Michael Moore's response to BFC critics

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This is probably old, but I felt it should be posted. I'm not too huge of a Michael Moore fan, particularly as of late, but I do feel it's necessary that some criticisms of Bowling For Columbine, and in the process the man himself, get clarified.

I noticed that a lot of the criticisms you'll find on the film all seem to web out from virtually the same resources, often people who already have an axe to grind with Moore. Up until recently, Moore never gave an adequate retort to these charges, and maybe he shouldn't have to. I've read through them, and much of it is just pages and pages and pages and pages of repetition and petty assaults, often from people who have never even seen the film. Anyway, here is his official response to a few of the accusations:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"

by Michael Moore

One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about you. For instance, I have read in quite respectable and trustworthy publications that a) I'm a college graduate (I'm not), b) I was a factory worker (I quit the first day), and c) I have two brothers (I have none). Newsweek wrote that I live in a penthouse on Central Park West (I live above a Baby Gap store, and not on any park), and the Internet Movie Database once listed me as the director of the Elvis movie, "Blue Hawaii" ( I was 6 at the time the film was made, but I was quite skilled in directing my sisters in building me a snowman). Lately, my favorite mistake is the one many reviewers made crediting the cartoon in "Bowling for Columbine" as being the work of the "South Park" creators. It isn't. I wrote it and my buddy Harold Moss's animation studio drew it.

I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of stuff that isn't true.

Of course, it would take a lot of my time to contact all these sites and media outlets to correct their errors and I think it's more important I spend my time on my next book or movie so I just let it ride. But is that fair to you, the reader, who has now been told something that isn't true?

With the unexpected and overwhelming success of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men," the fiction that has been written or spoken about me and my work has reached a whole new level of storytelling. It's no longer about making some simple errors or calling me "Roger" Moore. It is now about organized groups going full blast trying to discredit me by knowingly making up lies and repeating them over and over in the hopes that people will believe them – and, then, stop listening to me.

Oh, that it would be so easy!

Fortunately, they are so wound up in their anger and hatred that they have ended up discrediting themselves.

Look, I accept the fact that, if I go after the Thief-in-Chief – and more people buy my book than any other nonfiction book last year – then that is naturally going to send a few of his henchmen after me. Fine. That's okay. I knew that before I got into this and I ain't whining about it now.

I also realize that you just don't go after the NRA and its supporters and then not expect them to come back at you with both barrels (so to speak). These are not nice people and they don't play nice – that's how they got to be so powerful.

So, a whole host of gun lobby groups and individual gun nuts have put up websites where the smears on me range from the pre-adolescent (I'm a "crapweasel," and a "fat fucking piece of shit") to Orwellian-style venom ("Michael Moore hates America!").

I have mostly ignored this silliness. But a few weeks ago, this lunatic crap hit the mainstream fan. CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive.

Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control–has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie.

So, what do you do when the nutcases succeed in getting on CNN? Do you just keep ignoring them? How do you handle people who say the Holocaust never happened or that monkeys fly? Ignore them and they'll go away? If you give them any attention, all the nuts will come out of the woodwork.

And that's what happened. I saw another one of these lunatics, this time on MSNBC. A guy named John Lofton. He went on and on about how my movie is all made up. The anchor on MSNBC never challenged him on his lies and never told the viewers who he really was – a right wing crazy who believes Bush is too liberal. He was once an advisor to Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign, and was a direct-mail writer for Jesse Helms. Writing in opposition to Hate Crime bills in the conservative Washington Times (where he was a columnist from '83 to '89), Lofton explained:

Take, for example, this business of so-called "anti-gay violence." This bill will be used to go after only those who commit crimes against people because they are homosexuals. But this is not the most pernicious form of "anti-gay violence." Not by a long shot.
The most violent - indeed fatal 100 percent of the time - form of "anti-gay violence" has been committed not by so-called "homophobes" who bash homosexuals - but by male homosexuals and bisexuals against other male bisexuals and homosexuals.
To date, tens of thousands of male bisexual and homosexual men are dead in our country because of AIDS, because they engaged in high-risk homosexual sex.
Is this not "anti-gay violence" which numbers its victims far beyond anything any "homophobes" have done?
Well, I figured I better deal with this because the nutters were now being turned into "respectable critics" by a media that either had an agenda or were just plain lazy.

So, how crazy are the things they've said about "Bowling for Columbine?" Here are my favorites:

"That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!"
Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh?

Or...

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on.

Here's another whopper I've had to listen to from the pro-gun groups:

"The Lockheed factory in Littleton, Colorado, has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction!"
That's right! That big honkin' rocket sitting behind the Lockheed spokesman in "Bowling for Columbine"-- the one with "US AIRFORCE" written on it in BIG ASS letters – well, I admit it, I snuck in and painted that on that Titan IV rocket when Lockheed wasn't looking! After all, those rockets were only being used for the Weather Channel! Ha Ha Ha! I sure fooled everyone!!

Or....

The Truth: Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons-maker in the world. The Littleton facility has been manufacturing missiles, missile components, and other weapons systems for almost half a century. In the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear warhead on the Soviet Union; in the mid-80s, they were partially assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM, a space laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as Brilliant Pebbles.

In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles."

As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me, "They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large national security satellites, some we can't talk about." (see him say it here)

Since that interview, the Titan IV rockets manufactured in Littleton have been critical to the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These rockets launched advanced satellites that were "instrumental in providing command-and-control operations over Iraq...for the rapid targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes and clandestine communications with Special Operations Forces." (view source here).

That Lockheed lets the occasional weather or TV satellite hitch a ride on one of its rockets should not distract anyone from Lockheed's main mission and moneymaker in Littleton: to make instruments that help kill people. That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss.

The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?

I've also been accused of making up the gun homicide counts in the United States and various countries around the world. That is, like all the rest of this stuff, a bald-face lie. Every statistic in the film is true. They all come directly from the government. Here are the facts, right from the sources:

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Finally, I've even been asked about whether the two killers were at bowling class on the morning of the shootings. Well, that's what their teacher told the investigators, and that's what was corroborated by several eyewitness reports of students to the police, the FBI, and the District Attorney's office. I'll tell you who wasn't there -- me! That's why in the film I pose it as a question:

"So did Dylan and Eric show up that morning and bowl two games before moving on to shoot up the school? And did they just chuck the balls down the lane? Did this mean something?"
Of course, it's a silly discussion, and it misses the whole, larger point: that blaming bowling for their killing spree would be as dumb as blaming Marilyn Manson.

But the gun nuts don't want to discuss either specific points or larger issues because when that debate is held, they lose. Most Americans want stronger gun laws (among others, see the 2001 National Gun Policy Survey from the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center) – and the gun lobbies know it. That is why it's critical to distract and alter the debate – and go after anyone who questions why we have so many gun deaths in America (especially if he does it in best selling books and popular films).

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).

Well, there you have it. I suppose the people who tell their make-believe stories about me and my work will continue to do so. Maybe they should be sued for knowingly libeling me. Or maybe I'll just keep laughing – laughing all the way to the end of the Bush Administration -- scheduled, I believe, for sometime in November of next year.

Yours,

Michael Moore
Director, "Bowling for Columbine"

PS. From now on, I will deal with all wacko attackos on this page. If you hear something about me that doesn't sound quite right, check in here.

[Helm]

I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

This is as bad as choosing to protray him as more evil than he actually is.

Anyway, on the whole this is a good thing in my oppinion. Interactivity between opposing viewpoints, when it's kept civil can only benefit the third parties who are following the issue.

[Zebra 3]

- Good to see Michael Moore took a jab at lazy reporting, especially CNN.

[El Blanco]

Holy crap. this man is so full of shit, where do I begin?

Look, I accept the fact that, if I go after the Thief-in-Chief – and more people buy my book than any other nonfiction book last year – then that is naturally going to send a few of his henchmen after me. Fine. That's okay. I knew that before I got into this and I ain't whining about it now.

No, if you portray yourself as some sort fair and honest champion of the little guy, and then release a "documentary" that has holes big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through, people will call you on it. Why is it your critics are just Republican henchmen?

I also realize that you just don't go after the NRA and its supporters and then not expect them to come back at you with both barrels (so to speak). These are not nice people and they don't play nice – that's how they got to be so powerful.

If you say some nasty things like you did in your movie, people have a right to speak up in their defense.

CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control–has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie.

Like how you have vested intrest in selling your garbage.

So, what do you do when the nutcases succeed in getting on CNN? Do you just keep ignoring them? How do you handle people who say the Holocaust never happened or that monkeys fly?

I see, so people who refute your claims with evidence are nutcases on par with Holocaust deniers?

he Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

Except, you are a resident of New York State, which requires you to wait 6 months to get approval (or so I've been told, I honestly am stioll researching this one). You are required by federal law to adhere to the gun laws of both NYS and Michigan. This means one of two things:

1) You actually set this up well in advance

2) You used your old Michigan ID to get this gun and that is a felony

And besides, just look at what happened to get that gun. Come in, hand over 1,000 for a 20 year CD! That is a long term investment. Your Federally mandated application was then faxed to them home office to be refernced with a federal government law enforcement agency's database. After that, the bank (which by your own admission is a federally liscenced and inspected gun dealership) secured you a weapon.

In your film, you portrayed it as if you just walked in, handed a couple bucks and were able to lock and load. See why people are a little bitchy?

And I never honestly understood what the whole rocket factory thing had to do with the Columbine shooting.

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Oooo, sorry, tubby, got you in another one. You did edit the speech. Lets check out what the actual transcript says:

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

The webmaster even put yours next to it for comparison. Convenient, ain't it?

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

Bullshit. you haven't faced litigation because you would just call the plaintiffs gun nuts and lunatics. Bullshit for Columbine would have sold 10x the copies and the NRA would have been in a public relations clusterfuck.

Of course, why not sue them if they are lying? Hell, you mention it in this little missive. Because you know the truth will come out and you will look like an even bigger asshole.

Or maybe I'll just keep laughing – laughing all the way to the end of the Bush Administration -- scheduled, I believe, for sometime in November of next year.

I think you should go to the "unhatched chickens" thread we've got here.

And somebody mind telling me how Moore is different from Coulter?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

No, if you portray yourself as some sort fair and honest champion of the little guy, and then release a "documentary" that has holes big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through, people will call you on it.

Which you have yet to do. Perhaps I'm incorrect Blanco, but I sort of recall you saying you've never even seen the film....? Does trusting partisan critics, as opposed to creating your own judgements, seem like "calling somebody out" to you, or just blind partisanship...?

Like how you have vested intrest in selling your garbage.

Garbage that you have yet to disect on your own, let alone even providing serious criticism to actual flaws in the documentary.

Except, you are a resident of New York State, which requires you to wait 6 months to get approval (or so I've been told, I honestly am stioll researching this one). You are required by federal law to adhere to the gun laws of both NYS and Michigan. This means one of two things:

1) You actually set this up well in advance

2) You used your old Michigan ID to get this gun and that is a felony

And besides, just look at what happened to get that gun. Come in, hand over 1,000 for a 20 year CD! That is a long term investment. Your Federally mandated application was then faxed to them home office to be refernced with a federal government law enforcement agency's database. After that, the bank (which by your own admission is a federally liscenced and inspected gun dealership) secured you a weapon.

Moore owns a home in Flint, MI, and calls that his main stay of residency. As he pointed out in his blog, he has a place in manhatan that he primarily uses for work and media shit.

And I never honestly understood what the whole rocket factory thing had to do with the Columbine shooting.

I personally never cared much for that supposed link either, but nobody ever said you had to agree with the thesis/direction of a documentarian. There is however a big difference between disagreeing with the premise of his argument, and then saying that his info. about the factory was wrong. It wasn't. It was done honestly, and it still gets his point across, agree with it or not.

Oooo, sorry, tubby, got you in another one. You did edit the speech. Lets check out what the actual transcript says:

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

The webmaster even put yours next to it for comparison. Convenient, ain't it?

Uhh, he doesn't deny editing the speech. What he denies doing is inter-splicing bits from OTHER speeches. The only part that isn't from the Denver speech is the "cold dead hands!" bit, which is used cinematically as an introduction for Heston, not the event itself. Again, anybody who WATCHES the film and has a 1/4 of a brain could clearly pick that up. The scenery is clearly different, Heston's stage position and clothes are clearly different.

No splicing was done to make him more evil, no sound bites were cut and recorded over other pieces of footage. I've read the full transcript before, so I won't do it again. But I know in reading it previously (off the NRA website) that it hardly indicted Moore of anything.

Bullshit. you haven't faced litigation because you would just call the plaintiffs gun nuts and lunatics. Bullshit for Columbine would have sold 10x the copies and the NRA would have been in a public relations clusterfuck.

Right, just like every other "serious, conservative journalist" such as Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity don't sell #1 best selling books based on attacking the integrity, patriotism, and uter SOULS of liberals...? Please Blanco, the only bullshit is the inconsistency in your gripes. Where's the indignation over those people, who "slander" (no pun intended) in order to come across as sensational and sell books....?

Of course, why not sue them if they are lying? Hell, you mention it in this little missive. Because you know the truth will come out and you will look like an even bigger asshole.

No, this isn't what he said. What he essentially said was that you can't fight people who do half-assed research over the internet by typing in key words and whatever. It's like in the film "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back." He can't track down the address of every pseudo-intellectual on the internet and go fly to their houses and assault them. Nor can he be like the RIAA and sue everybody in America. There's no need in it, no sense in it, and most of them should just be brushed off.

And somebody mind telling me how Moore is different from Coulter?

I ask you the same question. But hey, go to his website, send him an e-mail with your drivers license query. I've received responses from him before, so it isn't unlikely that you will, too.

[El Blanco]

Which you have yet to do. Perhaps I'm incorrect Blanco, but I sort of recall you saying you've never even seen the film....? Does trusting partisan critics, as opposed to creating your own judgements, seem like "calling somebody out" to you, or just blind partisanship...?

I have seen the DVD. I saw it a while back at my old college when they screened it and then again a few weeks ago when my boss got it.

I personally never cared much for that supposed link either, but nobody ever said you had to agree with the thesis/direction of a documentarian. There is however a big difference between disagreeing with the premise of his argument, and then saying that his info. about the factory was wrong. It wasn't. It was done honestly, and it still gets his point across, agree with it or not.

Actually, the info is in dispute, I just don't feel like adressing it because it seems like aretarded idea to begin with and was nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Uhh, he doesn't deny editing the speech. What he denies doing is inter-splicing bits from OTHER speeches. The only part that isn't from the Denver speech is the "cold dead hands!" bit, which is used cinematically as an introduction for Heston, not the event itself. Again, anybody who WATCHES the film and has a 1/4 of a brain could clearly pick that up. The scenery is clearly different, Heston's stage position and clothes are clearly different.

So, he did use a piece from another speech. What exactly are you arguing?

No splicing was done to make him more evil, no sound bites were cut and recorded over other pieces of footage.

You just admitted to him doing it once.

ight, just like every other "serious, conservative journalist" such as Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity don't sell #1 best selling books based on attacking the integrity, patriotism, and uter SOULS of liberals...? Please Blanco, the only bullshit is the inconsistency in your gripes. Where's the indignation over those people, who "slander" (no pun intended) in order to come across as sensational and sell books....?

Please find where on these boards I've ever made reference to Coulter or Hannity in any other way than to make fun of them. Did you notice I equated Coulter with Moore? Given my disgust of Moore, what does that make you think my feelings on Coulter are? The only reason I don't go out of my way to take shots at her here are because there are plenty of other people doing it and it just turns into another round "Lets Call Vince Dumb" which gets old quick.

No, this isn't what he said. What he essentially said was that you can't fight people who do half-assed research over the internet by typing in key words and whatever. It's like in the film "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back." He can't track down the address of every pseudo-intellectual on the internet and go fly to their houses and assault them. Nor can he be like the RIAA and sue everybody in America. There's no need in it, no sense in it, and most of them should just be brushed off.

He can go after the high profile people like John Loften or the Gun Week Magazine editor. But hey, actually taking action kind of cramps a whiner's style.

[mesobe]

He can go after the high profile people like John Loften or the Gun Week Magazine editor. But hey, actually taking action kind of cramps a whiner's style.

I believe he was merely defending himself when people with their own obvious agendas pass themselves as critics and bash his work regardless of Moores production was good or not. It seems like you are taking moore a little too personaly. Not to mention that CNN didnt bother to mention who exactly this "critic" is and where he comes from. Its just straight up shitty news coverage period.

and who really gives a fuck what ID he used to get a gun from a bank or how long it took to get his account set up.... he still GOT A FUCKING GUN AT A BANK. There are thousands of swag ideas one can use to promote their place of business and a fucking gun is just insane.

[El Blanco]

and who really gives a fuck what ID he used to get a gun from a bank or how long it took to get his account set up

The federal government and anyone who wants to takes this seriously should. He tried to make it like he just wandered in and grabbed a gun.

he still GOT A FUCKING GUN AT A BANK.

So? They followed all the federal and state regulations to deal firearms. Are you upset that they didn't have a sign that said "gun store"?

There are thousands of swag ideas one can use to promote their place of business and a fucking gun is just insane.

Unless of course it is a semi-rural area where hunting and gun collecting are popular.

Now, do you have something to add, or are you just going to make a bunch of rhetoric cries that do litle more than waste space?

[mesobe]

Holy shit your a moron

your probably Heston himself complaining about a movie.

[Perndog]

Does anyone...anyone... here think mesobe isn't a retard?

I don't know all of the facts behind Bowling, though it's painfully obvious that some of it is intentionally misleading. I *agree* with Moore's positions on some things and I still think he's a dipshit. He most certainly did make Mr. Heston out to be more evil than he really is, by cutting out the conciliatory context of his speech and making it sound like he was insolently defying the mayor without reason, and by neglecting to admit that the NRA was required by law to hold their annual meeting, which had been scheduled well in advance; they actually canceled all the other events that were planned.

And his cartoon was horrible. I won't even get into the "peaceful blacks never wanted revenge" bit (guess he never heard of Malcolm X), but his correlation of the KKK with the NRA is absolutely malicious and wrong; the NRA was founded by *Union* officers (you know, the guys who fought to end slavery), it's eighth president was Ulysses S. Grant, who had earlier declared the Klan an illegal organization, and blacks organized NRA chapters in the 1950s and 60s to protect themselves from Klansmen. Even if everything else in the movie were true, the little man taking off his Klan robes and putting on an NRA shirt would be enough to show how offensive and full of shit Michael Moore can be.

Oh, and he may not have made his statistics on gun deaths up, but he picked and chose from different years and different statistics to make the biggest impression (some were all gun deaths including accidents and suicides, some only homicides, and the US figure included criminals shot by police officers).

So here's your nonpartisan non-gun loving source who wants to punch Michael Moore in the throat. Hello.

[GAsux]

Not that anyone gives a fuck about my two cents but I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between. I think to some degree Moore is of course self serving and if his movies/books/writings didn't include some level of spice and controversy, they wouldn't sell.

That said, I also agree that guys like Heston do a pretty fine job on their own of making asses out of themselves. I think Moore raises some valid points, its just unfortunate that the way in which he goes about it in my opinion discredits the point he's trying to make. Instead of presenting it in a fashion genuinely designed to influence the national discourse on the issues, he dramatizes it, fills it with controvery, and seeks to make a substantial profit from it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Actually, the info is in dispute, I just don't feel like adressing it because it seems like aretarded idea to begin with and was nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Which info was in dispute? You're right, why substantiate any of your claims when it's just easier to sit back and throw mud at a guy...?

So, he did use a piece from another speech. What exactly are you arguing?

YOU are arguing that it is done so in a misleading fashion. It absolutely, unequivocally IS NOT....PERIOD. If you watch the film, and you have the ability to absord the things that you see, you can see that the statement is clearly an introduction for Heston.

He can go after the high profile people like John Loften or the Gun Week Magazine editor. But hey, actually taking action kind of cramps a whiner's style.

Again, maybe you should chill with your partisan hatred for the man and think about it. I don't see you turning red over the high profile folks Ann Coulter attacks on a weekly basis. Moore has been pretty quiet about all of this, because up until recently, it has been internet geeks and conservatives with an alternative agenda who have been doing this. It isn't the "Gun Week" guy he cares about, it's the fact that CNN was sloppy enough to let this guy come on and talk as an "expert." Whether you like it or not, CNN carries more clout that "thisainttrue.org" or whatever. Moore will continue to sell books and movies no matter what, but he believes in the arguments he is making, and when the mainstream press begins to attack him, he will defend himself.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Perndog

He most certainly did make Mr. Heston out to be more evil than he really is, by cutting out the conciliatory context of his speech and making it sound like he was insolently defying the mayor without reason, and by neglecting to admit that the NRA was required by law to hold their annual meeting, which had been scheduled well in advance; they actually canceled all the other events that were planned.

Please. Please. Whose law would they have been violating? The God damn MAYOR of the city didn't want them there. Had they declined the appearance due to the sensitivities around the area, and out of respect to the fucking dead, I'm fairly certain no serious litigation would've been brought against our kind and noble friends at the NRA.

Heston WAS being defiant of the mayor, irregardless of whether or not theentire speech got played.

[mesobe]

amen to that

[mesobe]

fucking trailer trash hicks.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Which info was in dispute? You're right, why substantiate any of your claims when it's just easier to sit back and throw mud at a guy...?

Whether or not the rockets being made were carrying WMD. Lockheed Martin doesn't offer any info on that and Moore never really proved his argument either.

YOU are arguing that it is done so in a misleading fashion. It absolutely, unequivocally IS NOT....PERIOD. If you watch the film, and you have the ability to absord the things that you see, you can see that the statement is clearly an introduction for Heston.

Have you seen it? He did without question edit it to make Heston appear to say somethinghe didn't.

I don't see you turning red over the high profile folks Ann Coulter attacks on a weekly basis.

Weekly basis? this might be the second Michael Moore topic I've discussed on these boards. You make sound like I am on some crusade against him.

Moore has been pretty quiet about all of this, because up until recently, it has been internet geeks and conservatives with an alternative agenda who have been doing this.

that and he needed time to properly spin his bullshit

It isn't the "Gun Week" guy he cares about, it's the fact that CNN was sloppy enough to let this guy come on and talk as an "expert." Whether you like it or not, CNN carries more clout that "thisainttrue.org" or whatever. Moore will continue to sell books and movies no matter what, but he believes in the arguments he is making, and when the mainstream press begins to attack him, he will defend himself.

Its funny how you accuse me of just bashing him with no support, when, after rereading the article again, I noticed he never actually adressed the points of the two critics he specifically points out. He just calls them names and slings mud. In fact, he goes atfer Lofton on a completly different issue. Some people might read that as a consession that Moore can't out debate him fairly.

Whose law would they have been violating?

New York State, where the NRA was founded.

Had they declined the appearance due to the sensitivities around the area, and out of respect to the fucking dead, I'm fairly certain no serious litigation would've been brought against our kind and noble friends at the NRA.

They canceled everything but the general address. Plans were made and obligations had to be met. The NRA is probably the biggest promoter of gun safety in the country. Why shouldn't they say something?

Heston WAS being defiant of the mayor, irregardless of whether or not theentire speech got played.

I think this quote best begins my response

Again, maybe you should chill with your partisan hatred for the man and think about it.

Heston didn't say it like he was storming the town. The mayor telling the NRA that they should not come to Denver wpould be like someone saying "The gays better not come to San Fransisco". They are already there in force.

Denver is an NRA stronghold and its members are part of the community. Heston was pointing out that the people the mayor of Denver works for were attending the convention.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

bump.

back later......

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Whether or not the rockets being made were carrying WMD. Lockheed Martin doesn't offer any info on that and Moore never really proved his argument either.

Moore isn't contesting that they do, although that very factory most certainly once did. He's arguing that rockets pushing satellites into space as a part of an aero-space division are still used for weapons purposes.......

But ya know what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You said previously (on this matter) that it's a futile argument, b/c it's based on appealing to emotion rather than substance. Fine. This doesn't make it a lie, nor does it make it huge, thus making it hardly a "HUGE FUCKING LIE."

Have you seen it? He did without question edit it to make Heston appear to say somethinghe didn't.

He does say it, habitually. And had you seen the film (what's your count up to, one time?), you'd know that it isn't used in a misleading fashion. He uses it as an intro. for Heston in the film, and then leads into the Denver issue.....

Once again, does Heston still use that as his catch phrase? Even if he DIDN'T say that in Denver, does he not still stand by it? What would've shown more class, avoiding the catch phrase, or avoiding Denver all together? How about working to reschedule for a later date? Once again, no lie here, nothing huge hear, no fucking going on, so hardly a "HUGE FUCKING LIE."

Weekly basis? this might be the second Michael Moore topic I've discussed on these boards. You make sound like I am on some crusade against him.

Well, I think you are obsessed with him, but I digress. Re-read what I said. Coulter releases columns every week, I was refering to the lies, lies, and HUGE FUCKING LIES that she slimes out every single week. Sorry for the misunderstanding there.

that and he needed time to properly spin his bullshit

Out of curiosity, does Rush Limbaugh have a link on his website, disputing claims made about his books? What about Coulter? Hannity? Do any of these people dedicate an entire page to defending claims made against ONE piece of their work...? Are they still "properly spinning their bullshit," or do they just feel it's too difficult of a task....?

Its funny how you accuse me of just bashing him with no support, when, after rereading the article again, I noticed he never actually adressed the points of the two critics he specifically points out. He just calls them names and slings mud. In fact, he goes atfer Lofton on a completly different issue. Some people might read that as a consession that Moore can't out debate him fairly.

I'll respond to this later. I haven't read it in a while, but I will later....

They canceled everything but the general address. Plans were made and obligations had to be met. The NRA is probably the biggest promoter of gun safety in the country. Why shouldn't they say something?

Plans can be changed, and obligations require prioritization. One priority might be respecting the families of the deceased rather than your gun owning constituency in Denver. They could've rescheduled, they could've taken the trouble to try. But hey, he didn't use the "cold dead hand," line, right? Classy.

Heston didn't say it like he was storming the town. The mayor telling the NRA that they should not come to Denver wpould be like someone saying "The gays better not come to San Fransisco". They are already there in force.

I'll bet Denver has a lot of other clubs and associations. This does a poor job of addressing the fact that it showed very little class going to Denver, and it would've been nicer had they worked to reschedule the event, out of respect for the dead. And more importantly, presenting Heston as defiant wasn't a lie, it wasn't a huge ordeal, and there was absolutely NO sex action with Moses. Thus, no "HUGE FUCKING LIES."

Denver is an NRA stronghold and its members are part of the community. Heston was pointing out that the people the mayor of Denver works for were attending the convention.

Right, in a defiant manner, he was sticking his middle-finger out at the families of Columbine, as well as the people of Denver who might have had a problem with it (unless of course everyone in Denver is a member of the NRA). So once again, no lies here. No huge ones. And no, none of the sex. No "HUGE FUCKING LIES" me thinks....