peacefuljeffrey

Then why did Moore not indict the NEWS MEDIA specifically (and almost exclusively)?? They are responsible, more than any other single source, of feeding our hysteria and fear about crime and violence. Every night on the news, you can tune in and see a story about someone getting murdered. How often do you see a story about a woman who was home alone with her kids sleeping, someone broke a back window, and she armed herself with a 9mm handgun and saved the life of herself and her kids by alerting the homebreaker that she was armed and would shoot him? According to repeated studies, between 800,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses occur in the U.S. each year. In the vast majority of cases, a gun is presented but not fired, and no one is shot, but criminal attacks are repelled. This does not make the news. Columbine makes the news. Paducah makes the news. The news media love to make us fear. But Moore said nothing about the skewed coverage of gun crime, even though guns are used far more to stop crime than to perpetrate it. I wonder why that is? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

BWAHAHAHAAHAA! YES, so have AL GORE, JOHN KERRY, BILL CLINTON, FRANK LAUTENBERG, and a host of other politicians, journalists, and celebrities -- none of whom have the balls to actually come out and state their true intentions with regard to guns, gun rights, gun ownership, and gun control. They're dumb: they're just not dumb enough to come right out and say, "I want to take away the right to keep and bear arms." That would galvanize their opposition in a way that hedging their language, and going on the occasional photo-op "duck hunt" avoids them doing. - , and while i don't agree with everything MM said or did in BFC, I enjoyed the movie and own a copy of it b/c I also really like some of what he says, and i think he brings up some good points. I looked at some of the anti-MM sites you guys posted. while they offer some interesting points, I don't really think those arguments hold a lot of water.. like the editing of the heston speech. I realized the first time i saw it that the "cold dead hands" part was a different speech, and while they show that he put different clips together, the meaning and the words are the same. MM just makes it a condensed version. Also, i've noticed that on the sites (and even in these posts) that people against MM seem to have a personal vendeta against him and are hell-bent on destroying him... this seems kinda weird and i have to wonder why they 'protest too much' Anyway, I've enjoyed seeing points from both sides. craichead: I've also enjoyed your posts- your aguments seem to pretty calm and level-headed... but, try not to lose your tempers guys! and remember that theres not anything wrong with admiting someone might have a point.. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

In some ways it is a documentary. It offers the view of the 'author' and his finding. Granted, there are items done for dramatic effect, but it's still a documentary. BTW, you should go pick the movie back up and watch the whole thing. Then, watch the extras. Doesn't sound like you will, but you should so you can say you've seen the whole thing. Fine, maybe I will -- the library has it for free. I just have to find the time. Trust me, watching Michael Moore spew what I know are lies is very far down my priority list. As far as calling it a documentary -- propaganda that can be disproved, and which had to be known to be false by the presenter -- does not count as "documentary." Hitler had films made vilifying the Jews. They presented "his views." Does that make them documentary, since we know that most of it was just smearing of the Jews, and patently untrue? Documentary is a term that is not content-neutral. You cannot put out a film filled with the most callous disregard for truth and fact, call it a film about "your views," and then say it's a documentary. To be a documentary, the film should contain FACTS that can be agreed upon by neutral, disinterested parties. Like a documentary on the three-toed sloth, for example. You would not expect much contention about such a film, because it would be based on scientific fact. If you placed characters into such a film, like Dr. Buchwald G. Manfrenngensen and his wife, the celebrated naturalists, who did not exist in real life, and scripted them to behave in a certain way with the three-toed sloths out there in the jungle, then you're have "realistic fiction," but no longer would you have a documentary. Likewise, when you doctor someone's speech to give a false impression of the manner, time, and location of its actual delivery, you no longer have a documentary. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You CAN'T "put something in place" to make sure discrimination doesn't happen. Can you put a law in place that will make MURDER not happen? Of course not. All you can do is codify that murder (and discrimination) is something that the law won't tolerate, WHEN it is found to happen. You don't seem to have any ideas to offer, do you? You put the question out there, but didn't offer even a couple of possibilities? I think that maybe the reason is that deep down you realize that discimination, like murder, is something that has to be dealt with once it occurs. There is no preventative measure for it, unless you count teaching kids from an early age that no one should be discriminated against. But affirmative action is discrimination in an effort to undo or prevent discrimination, and as such is paradoxically flawed. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When you read enough articles about the effects of affirmative action, you come upon the stories of very qualified white college candidates who did not get admitted to various institutions because minority candidates who did not perform as well on objective college-entrance qualification criteria got the spots. That's flat out wrong. That's a decision based on skin color -- the exact type of thing that historically was done to keep minorities down, the exact thing they're telling us was wrong to do. Now they do it, and the claim is that it's okay because it's meant to help. So two wrongs make a right? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Discrimination of this type is already punishable by law. If a person believes he or she has been discriminated against, the police or the attorney general's office should be notified so that they can investigate. If legal recourse through the courts would not serve the discriminated-against party, why would we believe that an affirmative action policy would? What I mean is, if a company discriminates against someone while there is no affirmative action policy in place, that person could go to the authorities and complain of illegal discrimination. They should be able to get redress in the courts, and this goes the same if there IS an affirmative action policy in place. But if a corrupt and bigoted court system would not provide redress for discrimination, what reason would there be to believe that an affirmative action policy would be adhered to either? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I already said that I did watch (some of) the movie. I stopped watching in large part because I had to return the video and I was out of time (the library gives only two days without a renewal). I was not interested in bothering to renew the v ideo. I had already read plenty about Moore's b.s. shenanigans in the movie before I took it out to watch, and even if I had not read up on it, I would have been turned off by the parts I did watch. The movie is a piece of shit. It's paraded around as "documentary," but it's twisted like taffy to make it say what Moore wanted it to say -- truth and accuracy be damned. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Exactly. Just because I disagree with their message does not give me the right to try to silence it. Why not? It's what they do in Germany and Britain. Try saying something "detestable" there -- like "The Holocaust never happened." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Could you please bring this back around so it addresses the fact that Moore admits portraying a QUOTATION of the plaque in his movie, but that he was "paraphrasing" when asked later on about the, um, "non-verbatim" nature of the "quote." I don't know what your quote there was intended to demonstrate. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wait -- are you implying that somebody should try to put that fire out?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences has a list of rules to govern which films are treated as "documentary." That's why "Saving Private Ryan" does not go up against Jacques Cousteau. Oh, I disagree wholeheartedly. If I said in a documentary film that the Statue of Liberty is 4,000' feet tall, would that be TRUE until someone actually got out there and measured it? If I said that hollow point bullets are designed specifically to penetrate the kevlar vests of police officers (they are not), would that be TRUE until we tracked down the inventor of the hollow point bullet -- or at least consulted some experts in the field of ammunition manufacture? Some things are objectively false and always will be, even when proof of their falsehood is unobtainable or unavailable. Touching the surface of the sun will hurt, and will not feel like petting a kitty cat: I cannot prove this but we know that it is true. So if I said that it would be like petting a kitty cat, we would not have to wait for you to prove that to be false before we refuse to believe it. Funny, I thought I already had. My problem with Moore's agenda is that in order to support it, he has to lie and decieve. An agenda that cannot stand on its own merit, and garner support when the truth is spoken, is not an agenda worth pursuing, unless one has ulterior and ignoble motives. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

5{An 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? No. I know better than to watch what I know will be bullshit and propaganda. Surprised to see me say that? Maybe you thought I was just an unthinking Bushie? No, I know that all politicians lie, and the truth is never found when you listen to one who has stepped up to a lectern to speak. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What those of us who oppose Moore and his film are hot about is the fact that a movie that can be demonstrated to contain radically inaccurate "factoids," implications, insinuations, and depictions has become the darling of the anti-gun mainstream media. Pundits and editors lauded the film for what it supposedly "exposed," even though it needed to lie in order to make its so-called points. Perhaps you've heard of another anti-gun LIAR, named Michael Bellesiles. He was a so-called historian who wrote a book a few years ago called Arming America. Its thesis was that until after the civil war, gun ownership among Americans was exceedingly rare, and thus this disproved pro-gun claims that gun ownership was near and dear to the framers who wrote the U.S. Constitution: therefore, gun-proponents' claims of an American heritage of gun ownership were falsely predicated. Bellesiles of course accumulated his detractors. Among them, Clayton Cramer, an amateur historian who CHECKED ON THE CLAIMS BELLESILES MADE. Bellesiles must have been an abject idiot to make the claims he made and expect that no one would catch his lies. I'm not going to list them here, because you can Google "Arming America" and 99% of what turns up will have to do with the discrediting of it. I'll mention one: Bellesiles cited as a source documents he supposedly read in California pertaining to probate records in San Francisco. Cramer discovered that the records Bellesiles claimed to have read were destroyed in the fires that followed the major earthquake in 1908! In case you should think that we pro-gunners are making a tempest in a teapot over Bellesiles: the man was stripped of his position at Emory University over this; he was stripped of his prestigious Columbia University Bancroft Prize -- the highest honor for a U.S. historian; the findings of his fabrication were substantiated by a three-professor panel (along with their assistants) from such institutions as Harvard University (I forgot the other two). So it is on very good authority that Bellesiles lied profusely in his book. But when that book came out, and it "did damage" to pro-gun claims, LAWD how the anti-gun press slavered over it! It was said he'd found the Holy Grail of anti-gun ideology. He was the subject of much buzz, and the publicationof the book MADE NEWSPAPER HEADLINES. How often does the publication of a book -- short of Hillary Clinton's memoirs -- make newspaper headlines? The press ate up any possibility that this could undercut pro-gun arguments and credibility. They have said little or nothing about the UTTER DEBUNKING of this book and its author, nor of how he lost his position as a professor at Emory University, nor of how he was forced to give up the Bancroft Prize. I had to read about that on all those biased anti-Michael-Bellesiles websites. So when we pro-gunners are this aware of what happens when someone anti-gun comes up with a glimmer of a socially-credible anti-gun stab, we know we have to go both-barrels against it or it will be the lie repeated often enough to become true. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

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? Does the fact that someone has a vested interest in tearing down the credibility of a certain person diminish in any way the value of a factual finding of dishonesty? Moore is an avowed gun-control supporter; he dislikes the "gun culture"; he joined the NRA in the misguided hope that he could get himself elected its president and then force it to support gun control policies. By your logic, we should discount and discredit anything he says in support of gun control, since we know he's biased in favor of it. I guess we should believe nothing about the value of space exploration, since most of our information about it comes directly from NASA, which is biased in favor of exploring space. Perhaps the people who have spent the time and money to fight Moore's lies are simply concerned that the spread of such lies and misinformation could lead people to make erroneous conclusions about what public policy and what elected officials to support. Perhaps they fear harm done to our constitutional rights by a well-meaning but misguided public, fed with lies by demagogues and "documentarists." They should be discounted just because what they say on the subject exposes their vested interest? Should Congress and the FAA refuse to listen to reps from USPA whenever skydiving regulation comes up, because everyone knows how biased in favor of skydiving those skydivers are!! - - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A repost for craichead of part of my original post, since he seems tohave forgotten that I made a request of him for information: Well? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Enough people believe big enough chunks of Moore's falsehoods that they may go out and support "gun control" candidates because of false ideas Moore presented regarding "easy accessibility," etc. Yes, I AM saying that after seeing a movie that presents itself as "documentary," it isn't even really unreasonable for a viewer to allow himself to believe that what he has been told is true. It's like the expectation you have when your physics teacher teaches you a formula for figuring out acceleration. You have no reason to believe you ought to "check up on" his formula -- you just fairly assume that he is not trying to fool you into believing something that is false. So with Moore's movie, he was ardently trying to convince people of various impressions -- notably the tenor of Charlton Heston and the NRA when they held meetings post-Columbine. People went to see the movie, which was being called a "DOCUMENTARY." It is NOT fair to expect people who see a movie billed as a documentary to second-guess the contextual manipulation of DIRECT QUOTES offered in the movie! 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? So why couldn't you say earlier that you agreed that his editing is misleading? That's been my whole point. Why should anyone trust a guy who deceives like that? Whaddya mean "he still used the exact words..."?! That makes no difference to what I'm saying! I could take YOUR words, cherry pick them up and down, and make your MEANING utterly different. I gave an example before: You say, "I can't understand how anyone can like buggering young children." An unscrupulous deceiver could "use the exact words," clip here and there, and claim you said, "I like buggering young children." You DID say those exact words, craichead! You did! They actually exist in your transcript -- just like Heston's words do. The only problem is, the new meaning of them, when put together differently, is altogether antithetical to their original meaning. I guess that's just "creative editing." "Dramatic effect." Well, gee, now that I know I'm being held to the standards of a presidential debate or an academic paper, I'll try to shape up my presentation -- just for you. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

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. 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!"

Do you enjoy putting words in my mouth? Misinformation is misinformation. What I'm saying is that when it comes to FACTS about GUNS, all the misinformation I've been seeing comes from the anti-gunners. I can't think of the last time I saw something supposedly factual about guns that the pro-gunners said, and I later found out was a lie. But off the top of my head, from the anti-gunners, I can think of: "plastic guns that can go through airport security undetected" (Glocks, allegedly); "assault weapons" (which work just like a whole slew of NON-banned guns); "20...no, 13... no, 9...no, 7 children a day killed by guns" (a bullshit statistic if ever there was one, with 20-year-olds supposedly counting as "children"); "cop-killer bullets" (Such a thing does not exist. Hollow-point bullets are not designed to go through kevlar vests, armor-piercing handgun bullets are already sold only to law-enforcement officers, and any hunting rifle bullet will already defeat standard body armor -- so is that "armor piercing" and all rifle ammo must be banned??)... This list could easily be four times as long as I've made it; I've truncated it for time and space conservation. Show me where the pro-gun side has lied about what a gun could do. You think people having the right to their own opinions is a bad thing? You say that you're giving them the benefit of the doubt that they can tell the difference between a so-called documentary and an editorial piece, yet you're assuming that they're "swallowing untruths whole" when they're merely commenting about how they think it's a good movie. Do you need another clue-in? That's called an opinion! An opinion that is formed upon distorted information provided cynically for the specific purpose of manipulating that opinion is worthless. That's my point. The women at work whom I heard praising this movie don't know jack shit about guns, except for what Michael Moore told them; don't know jack shit about the NRA except for what Michael Moore told them. Then they go off, armed with this "knowledge," and vote and donate money and volunteer time in misguided ways, because they have been themselves deliberately misguided. I don't have a problem with people having their own opinions, craichead. You shouldn't put words in my mouth like that. But I do object to people having foundationless opinions, based on falsehoods. Like if it's their opinion that we have to ban hollow-point ammunition because it's "cop-killer" ammunition -- this is the argument I've heard presented. That's a "WRONG opinion," and although you will probably argue about my calling an opinion "WRONG," I stand by it. If the opinion came about because the information upon which it is predicated is FALSE, the opinion itself is useless and WRONG. Bully for you. Many 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. That means a viewer should not have to sort through what is offered as a "false fact" strictly for "entertainment" or "humor." When Jacques Cousteau won at Cannes for his movie, back several decades ago, do you think he interspersed made-up shit among the facts about undersea life? Moore intended his movie to deceive, and to color opinions. That it has done -- in all the dishonest and manipulative ways. Again with the angry replies. Sheesh. Get a grip--you sound like a toddler in a tantrum. My "Titan rocket" posts weren't even meant to debunk your claims. They were to show how poor your arguments were (are). Your claims and arguments as you presented them were debunked. Your credibility and veracity in that thread are about as good as Michael Moore's. Had you made this post and this post from the very beginning instead of just paraphrasing and parroting what you read on other web sites, maybe you wouldn't look so much the fool and angry young man. If you were in a debate, would you make your opponent go Google for the facts that support your argument? That 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"? I 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. Did you read the side-by-side comparison of the Heston speeches? I watched as much of BFC on DVD as I could stomach. Time ran out and I had to return it to the library (yes, that's right, I paid nothing, so I avoided supporting Moore). You accuse me of not providing facts to support my case. I 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. If you really wanted facts on which to base your "opinion," you'd get them. You just don't want them. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

#1 John Stossel #2 Michelle Malkin #3 Mr. T Believe it or not, I'm kinda serious. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because they are palmed-off onto the public as though they are fact. Because if it were not convincing people -- who then may very well vote for anti-gun candidates based on Moore's misinformation, distortions and lies -- it would just be some blowhard spouting off. But it's not. Instead, I hear people at work chatting together about how good a movie Bowling for Columbine is, and I know that they are being misled, and are swallowing untruths whole. When people believe things that are false, and then make decisions (voting and otherwise) based on those falsehoods, that is a Bad Thing. I did, and then I heard at least three different people talking about "what a good movie that Bowling for Columbine is." And that disturbed me. Could you clarify what you think you've debunked? I don't see it. The missile crap is the least of what I think is shady about Moore's movie. The more important things are the utter misrepresentation of Heston's actual speeches; the misrepresentation of the bank-rifle deal, and many others that you will find on various websites dedicated to debunking Moore's lies. I care very little about whether the stupid Titan rockets were made in Littleton. That is a very minor point in a maelstrom of larger lies. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This is from a Google search result. Apparently, it's a post of some column Roger Ebert, the film critic, writes. Reproduced below: By ROGER EBERT Q. I was the "Bowling for Columbine" producer who scouted the bank that gives you a gun. I was there for Michael Moore's only and entire visit to the bank and was dismayed to see you repeating an outright lie about this scene. Mike walked into North County Bank and walked out with a gun in less than an hour. He opened a CD account, they faxed in his check, it came back all clear, and a bank official handed him his rifle. The crew, Mike and I then drove to directly the barber shop where Mike bought the bullets for his new rifle just as you see in the film. All this occurred before lunch that day, the final day of filming. Then everyone flew home. Maybe you ought to expose the origin of this lie rather than repeat this easily refuted fabrication. Jeff Gibbs, Traverse City, Mich. A. I am happy to oblige. It originated at www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html ?id=110003233 [note from Jeffrey: I tried this link and it does not work anymore. Sorry.] Of the bank incident Gibbs mentions, author John Fund writes: "Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. 'What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing,' she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. 'Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period,' she says." I asked Michael Moore about this report. His response: "I walked in cold. It happened exactly as you see in the film. A producer did call ahead and said I wanted to come in. It is not true that an ordinary person could not have walked in and gotten a gun. No need to go to a gun shop; they had 500 guns in their vault. There's a 2001 story in the St. Petersburg Times about how the bank is proud as a peacock about its gun offer." Another critical analysis of the film is at www.hardylaw.net/Truth?186-143?About?186-143?Bowling.html On this site, David T. Hardy, a lawyer associated with the National Rifle Assn., raises questions about the accuracy and fairness of many sequences in the movie. One point he makes is that "Bowling for Columbine" misquotes a plaque on a B-52 bomber at the Air Force Academy. Hardy writes: "Moore solemnly pronounces that the plaque under it 'proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972'...The plaque actually reads, 'Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of "Diamond Lil" shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during "Linebacker II" action on Christmas eve 1972.' " Moore's response: "I was making a point about the carpet bombing of Vietnam during the 1972 Christmas offensive. I did not say exactly what the plaque said but was paraphrasing." I think here he is fudging. Few audience members would have considered it a paraphrase. It would also appear that his depiction of a Charlton Heston speech is less than accurate. You can compare the "Bowling for Columbine" verison at http://ufies.org/archives/000586.html with this transcript of Heston's original speech: http://www.nrawinningteam.com/meeting99/hestsp1.html I sometimes suspect that Moore takes as his motto these words by Huck Finn about an earlier book in which Huck figured: "That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth." Moore told me: "I don't know what category to put my films in. They're like a film version of the op-ed page, and not a traditional documentary. They are cinematic essays presenting my point of view. I may be right or wrong, but if I state something as a fact, I need the viewers to trust that those facts are correct." The debate about specific facts in "Bowling for Columbine" has grown in such intensity and attention to detail that it requires the dedication of a Kennedy assassination buff. The Answer Man recommends you read both of the sites above, as well as michaelmoore.com, where he says he is posting a point-by-point reply to his critics, complete with documents, affidavits, etc. I also recommend that Moore preface his next film with the quote from Mark Twain. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Please post transcripts. Here is a link to where I found a side-by-side comparison -- color coded to show what was edited together -- of the speech Heston gave, and the speech as Moore's movie alleges it went: Comparison of Heston speech/BFC edit It is on a link from This page There, I've done the work for you. All you have to do is go to the first site and see the color-coded segments that indicate what was taken from what parts of the speech in, and spliced together to seem as though it was contiguous. Moore's editing amounts to taking, "I couldn't imagine how someone could like raping small children," and turning it into, "I ... like raping small children." See next post for other stuff I just found. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Would it be less offensive if I deleted the word "fat"? I know that such a condition may not be his fault, but the fault of the society that forced Big Macs down his throat, prevented him from exercising, and oppressed him psychologically. Perhaps I should just call him a deceitful, lying, scumbag piece of shit. Of course, then I'll have turds picketing outside my house complaining that I've degraded them by comparing them to Michael Moore. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, I suppose this may be true. Others have observed this as well. I can say only that peace is something to strive for; it does not always come easily; no person has it totally; I don't have it totally; and while I try to be at peace, personally, that does not mitigate my desire to sometimes enter a fray or animated thread. And so it goes. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Jesus Christ, you just can't stop fawning over that fat, lying piece of shit, can you?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"