meltdown 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteI'm not going to do this dance with you.
I'm really glad you're not going to dance with me, that would be very un-red-blooded-god-fearing-capitalist-gun-loving-hetero-America n of you.
Sarcasm. Ad-hominem. The indelible marks of the liberal.
Aaaaalways has to be dripping with arrogant sarcasm, detracting from any point that could possibly be made. Just an "I could make fun of you if I wanted to" jab. Verrry mature. Demonstrates the childish, petty, petulant mindset of the liberal.
QuoteAs for your sites, well, bias as we know, runs both ways.
Then SHOW the fuckin' bias! You're sitting here telling us that we haven't provided any facts to rebut any of MM's supposed "facts," and then when we list half a dozen websites that DO have the debunking material, you tell us it's just going to be biased in the other direction. You're way out there, man. Apparently nothing will convince you MM lies. You ask us if we've seen or read MM's stuff, and accuse us of not having done, and then you apparently dismiss (presumably without having read) the numerous websites which we are asserting can dispel the myth of Moore's arguments.
So if you're sure that our sites have that "both ways" bias, why not copy and paste some parts where you can make us see that their debunking was actually incorrect? You know: hold yourself to the same standard you're telling US to maintain.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
benny 0
QuoteI have yet to see something that was represented to be a fact by Michael Moore disproven by any of you.
________________________________________________
Ask and ye shall receive.
Moore Fabrication
While I've read the book which I found in the the comedy (note: not history) section of the bookstore and I think I remember a passage similar to this I must say, if chiding MM for this:
QuoteWhere does this leave us? I think it's time for Moore to be held accountable. In Stupid White Men, he has 18 pages of "Notes and Sources," but he offers no evidence for the sham interview with me--no date, no transcript. How could he, since the interview never happened?
he might at least give us a reference of where in the book that occurred so that we might more easily learn of these lies. I guess I'll have to go buy it again so i can read it and know that every ideologue (not just those I disagree with) use anectdotes which may or may not be true to make their points.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
How is asking you a question putting words in your mouth? You seem to be enjoying avoiding answering those questions. Let me ask again: If some successful, popular, right-wing filmmaker (blowhard) convinces me through misinformation and misrepresentation of facts/statistics/whatever information to vote for pro-gun legislation, would you be just as angry? It's called a hypothetical question to present a point. But it looks like you missed it, yet again.
So why didn't you say that clearly in the first place? "Voting and otherwise" doesn't really clarify anything, does it? Again, another poorly made argument. You were criticizing your coworkers for merely saying that it was a good movie.
And let me ask again, do you really think that they're the definitive source on what can be called a documentary?
Oh, I see. Everyone, even if they have their own brain to think with, is supposed to rely on some consortium of entertainment moguls to tell them what they can trust as a so-called documentary.
Are you implying that all those people who have seen the movie aren't able to think for themselves? That they're not able to see that it is only classified as a documentary, and that doesn't necessarily mean that it's totally factual? Do you think that every person who has seen one of his films believed every single word?
Yup, when you needlessly call missiles crap, Titan rockets stupid, suits motherfucking, and try to make an argument that is totally unrelated to the point that my posts were trying to make...you look like a fool, an angry young man, and a toddler throwing a tantrum. Does peacefuljeffrey need a pacifier?
Okay, you can call me whatever you want. You can call MM whatever you want, too. Nope, I'm not going to call him a liar because I have no room to. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't believe everything he says, but I'm not going to call him a liar unless I know for absolutely sure all the truth about everything. Do you know the absolute truth about everything? Nothing is ever proven. There is surely evidence to support any argument, but there is no proof of anything.
Yup, I think that was valid point saying that Moore's editing was misleading. However, he still used the exact words that Heston said. What's different about that and quoting bits and pieces of supporting text in an academic paper?
You don't have to cite everything. Just a few quotes would do. Even a link (which you finally included) is fine. Let me ask you again...if you were in a debate, would you make your opponent go Google for the facts that support your stance? I'm sure that would go over really well in a presidential debate. Or, say you're writing an academic paper--do you tell your professor that you're not going to cite any supporting evidence because it's all already out there? I can just imagine it: "Go search for it, Prof! No? Oh, you can't fail me for your laziness, Prof."
Um, you must have missed my post here yet again. Oh look, I've linked to web sites that offer both sides of the argument! I've even acknowledged that the anti-Moore web site has some valid points. Who's the one who doesn't want the facts?
_Pm
QuoteAn opinion that is formed upon distorted information provided cynically for the specific purpose of manipulating that opinion is worthless. That's my point.
So why didn't you say that clearly in the first place? "Voting and otherwise" doesn't really clarify anything, does it? Again, another poorly made argument. You were criticizing your coworkers for merely saying that it was a good movie.
QuoteMany many people (enough of them in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, anyway) do NOT look at BFC as "entertainment." It was presented as a DOCUMENTARY, and won an oscar as a DOCUMENTARY.
And let me ask again, do you really think that they're the definitive source on what can be called a documentary?
QuoteThat means a viewer should not have to sort through what is offered as a "false fact" strictly for "entertainment" or "humor."
Oh, I see. Everyone, even if they have their own brain to think with, is supposed to rely on some consortium of entertainment moguls to tell them what they can trust as a so-called documentary.
Are you implying that all those people who have seen the movie aren't able to think for themselves? That they're not able to see that it is only classified as a documentary, and that doesn't necessarily mean that it's totally factual? Do you think that every person who has seen one of his films believed every single word?
QuoteThat quoted material seems "angry" to you? Gee, you must have a very low threshold. But who's the one calling someone "fool" and "angry young man"? "Toddler in a tantrum"?
Yup, when you needlessly call missiles crap, Titan rockets stupid, suits motherfucking, and try to make an argument that is totally unrelated to the point that my posts were trying to make...you look like a fool, an angry young man, and a toddler throwing a tantrum. Does peacefuljeffrey need a pacifier?
QuoteI think YOU are a shameless apologist for a lying sack of shit "documentarist." How's that? You're not capable of admitting that Moore is a liar, even when it is proved.
Okay, you can call me whatever you want. You can call MM whatever you want, too. Nope, I'm not going to call him a liar because I have no room to. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't believe everything he says, but I'm not going to call him a liar unless I know for absolutely sure all the truth about everything. Do you know the absolute truth about everything? Nothing is ever proven. There is surely evidence to support any argument, but there is no proof of anything.
QuoteDid you read the side-by-side comparison of the Heston speeches?
Yup, I think that was valid point saying that Moore's editing was misleading. However, he still used the exact words that Heston said. What's different about that and quoting bits and pieces of supporting text in an academic paper?
QuoteI pointed you to Google and to other websites because I didn't figure it was best to copy and paste everything here. Don't blame me for your laziness.
You don't have to cite everything. Just a few quotes would do. Even a link (which you finally included) is fine. Let me ask you again...if you were in a debate, would you make your opponent go Google for the facts that support your stance? I'm sure that would go over really well in a presidential debate. Or, say you're writing an academic paper--do you tell your professor that you're not going to cite any supporting evidence because it's all already out there? I can just imagine it: "Go search for it, Prof! No? Oh, you can't fail me for your laziness, Prof."
QuoteIf you really wanted facts on which to base your "opinion," you'd get them. You just don't want them.
Um, you must have missed my post here yet again. Oh look, I've linked to web sites that offer both sides of the argument! I've even acknowledged that the anti-Moore web site has some valid points. Who's the one who doesn't want the facts?
_Pm
__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)
QuoteSarcasm. Ad-hominem. The indelible marks of the liberal.
Aaaaalways has to be dripping with arrogant sarcasm, detracting from any point that could possibly be made. Just an "I could make fun of you if I wanted to" jab. Verrry mature. Demonstrates the childish, petty, petulant mindset of the liberal.
And it looks as though this shows the hypocrisy of the conservative.
_Pm
__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)
benny 0
QuoteThen SHOW the fuckin' bias!
The names of half the sites and the fact that they are devoted to being against Michael Moore is proof enough of the bias. The fact that they'd spend hard-earned money on a website against one man alone is fairly glaring evidence of bias against him. If that were not the case do you think anybody would give a damn about the editing of speeches in a documentary or whatever you like to call it?
Never go to a DZ strip show.
benny 0
I'll make a peace offering:
Michael Moore is a liar.
As we are all liars, or are guilty of having told a lie at one point in our lives, usually to avoid trouble or accomplish a desired result, such as say, convincing people that it's the right thing to do to initiate a large-scale ground invasion of a sovereign nation.
But I have to ask the question again for you detractors, have you seen it? Because, at least for me the point of BFC wasn't that guns were the main problem, after all part of the film took us to Canada where Michael pointed out that although there are many guns per capita, there is relatively little violence. So, in a way, you could view it as supporting the gun cause, after all the Canadians can handle guns without killing people. So maybe MM's point was really that American's are just a bunch of fucked up assholes. Which I really wouldn't disagree with anyway.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Michael Moore is a liar.
As we are all liars, or are guilty of having told a lie at one point in our lives, usually to avoid trouble or accomplish a desired result, such as say, convincing people that it's the right thing to do to initiate a large-scale ground invasion of a sovereign nation.
But I have to ask the question again for you detractors, have you seen it? Because, at least for me the point of BFC wasn't that guns were the main problem, after all part of the film took us to Canada where Michael pointed out that although there are many guns per capita, there is relatively little violence. So, in a way, you could view it as supporting the gun cause, after all the Canadians can handle guns without killing people. So maybe MM's point was really that American's are just a bunch of fucked up assholes. Which I really wouldn't disagree with anyway.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
billvon 3,090
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Ever heard the phrase "where there's smoke, there's fire?"
I hear a lot of pro-gun people foaming at the mouth over this movie. Moore is a fat lying sack of shit, he claims the Titan missile is a weapon, he claims banks give guns away, he puts forth a "malestrom of lies" etc etc.
Now, I saw this movie, and didn't much care for it. The only interesting parts of it (to me) were his interviews with militia members and townspeople, because I hadn't heard their perspectives before. But the rest of it was just a filmmaker trying to push his politics.
So I immediately forgot most of it. I just didn't think it merited much comment. I think the same about the anti-abortion protesters with their pictures of baby chunks, the Bush protesters who walk around with "BUSH=HITLER" signs, and the oil companies who make the "how Exxon is saving Shamu" films. All of them clearly had an agenda, and all I really wanted to know was what it was. OK, you're pro-life, check. I don't need a half hour conversation with an activist to figure that out; it's pretty clear from their signs, and over the course of their sermon I wouldn't hear anything I hadn't heard before.
So I am suprised that so many pro-gun people keep bringing up this movie. There's an old saying that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and you're proving that old adage true.
Want to make Moore's work wildly successful? Want to make production companies think "I gotta get me a piece of that?" Rant and rave, tell all your friends not to see it. At our high school, the dean of students virtually guaranteed that everyone in the school saw "The Life of Brian" by telling us to not see it. Do the same, and you will be doing your part to make Moore a success. A few pro-gun people have even challenged people to do that - "Have you seen the film?" Better run out, rent the video, and put another few cents in Moore's pocket.
As Farenheight 9/11 comes out, ask yourself this - wouldn't you rather his next film be a complete flop than a controversial, edgy film that makes millions? I'd rather it just flop - mainly because I don't want to read about it for the next six months. That's giving Moore more credit than he deserves.
I hear a lot of pro-gun people foaming at the mouth over this movie. Moore is a fat lying sack of shit, he claims the Titan missile is a weapon, he claims banks give guns away, he puts forth a "malestrom of lies" etc etc.
Now, I saw this movie, and didn't much care for it. The only interesting parts of it (to me) were his interviews with militia members and townspeople, because I hadn't heard their perspectives before. But the rest of it was just a filmmaker trying to push his politics.
So I immediately forgot most of it. I just didn't think it merited much comment. I think the same about the anti-abortion protesters with their pictures of baby chunks, the Bush protesters who walk around with "BUSH=HITLER" signs, and the oil companies who make the "how Exxon is saving Shamu" films. All of them clearly had an agenda, and all I really wanted to know was what it was. OK, you're pro-life, check. I don't need a half hour conversation with an activist to figure that out; it's pretty clear from their signs, and over the course of their sermon I wouldn't hear anything I hadn't heard before.
So I am suprised that so many pro-gun people keep bringing up this movie. There's an old saying that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and you're proving that old adage true.
Want to make Moore's work wildly successful? Want to make production companies think "I gotta get me a piece of that?" Rant and rave, tell all your friends not to see it. At our high school, the dean of students virtually guaranteed that everyone in the school saw "The Life of Brian" by telling us to not see it. Do the same, and you will be doing your part to make Moore a success. A few pro-gun people have even challenged people to do that - "Have you seen the film?" Better run out, rent the video, and put another few cents in Moore's pocket.
As Farenheight 9/11 comes out, ask yourself this - wouldn't you rather his next film be a complete flop than a controversial, edgy film that makes millions? I'd rather it just flop - mainly because I don't want to read about it for the next six months. That's giving Moore more credit than he deserves.
QuoteI'll make a peace offering:
Michael Moore is a liar.
As we are all liars, or are guilty of having told a lie at one point in our lives, usually to avoid trouble or accomplish a desired result, such as say, convincing people that it's the right thing to do to initiate a large-scale ground invasion of a sovereign nation.
But I have to ask the question again for you detractors, have you seen it? Because, at least for me the point of BFC wasn't that guns were the main problem, after all part of the film took us to Canada where Michael pointed out that although there are many guns per capita, there is relatively little violence. So, in a way, you could view it as supporting the gun cause, after all the Canadians can handle guns without killing people. So maybe MM's point was really that American's are just a bunch of fucked up assholes. Which I really wouldn't disagree with anyway.
I have to agree with Benny here. What I took away from Bowling For Columbine was that America's "culture of hysteria, paranoia, and fear" was more of the problem than the guns themselves.
"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET
piisfish 140
I'll see the movie in around 2weeks time when it comes out here.
Will keep you updated of what I think of the movie.
Now I am not saying MM is good, or bad, if he is right or wrong. Just that he has the courage (or interest) to stirr the sh*t, or to spit in the soup. He could do this with any government in the US or in most (all ? ) countries in the world. He finds some things are wrong, and expresses his point of view. Some might not be thinking the same as he does, and it disturbs.
Will keep you updated of what I think of the movie.
Now I am not saying MM is good, or bad, if he is right or wrong. Just that he has the courage (or interest) to stirr the sh*t, or to spit in the soup. He could do this with any government in the US or in most (all ? ) countries in the world. He finds some things are wrong, and expresses his point of view. Some might not be thinking the same as he does, and it disturbs.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM
Quote
So I am suprised that so many pro-gun people keep bringing up this movie. There's an old saying that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and you're proving that old adage true.
It is the belief of the gun lobbies that saying nothing when lies are told that had lead the public to think assault weapons ban kept machine guns off the street, that glocks are made [solely] of plastic, that 10 kids a day die to gunfire. Silence implies truth. Or it may just be that they were particularly offended by the interview with Heston. Certainly as a group he would be in the top 5 Enemies List.
I don't think the negative publicity from gun groups helped the success of Bowling one way or the other. He already established a reputation from his prior work.
The publicity that Arming America got lead to the author being forced out Emory University, and the Bancroft Aware he won for it rescinded. It might have sold a few more copies because of the end result, but the guy will never lose the academic fraud label.
billvon 3,090
>It is the belief of the gun lobbies that saying nothing when lies are told
>that had lead the public to think assault weapons ban kept machine guns
>off the street . . .
I can fully understand that. It's just odd that Moore is attacked so often, relative to, say, the Million Mom March (if the relative number of posts here is any indication.) It often seems like the issue for many pro-gun people is a personal dislike of Moore rather than a dislike of his causes, since the MMM is dedicated much more directly to assault weapons bans.
>that had lead the public to think assault weapons ban kept machine guns
>off the street . . .
I can fully understand that. It's just odd that Moore is attacked so often, relative to, say, the Million Mom March (if the relative number of posts here is any indication.) It often seems like the issue for many pro-gun people is a personal dislike of Moore rather than a dislike of his causes, since the MMM is dedicated much more directly to assault weapons bans.
Quote
I can fully understand that. It's just odd that Moore is attacked so often, relative to, say, the Million Mom March (if the relative number of posts here is any indication.) It often seems like the issue for many pro-gun people is a personal dislike of Moore rather than a dislike of his causes, since the MMM is dedicated much more directly to assault weapons bans.
True, there's definitely more focus and anger towards him. I'll venture it is because he gets recognition and accolades, while the MMM has essentially failed. It never had close to a million moms, nor enough due paying members to sustain their intended efforts.
There are a lot of people here who are hostile to criticisms of the Bush Administration in general, and esp wrt the wars in the Middle East. There is a big overlap with the group of gun owners, so Moore has committed sin twice in two movies.
kallend 2,117
QuoteAn opinion that is formed upon distorted information provided cynically for the specific purpose of manipulating that opinion is worthless.
Which reminds me: did you see the 2003 State of the Union Address by President Bush?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
smiles 0
Film is an art and therefore has no rules. I feel that you would be hard pressed to find any document that deals with "subject matter in a neutral way," for any that suggest all documentary "must" necessarily be. The very act of making a film suggests an agenda.
There are very few documentaries that are objective. The things that are presented in a documentary are true (at least until proven false), but the message does not have to be. All documentary filmmakers have an agenda, something they want to get across. This may mean omission, "creative" cutting or similar. This does not mean that the footage is false, and as such it is still documentary. The message is another story. The message is almost always biased.
You cannot put down Moore for having an agenda. The same is true for every single documentary filmmaker. Has anyone seen virtually every important film ever made.? None of them have altered the outcome of an election the way this one will. It may not be the best film ever made in terms of its art... but it will be the most important film in terms of influence.
The temperature where freedom burns.
Nine members of the Cannes jury awarded prizes, one was French while four were Americans, including jury president Quentin Tarantino and actress Kathleen Turner. Quentin Tarantino -- -- told Moore 'We want you to know that the politics of your film had nothing to do with the award. You were given the award because you made a great film.'"
I think it's highly amusing how upset some people are. People are slamming the facts of this movie as being completely inaccurate, yet they haven't even seen it yet. What is supposed to make a country great--is the fact that we are able to view, read, discuss, etc. different perspectives and then be able to draw our own conclusions and ideas.
SMiles
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."
There are very few documentaries that are objective. The things that are presented in a documentary are true (at least until proven false), but the message does not have to be. All documentary filmmakers have an agenda, something they want to get across. This may mean omission, "creative" cutting or similar. This does not mean that the footage is false, and as such it is still documentary. The message is another story. The message is almost always biased.
You cannot put down Moore for having an agenda. The same is true for every single documentary filmmaker. Has anyone seen virtually every important film ever made.? None of them have altered the outcome of an election the way this one will. It may not be the best film ever made in terms of its art... but it will be the most important film in terms of influence.
The temperature where freedom burns.
Nine members of the Cannes jury awarded prizes, one was French while four were Americans, including jury president Quentin Tarantino and actress Kathleen Turner. Quentin Tarantino -- -- told Moore 'We want you to know that the politics of your film had nothing to do with the award. You were given the award because you made a great film.'"
I think it's highly amusing how upset some people are. People are slamming the facts of this movie as being completely inaccurate, yet they haven't even seen it yet. What is supposed to make a country great--is the fact that we are able to view, read, discuss, etc. different perspectives and then be able to draw our own conclusions and ideas.
SMiles
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."
eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.
Still believe this thread belongs in Bonfire?
Forty-two
Forty-two
________________________________________________
Ask and ye shall receive.
Moore Fabrication
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites