Funding secured for Bush-bashing documentary from M. Moore.

Just to go back to the voting stuff, I do think it's probably the most interesting chapter of the book, although I wouldn't necessarily agree that all the evidence adds up to a republican conspiracy. Moore does obviously take some things too far, his ideas on racially profiling employees are fairly extreme, but he uncovers some interesting bits of info..

Anyway, I thought the database purge was carried out by that annoying republican woman that worked for Jeb Bush? The fact that more black people came up as false-positives was probably not by design, but it does indicate a level of incompetence which is a little bit worrying. And the fact that majority-black polling booths were more likely to be using the hanging-chad machines is also probably not deliberate, just indicative of a two-tier society. I still liked a lot of what he had to say. And it's pretty clear that some dodgy things were going on, whether it was all planned by the Bush's in a dark room? Who knows... but an enquiry wouldn't hurt, and won't happen.

Just a link to a current story about Mr. Moore. Might be worth reading.

www.newsmax.com.../5/14/101102

Well, I think that the Bush family does have ties to the Bin Laden family. But Osama was ostracized by his own family years before he made any headlines. Then again, during his CIA training, Osama could have become close to some CIA agents from whom word got to Bush Sr. during his time as Director of the CIA.

Frankly, I do not think Osama even perpetrated or organized the 9/11/2001 attacks. It is just another "Big Lie" told to us by those in power. I could be wrong. Is there any hard evidence that Al-Queda did do this?

XAOS

Actually, i think they claimed credit for it and also for the Recent Saudi bombing. We also have good old Usama on tape after 911 discussing the success of the mission. All the money trails went back to him from the hijackers. I don't think there is much room for doubt on that one.

Maybe finding another champion besides Mr. Moore would be a good idea. there are lots of educated, well respected people out there who can attack the right without sounding like a raving loony. Just a suggestion.

To be honest, there's lots of interesting things linking GWB and the Bin Ladens. I'm not saying that they imply complicity in the 9/11 attacks, but some of the things he did may have helped UBL carry out the bombings (such as ordering the FBI to back off investigations of UBL's family, at least one of whom is linked with an extremist terrorist organisation which may have been involved in helping a couple of the hijackers).

I don't think the article you posted is enough of a reason to stop listening to Moore. It just seems to be written by someone who clearly has an anti-Moore agenda. For more 9/11 bush-bin laden links just check out google. Bush Jr's first million made by a company that was backed up with Bin Laden money, all of the Bin Laden clan being collected up by the FBI and flown back to Saudi with the first few days after the attack. Even Bin Laden's video where he accepts responsibility is open to debate...

www.observer.co.uk...

I'd welcome a proper investigation into this, seeing as the US investigation is going to be buried by the US administration...

Originally posted by dom

I don't think the article you posted is enough of a reason to stop listening to Moore.

Well Mr. Moore has a right ot his speech but he doesn't have right to be heard. Thats the catch. Thats why he has to gather funding and make movies and promote them. Thank God we can't yet be forced to listen just because he and those like him feel the need to talk.

He also has the right to get his facts straight, stop the 'fancy editing,' and simply the right to stop lying. (and it couldn't hurt the fella to lose a few pounds).

And didn't Mel Gibson back out of the movie, or something like that?

Have you both seen Bowling for Columbine?

I watched it last night, not quite what I expected but very thought provoking. I don't think either of you would dislike the movie actually, it's not as anti-gun as you expect. And factually I saw few problems, certainly the Kosovo ticket was used as a bit of a political statement, but other than that I didn't see anything glaringly wrong...

Here's your "And factually I saw few problems" LOL


www.nationalreview.com...

www.spinsanity.org...

Originally posted by dom
Have you both seen Bowling for Columbine?

I watched it last night, not quite what I expected but very thought provoking. I don't think either of you would dislike the movie actually, it's not as anti-gun as you expect. And factually I saw few problems, certainly the Kosovo ticket was used as a bit of a political statement, but other than that I didn't see anything glaringly wrong...

While I don't begrudge you your entertainment choice and fullfillment, I personally hope among some of the thoughts it provoked, one was that this isn't a factual representation of Americans. See the links posted by DClark for some clarity. If you realize that its fictional, then I don't think there is anything wrong with your choice to watch it. I, on the other hand, have so little time for entertainment that I probably won't utilize any on this particular film.

The only problem I had with BFC was when he bagered Dick Clark. It was obviously planned to look bad, but it doesnt make me anymore outraged at the state of those americans on welfare shown.

XAOS

astro, DClark, watch the film. Honestly, it isn't what you expect.

DClark your links are written by two people who persistently want to attack Moore for any reason whatsoever. It's like trusting someone like me, who intensely dislikes Bush's foreign policy, to provide a trustworthy unbiased report on the very same topic.

Your second link is easy to take apart. What is there that Moore has actually lied about in his film? The only thing the author can come up with is US aid to the Taliban. There are so many other points made in this film, and where the Taliban are concerned there is certainly a great deal of similarity between this Islamist government, and the Islamist freedom fighters backed by the US throughout the 80s.

In particular, spinsanity point out that Moore doesn't seem to know what his message is, as if this is proof positive that he's not really telling the truth. THATS THE WHOLE POINT! Moore doesn't say "Fear causes gun crime" or "the NRA cause gun crime". Moore just says "Columbine was awful. Why did it happen?" and then goes through a whole bunch of different things that might be related. At no point does he say why Columbine happened, that's because he wants you, the viewer, to make up your own mind. That's the whole reason this is such a clever documentary!!!

The first link is just to a guy who seems to be railing against the fact that Moore has presented facts with a different bias to the one that he'd have presented, which is clearly that Marilyn Manson and violent videogames caused the whole problem. Which is blatantly silly, as Moore points out, lots of countries teenagers listen to Marilyn Manson and play violent computer games.

One of the most interesting lines in the whole film is when Moore says to Manson, "So if you could go back to before the shootings and talk to the kids who carried out the shootings, what would you say?"

To which Manson replies, "I wouldn't say anything, I'd just listen. That's what nobody did."

The real problem with the facts in this film, are that they make gun-loving patriotic americans feel uncomfortable...

Originally posted by dom
Have you both seen Bowling for Columbine?

I don't think either of you would dislike the movie actually, it's not as anti-gun as you expect.

You're joking right? I've seen the movie 5 or 6 times and it's gotta be the most anti-gun movie ever made!!!!!
Dude, please. How can you say it ain't anti-gun?
It's whole message is that Americans live in a society of fear created by their government and that because of this and the easy availability of firearms many people are needlessly dying. The whole movie contains scenes where Moore Tries to discredit the NRA and other corporations with any links to firearms. I can't view this movie as anything else BUT a piece of anti gun propaganda. Sure Moore goes deeper in some places to try to explain why Americans seem so ready to use their guns on each other but his attempts are just cosmetic.

Not an anti-gun movie? I'm not trying to belittle you, but damn dude. If Bowling For Columbine isn't anti-gun then what is? I have spoken to dozens of people who have seen the movie. Not one of them would agree with you.

Dom I never said anything negative toward this film. I only asked you to take it with a grain of salt. By Mr. Moore's own admission, this wasn't a factual representation. That said, I think its fine for him to put forth his ideas if he doesn't use public funding to do so whcih he didn't. We must remember that as one of the Hollywood elite, Mr. Moore sees the world through a very limited view. In fact Hollywood is as distant from the Heartland of America as you can get anywhere on the planet. Its all smoke and mirrors because film is meant to be an escape from everyday life and they will be the first to tell you that.

A good example is their current power grid situation. the only envisioned life without power stations..not power itself. Only when the rolling blackouts began did they realize that Tiffany's and Starbucks need power and so do hot tubs and indoor heated pools and air conditioners. They all thought they were ready to live with nature collectively but no one though it would actually be them personally. Well, maybe the people who live in Big Sir, CA. They are truly naturalist.

See, your idea that we all run around with six-shooters strapped to our hips is just one misconception that Mr. Moore puts forth. Most gun owners keep them at home and practice on a range. heck I don't even have a handgun because the chance of my son getting hold of it is greater than someone breaking in that I can't mutilate with my bare hands but I'm a big guy trained to do it. Not to say it can't happen but its just looking at which is more deadly. I do have an old rifle and shotgun I keep hanging in the basement but thats it. The thing this gun control is all about is disarming people to make them easier to control or might I even go as far as saying "rule".

I agree with holding parent's responsible for their kid's use of their weapons. I'm not sure why Columbine happened but I surmise we are seeing the forced restructuring of the social heirarchy of teens. For many years you had Jocks giving nerds hell and now, its not something thats that safe to do. I feel the reason that we are biginning to see the violence is for that reason and also the whole"It takes the villiage to raise a child" idea that our previous first lady put forth.

The tax structure is now thus that both parents have to work to live comfortably. That takes much of the parental contact away which I think is something kids need more than a bunch of councelors yaking at them. Plus, any since of moral teaching has left our public schools as it is all listed under religion. I can't tell you what a change there has been since that happened. Oral sex is now not considered sex and pre-teens are doing it on a daily basis as if it weren't anything...of course our last president said it wasn't really sex so can't say much to them.

Death is not mourned and money is put before life. So many things have happened since we stopped teaching our children a baseline for their conscience to follow. The have no moral compass except the ones who's families still teach them at home about God and sin and the respect for each other's lives.

Leveller - What I really meant is that the film doesn't just blame guns. It points out that Canada has plenty of guns and a low murder rate. The film is trying to say that prevelant gun ownership, a culture where guns are acceptable, a general atmosphere of fear, a bored and angry youth, a hypocritic foreign policy all come together to form an explosive mixture.

You could certainly walk away from the film and say "Well, I still think I have a right to own a gun, but society sure does need to stop creating this pool of fear that we all live in". That's the point. He says there are lots of things wrong, but he never says explicitly that the Columbine massacre is all down to how easy it is to get guns. He just says that it's a mixture of this and other factors. I was surprised at how pro-gun it was at times because I'd also heard that this was an anti-gun film... (ie, if you're 100% anti-gun, why bring canada's prevelant gun ownership into it? Why persist in being a member of the NRA?)

Michael Moore adressed an utterly important issue in his great movie "Bowling for Columbine", the issue of gun violence in the United States, as he points out that more than 11000 people die from gun violence in the US. That's more than the axis of evil and their foul dictatorial regimes kill per year. Hopefully he will adress new, even more stinging issues.

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart
Michael Moore adressed an utterly important issue in his great movie "Bowling for Columbine", the issue of gun violence in the United States, as he points out that more than 11000 people die from gun violence in the US. That's more than the axis of evil and their foul dictatorial regimes kill per year. Hopefully he will adress new, even more stinging issues.

He might point it out but that doesn't make it true. Thats the point, his work is fiction and his "facts" are unproven and sometimes out and out lies. just like this one.. You might read some of the links posted earlier under this topic concerning his abuse of facts...which he doesn't deny. We saw the movie "A Clockwork Orange" too but that didn't mean it was a true story.

No astro. Just saying that this is all fiction might make you feel comfortable but it isn't the truth. Just... watch... the... film. Then afterwards, research the bits you really disagree with and see what you find.

Honestly, even if you think this is just entertainment, watch the film. It's a very interesting piece of movie making, that's why it got the oscar for best documentary. I think you'll be surprised by Moore's approach, not what I'd expected, and I've watched quite a few of those programs he did for C4 in the UK exposing US corporate "issues".

I just don't understand why you guys are insisting that this movie is full of lies and mistruths on the basis of these two articles. One is written by a braindead sociopath, the other is written by a poor journalist with a chip on his shoulder and a serious problem with Michael Moore, personally.

Originally posted by dom

I just don't understand why you guys are insisting that this movie is full of lies and mistruths on the basis of these two articles. One is written by a braindead sociopath, the other is written by a poor journalist with a chip on his shoulder and a serious problem with Michael Moore, personally.

Because Mr. Moore himself said he wasn't going to answer allegations about his facts being wrong because he made a movie and it was entertainment. It came right from the horses mouth. I know people that think all the X-files happened too but they had a script writer just like Mr. Moore.

I think its not a factual work because the man that made the film made the statement that it wasn't. Thats my only point. No other, he doesn't stand behind his work as truth or fact just his "view" of what "he" thinks comprises middle America. He admits it, why can't you accept it from him? I have no problem with viewing it for it's entertainment value whatsoever. I merely took a moment to remind the readers who seem to take it for fact that it isn't. Watch it, have fun with it. Believe it if you wish. But I feel if you ever visited America, you'de be shocked if you buy into it.

Because I believe you're quoting him out of context. If every day of my working life I had people saying "but what about this little fact here, is it true that because that's incorrect the whole thing is a pack of lies?", then maybe one day I'd just say "look, it's entertainment, I don't give a damn, believe it if you want, believe it if you don't want to, now leave me alone."

The facts in the film aren't just made up astrocreep. You're using this as some "it's just fiction, therefore it doesn't affect me" excuse. I just find your attitude disturbing, that you won't watch a film, or consider anything it might have to say as valuable, simply because of one quote that's been taken out of context. Seriously, that's up to you, but I think it's just 100% flawed logic.

I don't agree with everything Moore has to say, particularly on issues like Kosovo and Norther Ireland, I don't believe that he accurately portrays some of the things in the film, but I can at least watch it and appreciate it as a very good documentary. He never makes his mind up about what caused Columbine, he just examines American culture and attitudes, and I found it eye-opening and interesting. If you simply won't watch it because you're scared out of your mind that Moore might actually be talking *some* sense, then I guess that's your issue.