *I* say *you* said Moore tries to do this? Oh, I didn't. But you were talking about anti-Moore sites which *do* claim this.

Moore produced the film *he* wanted to without having to pander to someone else's idea of what should be in it!

Is that a taste of sour grapes I detect? Still, I'm sure that's off topic.

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

Oh, of course! Well obviously, then, it couldn't have been anything else!

I mean, you start making a film called "Moore Hates America" and end up with a film of which half is suddenly "America's A Wonderful Place" and it's *clearly* the film he wanted to make in the first place

Anyway, that's got to be off topic, too.

the fact that he is/was republican has no relevence on wether he killed his intern or not. And it isn't more complicated. [...]

This is off topic of course,

It is? Again you claim "off topic" when we're talking about Michael Moore, this time about those that attack him. Odd definition of "off topic" you have.

And I think it *is* slightly more complicated than you wish to portray:

Either way, the case is closed, everyone is happy.

"Everyone is happy"??? That has to take the record for the most ridiculously sweeping generalisation you've come out with yet!

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.

Pardon me if I suggest that this seems incredibly naiive. It is not simply a matter of "all it taking" is a call with "one new piece of evidence or angle on the case", it also takes an act of will on the part of the Coroner to consider that that "evidence or angle" is valid enough to re-open a case (about which, of course, "everyone is happy"!)

Curiously enough, however, Berkland's supervisor, Dr. Gary Cumberland was investigated for donating heavily (and possibly beyond federal contribution limits) to Joe Scarborough's election campaigns. Not that I'm implying any connection, of course...!!!

Obviously not questionable enough to concern the deceased person's family.

The same people who have strong Republican connections and have now *removed* practically all trace of Lori Klausutis from their websites?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.07B.Klausutis.3.htm

Or anyone in the coroners office.

The one supervised by someone who contributed heavily to the Republicans?

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.

Evidence which has to be presented to and evaluated by...? I'll give you three guesses...

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.

I am not discussing *you* I am discussing your debating *technique*.
Again, I reiterate: "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."

You stop doing it, I'll stop doing it.

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

Cites?

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.

Thank you very much for your opinions on what you consider to be "off topic" in this thread. However pardon me if I keep my own counsel about what is relevant to the discussion because our views seem to diverge somewhat!!

(PS What does Spielberg and Schindler's List have to do with Moore or BFC? Just asking...!)

Punky said that he is making money out of events where people have died and i was point out that the same theory can be applied to war and holocaust films such as Schindler's List they are films that have made money out of horrific events. Just saying that these kind of films are usually better as there are real storys

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

You have not "tried to be nice", you have dodged, obfuscated, evaded, generalised and skirted points instead of engaging in debate. Every time I point this out, however, you complain "can we stay on topic" and "stop talking about me" as if *I* am the one in the wrong!

I already said I was as bad as you for carrying it on the first place, but someone has to try and keep this thread in order. And no, I don't just say that to skirt the issue. If you want to talk about issues irrelevent to the topic, then start a new thread on the topic you want to dicuss, or PM me. I think after this, I should ignore anything that is wildly off-topic, but of course, i'll be dodging wouldn't I? Hmmm. I can't be arsed to type "Let's get back on topic", everytime you want to talk about conspiracy theories about congressmen murdering interns, or the Iraqi WMD issue. You said near the end that you'd stop if I stopped first. Funny how i'm the one that suggested that maybe our posts didn't have even a vague connection with BFC in the first place. It also sounds really mature of you too . Still, i'll accede to your request and not reply to anything that has nothing to do with BFC, or Moore directly. I'll save the points I was thinking about when reading your post anyway in case you are ever interested.

Originally Posted by Graham

Where did *I* say *you* said Moore tries to do this? Oh, I didn't. But you were talking about anti-Moore sites which *do* claim this.

I think the whole "Is Moore calling people unpatriotic/idiotic/etc..?" subjective. I'm sure some would feel he was, and others say he wasn't.

Originally Posted by Graham

Is that a taste of sour grapes I detect? Still, I'm sure that's off topic.

The Wilson movie is off topic, unless it directly refers to Moore (I.E. accusing Moore of something you could argue to be relevent to this topic, but certainly not who funds it). However, the points I made about Moore's history I think is a very fascinating incite (IMO) into the real Michael Moore and so, on topic. Some hero, eh?

Originally Posted by Graham

It is? Again you claim "off topic" when we're talking about Michael Moore, this time about those that attack him. Odd definition of "off topic" you have.

I said it above briefly, but i'll explain it again fully. Michael Moore is the writer, director and producer of BFC. He is, for all intents and purposes BFC. It is hard to talk about BFC without talking about Moore. Wether some congressman killed his intern has nothing to do with Moore or the movie. Moore accusing a, so far innocent (Hmm, that "innocent til proven guilty" line you speak of doesn't seem to apply if you are right-wing, eh?) however has everything to do with what a piece of work Moore is.

Originally Posted by Graham

Thank you very much for your opinions on what you consider to be "off topic" in this thread. However pardon me if I keep my own counsel about what is relevant to the discussion because our views seem to diverge somewhat!!

You can think what you want. It is just: BFC -> Congressman allegedly murders his intern. If you can explain how the alledged crime and cover up itself has any bearing on the movie or Moore, then do it. Or Just start up a new thread like: "Did Joe Scarborough murder his intern?"


(PS What does Spielberg and Schindler's List have to do with Moore or BFC? Just asking...!)

It is evidence to support my original claim, about Moore. I'm not going great depths about WW2.

Well, Punky, congratulations.

In your efforts to keep this thread "on topic" you've left nothing that's worth bothering discussing!

This is getting out of hand. Why hasn thtis been locked yet