This place hasnt been used for a while and Im bored of being inactive so heres an interesting topic which may or may not have been discussed before.

Bowling for Columbine was recently shown in the UK for the first time on Channel 4 and I thought that it was most likely one of the best things I have seen ever. Now I realise that firearms was not the ONLY topic raised (There was a lot of racism and politics in there as well) but seeing as it was mainly firearms it is gonna go here.

What I'm asking is how you feel about the issues raised and the differance between Canada (Where no-one locks their door and they have a hell of a load of guns just half the deaths) and the USA. Also the MASSIVE Differance in Gun deaths between countries, and the whole thing about the differance between your evening news and the rest of the worlds and how you guys only show deaths and gun deaths etc. Just your general feelings on the whole documentary.


Looking forward to actually using this forum for once
:asian:

I've seen it a few times and I think overall it's really well done. The only major point of caution I have to say is that any movie or documentary is made to make people see what the director wants them to see. They use Sarnia to represent a lot of the Canada stuff and that's a pretty small town. It's not really representative of much of Canada. I know lots of people, including myself, that usually do keep our doors locked for one reason or another. I'm sure some of the stuff in the States isn't fully representative either.

Overall I think it does cover a lot of issues really well. I often hate watching the news because all they ever talk about is the bad stuff that's happened today. I find it depressing. Many things are blown way out of proportion and they often make it seem like everything in the world is out to get you. Just like they talk about in the documentary.

I couldn't believe that one town that made it a law that everyone has to have a gun. I'd never live there in a million years.

Just a few of my thoughts about it.

I feel the issues raised were a load of horse $#!^.
Bowling for Columbine was not a documentary, it was a propaganda piece.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

http://www.moorelies.com/




(* Corrected the Links *)

I think everyone has the right to say what they think without taking away someone else's right.

I will say the following.

Micheal Moore is a low puddle scum of a jerk. He presents his opinions from such a drastic point of view. To the point that I no longer even take the man seriously.


As to M.O.B.'s comment about Canada having a lot of guns, I would like to see the statistics on this. No they may have a lot more than the U.K. so I really would like to see population number and percetage of house holds that have guns, as well as percentage of individuals.

:asian:

What, Michael Moore give hard numbers instead of walmart anecdotes...I don't think so.
Let's also remember that the first of the really horrific school shooting took place in the UK. One psycho, 1, AK 47, and a school yard; the name of the town/school escapes me (this was, as I recall, in the 80s.

For some interesting perspectives on juvenile/school violence see retired Col. David Grossman's works; they really are essential mind-set studies for serious martial artists anyway.

Chad

Bowling for Columbine was a staged joke and has no business being called a documentary. It was full of lies, innuendos, and staged footage.

Hmmm....

I liked it...so F- U bums! :rofl: Kidding about the F-U bums part...not kidding about the I liked it part.

What I have been thinking about when reading your responses is a few questions that you guys may or may not be able to help me with regarding Michael Moore. It seems that people don't just dislike the guy...people really hate him. I have to wonder why. I mean, I don't like a lot of people in the limelight. I don't like Rush or O'rielly. I like Kudlow and Cramer on some days, others I don't. I HATE Ann Coultier because I think that she is very illogical from what I have seen, but for the most part (and other then her), I rarely "hate" political celebraties...even if I dislike their views.

But with Moore, there are different gradients of "like," from "he's O.K." too "I love him." On the dislike side, however, the "hate" is so much more passionate.

Why...? Is it his views, his personality, the way he presents his views, his image...what? Why the extreme hate, I guess is what I am asking.

I'll state why I think why, although you guys can of course state your different reasons. I think people take him far too seriously...he asks serious questions through clowning around. I think that his opponents mistake the clowning around part with arrogence, maybe, or rather something else. I think that because people aren't sure when he's kidding or not, including his own fans, that at times he comes accrossed like an ass...when he's just F-in' around. I think bring up issues that hit home with many americans, and often in a critical manner. This mixture of hitting home with inherent problems mixed with clowning around can come accrossed as disparraging and judgemental on our Country as a whole....I think this is what angers his opponents.

Personally, I like the guy simply because he has made a career out of clowning around, and raising political questions. Hell, I wish I could make a career out of that.

Now...does he provide all the answers to our problems? Not at all. I wouldn't base my political views off his agenda, but I find him entertaining, at the least.

Why I liked the Movie: I liked the movie because of 2 important questions it raised that need to be discussed, and eventually solved. #1....why do we have a culture of violence in the U.S. that seems to far exceed that of other 1st world countries? #2 Why is it considered normal in U.S. foriegn policy to put "free trade" and short term profit above our democratic ideals, when it only causes us major problems in the long run (example: we placed Saddam Housein and Bin Ladden into power for short term gains, only to have them cause major problems on many levels for us later)?

He makes a lot of comparisons and parallels in the movie, but he does not spoon feed the answers to the audience....he admittedly does not know the answers. This I also like. This made this one of his best movies, I'd say. One complaint that I often hear about Moore is that he arrogently trys to ram his answers and ideals down the throats of his audience....he is seen as 'preachy'...however, he doesn't really attempt to do any of that regarding these questions. He leaves it up to the audience to make their conjectures.

I think that the 2 questions raised are important ones that we U.S. citizens need to really think about. They aren't "Liberal" or "conservative" issues either; I think they are issues that cut accrossed all levels of politics.

Anyways, that's my take on the movie. For those of you who didn't like it, explain specifically why. If you just don't like Michael Moore, then I would hazard to guess you didn't see it, which makes sense. But what did he do that made you hate him so much in the past?

thanks,

PAUL

If you just don't like Michael Moore, then I would hazard to guess you didn't see it, which makes sense. But what did he do that made you hate him so much in the past?

As a staunch hater of Moore myself, I can wrap it up in four words:

He is a liar.

It's not that he's a liberal. It's that he lies and twists what has really happened to support his finatically liberal opinions and mindset. It's astonishing...a man makes a film trying to prove a point. Yet, to prove the point, he lies and takes most of what was 'documented' out of context to support his line of thought. So essentially, the guy is lying through his teeth about our government lying through their teeth. Absolute hypocrite.

However...I'm thinking of making a b.s. film that I can get an Oscar for in the future. Even more shocking -- countless people took the film for truth without ever thinking of looking into his claims.

Originally posted by Jay Bell
As a staunch hater of Moore myself, I can wrap it up in four words:

He is a liar.

It's not that he's a liberal. It's that he lies and twists what has really happened to support his finatically liberal opinions and mindset. It's astonishing...a man makes a film trying to prove a point. Yet, to prove the point, he lies and takes most of what was 'documented' out of context to support his line of thought. So essentially, the guy is lying through his teeth about our government lying through their teeth. Absolute hypocrite.

However...I'm thinking of making a b.s. film that I can get an Oscar for in the future. Even more shocking -- countless people took the film for truth without ever thinking of looking into his claims.
So your suggesting we don't have a problem with gun violence?

Originally posted by Jay Bell
As a staunch hater of Moore myself, I can wrap it up in four words:

He is a liar.

It's not that he's a liberal. It's that he lies and twists what has really happened to support his finatically liberal opinions and mindset. It's astonishing...a man makes a film trying to prove a point. Yet, to prove the point, he lies and takes most of what was 'documented' out of context to support his line of thought. So essentially, the guy is lying through his teeth about our government lying through their teeth. Absolute hypocrite.

However...I'm thinking of making a b.s. film that I can get an Oscar for in the future. Even more shocking -- countless people took the film for truth without ever thinking of looking into his claims.

I can respect your feeling that he is "a liar." I've definatily heard that more then once.

But, I'm looking to get a bit more specific here. Where exactly do you think he lies?

Hi Micha....er...TOD,

So your suggesting we don't have a problem with gun violence?

At what point did any of the words in my post even remotely suggest that that's how I felt? I live in a city where gun violence is an every day reality of life...as do most Americans in metro life.

Moving on...

Bowling for Truth (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/)

Truth about Columbine (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

I think I am going to stay out of this one for the most part because topics like this tend to get a little heated. But the film, or documentary or whatever you want to call it had some good points to it and raised some questions. Such as stated before on this thread, why does America have such a violent culture, you cannot blame it on video games, Japan has some of the most violent video games, you can't blame it on our history, you can't blame it on TV or Movies. What is the reason? I think it is our family culture, for the most part parents no longer want to take responsibility for raising their children right. As far as the whole gun control thing goes I say give it a rest, just like the common saying says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and even if there were no guns people would still find another way to kill each other. And f you banned guns or made it a lot harder to get them, the only people that it effects are the law abiding citizens anyway. Criminals don’t obey the law, and do you think they care if it is illegal to have a gun if they plan on killing someone, or robbing a bank, or whatever it is they plan on using it for. But like I said that is just my view on it and I know that everyone all has their views and all are pretty passionate about it, but there is no easy solution to the root problem.

Master o' Blades ...

This is a topic that will get both the left and right screaming, and not listening. So, be careful with every link posted here. Because the internet allows people to publish information without the benefit of an 'Editor' or 'Fact-Checker', I would suggest you double and triple check everything; including this one.

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

I thought the movie was an excellent portrayal of the gun culture and the media culture in the United States. Where it does seem that the news reports seem to want to keep us very scared. (Why would a bank need a Federal Firearms License, if not to distribute guns?)

I occassionally have the priveledge of travelling to Canada on business for a week or two at a time. The radio broadcasts are just so much more pleasant. They report the news without any of the hyperbole we get in the states, even when the news is bad. I was in Nova Scotia in January, and a fire had destroyed a building and the business housed in the building. The radio had a 20 minute dialog with the owner of the building discussing the ramification of the fire. It really put a human face on the tragedy. That would never happen in the states.

Michael Moore is a hero of mine ... and I do not think he is a liar; regardless of what some others post here.

Mike

As Time Magazine said, Micheal Moore and Anne Coulter are both experts at saying what a "Son of a Bit**" the other guy is. Lying would be to easy to call them on. So Please list these lies that Micheal Moore has spouted or don't call him liar. I didn't see the flick but he only suggests that the KKK and the NRA are related because One ended the same time another began. Its not a lie, it happened.

(Why would a bank need a Federal Firearms License, if not to distribute guns?)

Actually a good example of Moore's distortions....
There a few banks in the US that offer CDs where instead of interest over time you get a high end hunting rifle or shotgun up front. The bank makes out because they get the deposit; and someone who otherwise could not afford a $1500 firearm gets one. (why they couldnt make do with less is another issue).
Does Moore bother to show the required background shecks he had to go through to get the gun? Conveniently not.


The broader question is why do we have a culture of violence in the US? good question; but not a gun question. people do great violence to one another daily using anything and everything.

TOD,

If you would actually read the links posted on this thread concerning what he's lied about, you wouldn't need to keep asking.

Does Moore bother to show the required background shecks he had to go through to get the gun? Conveniently not.

I'm not sure what the point of your statement is. Yes, he had to go through a federal background check. Thanks to the Brady Bill ... something that many 2nd amendment types opposed.

The fact remains ... he went to a bank, opened an account, and got a gun.

Why was it again that 'Willie Sutton' said when asked "Why do you rob banks?"

If you would actually read the links posted on this thread concerning what he's lied about, you wouldn't need to keep asking.

Jay ... I have read some of the articles on the pages you linked to. They certainly present one point of view, but I am not sure they validate the claim of Michael Moore being a liar.

One of the articles was about how Michael Moore made Charlton Heston look like an idiot, by presenting himself as a member of the NRA. Well .... Michael Moore is a member of the NRA. Charlton Heston did attend a meeting in Denver shortly after Columbine. Charlton Heston was the president of the NRA at the time. Why shouldn't Michael Moore be able to question him about the visit?

Obviously, Michael Moore sandbagged Mr. Heston. But as president of the organization, Mr. Heston should have been better able to present that which he apparently so strongly believes in.

The linked article protests that Michael Moore joined the NRA because he wanted to run for president of the ogranization to change its policies. Well, I have always thought (and told my children) that the best way to affect change is from within an organization.

So, where is the lie?

Mike

If you would actually read the links posted on this thread concerning what he's lied about, you wouldn't need to keep asking.
This from one of the links:
He quotes Bush repeatedly stating that "We know [Saddam] has ties to Al Qaeda" - but provides no source suggesting the administration tied Saddam to Bin Laden personally.

It makes me wonder if the web site in question has heard about the War in Iraq!

Ok ... I'll stop posting after myself now.... :wink2:

Here's some blurps:

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.
Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE (http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html) for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.


5. The Taliban and American Aid. In discussing military assistance to various countries, Bowling asserts that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.

Fact: The aid in question washumanitarian assistance (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html) given through UN and nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan. (Various numbers are given for the amount of the aid, and some say several million went for clearing landmines)

etc etc ad nauseum

"Moore" links --

Spinsanity links on Michael Moore (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore)

Forbes finds more falsehoods in Moore's "Bowling" (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html#85712328)

Yes ... Charlton Heston's speech that day in Denver, Mr. Heston did not include the 5 words 'from my cold, dead hands'. Here is Michael Moore's answer to this charge:


"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 guess this argument has spiralled into a gutter quickly... trying to see who can out quote the other. See what you started Master 'o' Blades ....

Mike

Originally posted by michaeledward
. . .
Michael Moore is a hero of mine ... and I do not think he is a liar; regardless of what some others post here.

Mike

Mike,

I respect the fact that you have a different opinion.

I know for a fact that he lied in Roger and Me, and also painted a very poor picture of the city of Flint where I have lived most of my life. Now it is no great city, it is full of crime, only there were not people lined up to eat rabbits because some large company pulled some of its' work out of the city.

So, since I lived his portrayal of the city I grew up, I suspect everything he does and says.

Now, does he have the right and priviledge to make such movies? Yes. Do, I have teh right and priviledge to sit here and call him a liar and a great BS artist? Yes I do.

Now he does raise some good questions, it is all about how he presents his material for sensationalism.

Do, I think there is violoence in the USA? I grew up in Flint Mi, yes there is Violence. Did you know that most universities have separate statistics for crimes and assaults, and are not published with the city facts. So some cities that people think are sooo safe are not really. Do, I think that large companies owe me and my children a job just because they offered my father a job 30+ years ago? No I do not. Yet, I do believe that a large companies hould look out for its employees and the ecology.

Yet these are just my opinions.
:asian:

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
As Time Magazine said, Micheal Moore and Anne Coulter are both experts at saying what a "Son of a Bit**" the other guy is. Lying would be to easy to call them on. So Please list these lies that Micheal Moore has spouted or don't call him liar. I didn't see the flick but he only suggests that the KKK and the NRA are related because One ended the same time another began. Its not a lie, it happened.

Big deal. The mission of each are completely different. To assert that they have anything in common is idiotic.

Big deal. The mission of each are completely different. To assert that they have anything in common is idiotic.

Write it down ... MisterMike and I agree on something ... Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are completely different.

:rofl: :argue: :rofl: :argue: :rofl: :argue: :rofl: :argue: :rofl:

Please insert your own joke here about how michael moore and ann coulter are different

So the lies are the fact that he compared the rhetoric with a tragedy or two. That isn't lying thats comparing the rhetoric with a tragedy or two. Lying would be "when asked to comment on the tragedy Mr. Heston said..." So what else ya got? And I'm sure Flint is a flourishing town full of promise just like Allen Town PA, but he remembers a better time and made a movie about it; so what? I'm waiting for that movie that shows that Flint is the future. Wait Micheal Moore made that movie already. Too bad its our future.:shrug:
Sean

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
So the lies are the fact that he compared the rhetoric with a tragedy or two. That isn't lying thats comparing the rhetoric with a tragedy or two. Lying would be "when asked to comment on the tragedy Mr. Heston said..." So what else ya got? And I'm sure Flint is a flourishing town full of promise just like Allen Town PA, but he remembers a better time and made a movie about it; so what? I'm waiting for that movie that shows that Flint is the future. Wait Micheal Moore made that movie already. Too bad its our future.:shrug:
Sean


Hey Sean,

I never said that Flint was the busting and growing city. What I did not liek is the fact that he said the whole city as living on the streets and everyone was raising rabbits for food. I could go to any city in the world and find the crazies and make a movie to make the city look bad.

Yet, I did not expect the large companies to support me just because they supported my parent. I worked and went to school and suffered and did not part as much as others, and got a degree and did what I could to get a better job and living situation. There are cases of people in Flint and other cities where GM has plants, that the workers leave work and have ther friends punch them out. This causes extra costs in work load and in health care costs. That the consumer pays at the sticker. They would sleep, or answer that is not my job and days are wasted. They would show up sooo high or drunk they could not stand, yet they are to operate heavy machinery. GM left plants in Flint and the surrounding burgs, that were not as old as the others. There were plants that had been around since 1903. They had problems with the enviroment and maintaining the buildings. It was cheaper to shut them down and clean them over time as required by law.

There were lots of issues, that were not presented, or mentioned. An absence of something can be construed as a lie.

Just my opinion
:asian:

I am starting to see why the people who really hate him, really hate him. It seems that the perception of those who oppose him is that to make his points he either A). Sensationalizes or B). Outright lies, or does a little of both.

Here is what I have to say about that:

Outright Lies: I do not believe that he outright lies. If he does, I haven't seen it yet, that's for sure. I've double checked his statistics and info that suprised me on occasion, and I have not found anything false yet. I have read the links that say that his information is flawed, or that he lies; what I usually find is that these sites either illogically misdirect the issues making it look like he is being untruthful (such as focusing on Lockheed Martins other work in systems technology for comercial markets, while completely ignoring the fact that their biggest contracts are with U.S. Government agencies for weapons/defense developement), or these sites outright lie themselves. The thing with these sites here is that the people who have made them have clear agenda's to "defame" Micheal Moore. One has to ask, why go through all the trouble if what he is saying isn't at least striking a cord? Regardless, I have not seen verifyable proof that Moore has outright lied; not yet anyways, and certianly not on some of the websites opposing him.

If any of you here can think of specific places where he has outright lied, then please post the specific circumstance (not some link to a site) and I'd be happy to look it over and change my mind if I am wrong.


Sensationalism: Does Michael Moore sensationalize? Of Course! Michael more is trying to do 3 things 1. Question/Critique the many problems in our country, 2. Make a political/social statement, 3. ENTERTAIN HIS AUDIENCE.

It's the entertaining part that his critics seem to forget about. He is not a "fair and balanced" journalist, nor does he try to be. He is an entertainer. Many of the things that he does are to get a reaction from his audience, and are not "fair and balanced." If you are looking or expecting a fair and balanced journalistic view from Micheal Moore, then your looking in the wrong place. If you are looking to get your mind thinking about questions that our society needs to think about, while being entertained and educated at the same time, then Michael Moore is a good source for you.

Did he give a fair and balanced view of Flint, for example. Not really. The Rabbit lady and some of the unemplyed people on the streets giving commentary does not give a fair and balanced view of the city; so if you live there like Rich, or near enough to there like me, and your looking for a balanced representation, you might be upset by the Flint depiction in "Roger and Me." If you are instead looking for someone to say some things that NEED to be said about the state of certian cities like Flint, Detroit, Pontiac, Battle Creek (I could list a few other Michigan Cities, and hundreds of others from other states), then you would have thought it was good. If you were looking for a fair and balanced representation of the problems that Plants have had with Union workers Indolent behavior coupled with the Good that Unions have done, then Michael Moore is not a good resource. You would love what he says, however, if you were happy to see some interesting questions raised such as "How can we allow our American Companies to leave American Workers and Cities in economic upheavel by closing down plants (like in the GM/Flint example) only to open new plants in other countries where the pay requirements are much less?"

Would Charlton Heston have been making his NRA mantra "from my cold dead hands" to a group of weeping kids and parents in Columbine? I would like to think that he isn't that cold hearted. Did the movie pan from weeping kids and parents to a blurb of Heston's mantra, yes. Did ANYONE believe that Heston was "speaking directly to the parents and kids of columbine who suffered losses." NO! Did the sensationalized way of putting this in the film stir up emotion and shock, thus making the point he was trying to make, YES. And thats the point....

So does Michael Moore sensationalize? He is an entertainer, just like any political celeb., so he does things to get a reaction and to entertain. He does sensationalize to make his points. However, I don't think that this is dishonest. He isn't presenting things that aren't factual to mislead his audience; he is presenting a different side and way of looking at things to get a reaction from his audience to make his points.

So, I think what I am seeing with his critics is that they misunderstand why he sensationalizes. This is often added with the fact that they don't want to face some of the issues he is bringing to the table. This is why people hate him.

I think that if his critics can either better understand why he sensationalizes, or if they can look past the sensationalism if they don't undertand/like it, they will find some very good points and questions that need to be addressed.

:cool:

Paul ..

That is a very thoughtful post. I appreciate the time you spent craftying it.

In some worlds, they could call what Michael Moore does 'SPIN'. I take solace in the fact that on the other side of the coin, there is 'Rush Limbaugh' (except, of course, we all know that Rush really lies alot, which is not spin).

Some could argue that Michael Moore portrays himself as a 'Documentary Movie Maker', which perhaps should bring him to a more 'Fair and Balanced' point of view, but I do not see anything inherently dishonest in a filmmaker having a 'Point-of-view'.

Thanks again. - Mike

it's pretty simple...when he "sensationalizes" or "entertains" or "provides commentary" under the guise of a documentary, then it's lying.

Originally posted by Ender
it's pretty simple...when he "sensationalizes" or "entertains" or "provides commentary" under the guise of a documentary, then it's lying.

I don't think there is a "guise" though, is what I am saying. He presents things from a biased perspective; but so does every media source whether they admit it or not. He at least admits that he is biased and expressing his opinions; I can't say the same for journalists who pretend to present things in an unbiased manner when they clearly aren't.

As to the description of "documentary," I can understand your point. Most documentaries are more objective...or at least they should be.

However, I don't view a Moore "Documentary" the same as I would view a National Geographic Docuementary on Gorrillas. It's called Documentary for lack of a better term I think. I guess when I watch a Moore film, I know what to expect. I don't expect a Documentary from a journalist attempting to present an unbiased view. I don't feel that Michael Moore has tryed to "fool" anyone into thinking that his "documentaries" are something that they aren't.

I almost would wish we had a different term other then "documentary," like "Social Commentary" or something like that. I don't know...but until a new movie genre is created...I guess we're stuck with the terms we have.

PAUL

Originally posted by Ender
it's pretty simple...when he "sensationalizes" or "entertains" or "provides commentary" under the guise of a documentary, then it's lying.

What is it then when Fox News reports anything?

Originally posted by michaeledward
What is it then when Fox News reports anything?

:rofl: :rofl:

Originally posted by PAUL
I am starting to see why the people who really hate him, really hate him. It seems that the perception of those who oppose him is that to make his points he either A). Sensationalizes or B). Outright lies, or does a little of both.

Here is what I have to say about that:

Outright Lies: I do not believe that he outright lies. If he does, I haven't seen it yet, that's for sure. I've double checked his statistics and info that suprised me on occasion, and I have not found anything false yet. I have read the links that say that his information is flawed, or that he lies; what I usually find is that these sites either illogically misdirect the issues making it look like he is being untruthful (such as focusing on Lockheed Martins other work in systems technology for comercial markets, while completely ignoring the fact that their biggest contracts are with U.S. Government agencies for weapons/defense developement), or these sites outright lie themselves. The thing with these sites here is that the people who have made them have clear agenda's to "defame" Micheal Moore. One has to ask, why go through all the trouble if what he is saying isn't at least striking a cord? Regardless, I have not seen verifyable proof that Moore has outright lied; not yet anyways, and certianly not on some of the websites opposing him.

If any of you here can think of specific places where he has outright lied, then please post the specific circumstance (not some link to a site) and I'd be happy to look it over and change my mind if I am wrong.


Sensationalism: Does Michael Moore sensationalize? Of Course! Michael more is trying to do 3 things 1. Question/Critique the many problems in our country, 2. Make a political/social statement, 3. ENTERTAIN HIS AUDIENCE.

It's the entertaining part that his critics seem to forget about. He is not a "fair and balanced" journalist, nor does he try to be. He is an entertainer. Many of the things that he does are to get a reaction from his audience, and are not "fair and balanced." If you are looking or expecting a fair and balanced journalistic view from Micheal Moore, then your looking in the wrong place. If you are looking to get your mind thinking about questions that our society needs to think about, while being entertained and educated at the same time, then Michael Moore is a good source for you.

Did he give a fair and balanced view of Flint, for example. Not really. The Rabbit lady and some of the unemplyed people on the streets giving commentary does not give a fair and balanced view of the city; so if you live there like Rich, or near enough to there like me, and your looking for a balanced representation, you might be upset by the Flint depiction in "Roger and Me." If you are instead looking for someone to say some things that NEED to be said about the state of certian cities like Flint, Detroit, Pontiac, Battle Creek (I could list a few other Michigan Cities, and hundreds of others from other states), then you would have thought it was good. If you were looking for a fair and balanced representation of the problems that Plants have had with Union workers Indolent behavior coupled with the Good that Unions have done, then Michael Moore is not a good resource. You would love what he says, however, if you were happy to see some interesting questions raised such as "How can we allow our American Companies to leave American Workers and Cities in economic upheavel by closing down plants (like in the GM/Flint example) only to open new plants in other countries where the pay requirements are much less?"

Would Charlton Heston have been making his NRA mantra "from my cold dead hands" to a group of weeping kids and parents in Columbine? I would like to think that he isn't that cold hearted. Did the movie pan from weeping kids and parents to a blurb of Heston's mantra, yes. Did ANYONE believe that Heston was "speaking directly to the parents and kids of columbine who suffered losses." NO! Did the sensationalized way of putting this in the film stir up emotion and shock, thus making the point he was trying to make, YES. And thats the point....

So does Michael Moore sensationalize? He is an entertainer, just like any political celeb., so he does things to get a reaction and to entertain. He does sensationalize to make his points. However, I don't think that this is dishonest. He isn't presenting things that aren't factual to mislead his audience; he is presenting a different side and way of looking at things to get a reaction from his audience to make his points.

So, I think what I am seeing with his critics is that they misunderstand why he sensationalizes. This is often added with the fact that they don't want to face some of the issues he is bringing to the table. This is why people hate him.

I think that if his critics can either better understand why he sensationalizes, or if they can look past the sensationalism if they don't undertand/like it, they will find some very good points and questions that need to be addressed.

:cool:

Paul,

Ok he does not lie.

Let me ask you the question then, should a company become to be thought of as social welfare? Should you turn 18 and expect to get a job and not have to work? And if you can not get a job there get a job at McDonalds at $8.50 to $9.00 an hour to start. Should you get the idea to work somewhere else and then expect to make more than 1.5 times to 2 times others make nation wide? All because you have some large corporation in your backyard that you epxect them to give a job and not work at all. The cost of all of this is transfered to the consumer and the rest of the country wonders why it costs so dang much to buy a car or a washer and dryer or a furnace or ...., .

Let me ask you another question Paul. If you make a statment enough times does it become the truth, especially if there is no one around to tell you are wrong? Or that it is not the whole truth.

New Flash!

WE DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON!

(* in mission Apollo 13 *)

News Flash!

The US Government new about ....

(* Hide the real catch here *)

Yes, I do not like the man. I tried to ask him questions once in person, He shoved me aside and do not try that with me. In person in Flint when he was trying to raise more problems again and gain more publicity for himself. I stopeed y and asked him some questions. He would not answer them. You can you tell me why everyone must answer his questions, and he does not have to answer mine.

Sorry for the RANT, yet, I do take this BOZO called Micheal Moore to be an BLEEP. Why, you see I would support many of the causes and issues he would raise, yet I beleive they could be raised in a much better way through education. Yet, he epxects to make changes, and all he is doing is throwing gasoline onto the fire.

No he does not lie. He just infers. I was wrong.

My Opinion, my experience
:asian:

If you premised your question with the lies he infers (ha ha), I can see why he pushed you aside.
Sean

Originally posted by michaeledward
What is it then when Fox News reports anything?

fair and balanced...can't you read?*LOL

honestly tho...liberals hate Fox because they made the networks change the way they have to report the news...now they have to present both sides of the argument instead of just theirs..and it kills them..*L before Fox, they just went up and spewed their leftist drivel and when Fox came out they took all their ratings...and they had to change...gotta love America!!

Originally posted by PAUL
I don't think there is a "guise" though, is what I am saying. He presents things from a biased perspective; but so does every media source whether they admit it or not. He at least admits that he is biased and expressing his opinions; I can't say the same for journalists who pretend to present things in an unbiased manner when they clearly aren't.

As to the description of "documentary," I can understand your point. Most documentaries are more objective...or at least they should be.

However, I don't view a Moore "Documentary" the same as I would view a National Geographic Docuementary on Gorrillas. It's called Documentary for lack of a better term I think. I guess when I watch a Moore film, I know what to expect. I don't expect a Documentary from a journalist attempting to present an unbiased view. I don't feel that Michael Moore has tryed to "fool" anyone into thinking that his "documentaries" are something that they aren't.

I almost would wish we had a different term other then "documentary," like "Social Commentary" or something like that. I don't know...but until a new movie genre is created...I guess we're stuck with the terms we have.

PAUL

Then why didn't he decline the Oscar he won for best documentary??..if he was truly principled he would have said "my work is commentary and I have to decline this award based on the category that it was in".....but nooooo....he took it and ran...showing he has no principles or character...And that he is a lair.

Originally posted by Ender
fair and balanced...can't you read?*LOL

honestly tho...liberals hate Fox because they made the networks change the way they have to report the news...now they have to present both sides of the argument instead of just theirs..and it kills them..*L before Fox, they just went up and spewed their leftist drivel and when Fox came out they took all their ratings...and they had to change...gotta love America!!

The fallacy in this statement is that fox news reports news. If only they did. Bill O'Reilly is not a journalist, he is an entertainment reporter (at least that is what he was doing before he came to fox).

And speaking of 'both sides of the arguement', haven't you ever heard O'Reilly cut anyone off because they are 'Outside the No-Spin Zone' ... so, you can prevent any side you want, as long as it is O'Reilly's.

Please ...

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Paul,

Ok he does not lie.

Let me ask you the question then, should a company become to be thought of as social welfare? Should you turn 18 and expect to get a job and not have to work? And if you can not get a job there get a job at McDonalds at $8.50 to $9.00 an hour to start. Should you get the idea to work somewhere else and then expect to make more than 1.5 times to 2 times others make nation wide? All because you have some large corporation in your backyard that you epxect them to give a job and not work at all. The cost of all of this is transfered to the consumer and the rest of the country wonders why it costs so dang much to buy a car or a washer and dryer or a furnace or ...., .

No...I don't think companies should be thought of as social welfare. I think that people should have to work for their money. I work hard...you work hard....so no, I don't think that people who don't work hard should get the same $$ as me.

I do think, however, that the issue of "living wage" should be addressed. The cost of living, inflation, and company profits have all gone up much more rapidly since the 1960's then wages. This is why it takes 2 working parents to make ends meet now-a-days then one, leaving childred to be raised by daycares. I think that minimum wage should go up every year according to inflation. Sure, maybe at $6 dollars an hour that's only about 18 cents at 3%, but that does mean that in 5 years the minimum wage would raise by almost a dollar. It does mean that the minimum will at least keep up with inflation.

There are other solutions as well, of which aren't exactly from Moore, and which I could go on and on about.

Getting back on topic, I don't think I have seen him suggest that Corporations should be a welfare service, or that people should get paid w/o having to work. What I have seen him do is raise the issue of unfair wages for employees; an issue that I think needs to be raised.

Regardless, even if he believed that Corporations should be a welfare service, this would be only a "belief," or opinion, and therefore not a misrepresentation of fact. I would in fact have to disagree with him if that was his belief, but I wouldn't call him a liar for it.


Let me ask you another question Paul. If you make a statment enough times does it become the truth, especially if there is no one around to tell you are wrong? Or that it is not the whole truth.

Course not...yet unfortunatily many people lack critical thinking skills. I know both you and I don't lack these skills. I can watch a Moore movie or read a book and I know the slant he is coming from. I can also watch Fox News or listen to Rush and know the slant they are coming from (not that I listen to Rush regularly, but I have heard his program before). I can read or watch multiple news sources and seperate the facts from the opinions, and I can formulate my own opinion. I know that you are able to do the same.

Not everyone is able to think as critically, which is unfortunate. Many people who have bought into the "liberal" agenda can only listen to people like Michael Moore and others, and they only see things from one slanted perspective. The same is true with many who have bought into the "conservative" agenda.

There are, however, many other sources out there that offer the opposite slant that Moore offers. There are also many Critics of Moore...although I wish more of these critics would argue from a political science/philisophical perspective instead of just trying to defame the man. Point is, his opinions are far from unchallanged. I don't think he should be responsable if some of his audience lacks the ability to "think critically" any more then Rush, or any other political celebraty. People should be critically thinking on their own. I don't think he should change his slant because some people don't think critically either. There is plenty of information from different perspectives out there for people to think critically about the view that Michael Moore presents.


New Flash!

WE DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON!

(* in mission Apollo 13 *)

News Flash!

The US Government new about ....

(* Hide the real catch here *)

Yes, I do not like the man. I tried to ask him questions once in person, He shoved me aside and do not try that with me. In person in Flint when he was trying to raise more problems again and gain more publicity for himself. I stopeed y and asked him some questions. He would not answer them. You can you tell me why everyone must answer his questions, and he does not have to answer mine.

Sorry for the RANT, yet, I do take this BOZO called Micheal Moore to be an BLEEP. Why, you see I would support many of the causes and issues he would raise, yet I beleive they could be raised in a much better way through education. Yet, he epxects to make changes, and all he is doing is throwing gasoline onto the fire.

No he does not lie. He just infers. I was wrong.

My Opinion, my experience
:asian:

Now we are getting to the real root of the problem here. You met the guy in person, and he was a dickhead to you. That really is too bad. I will say that I met him a year almost 2 years ago, at a book signing in Detroit. I will say that I was mildly impressed with how generous he was with his time. He didn't seem to have a problem answering questions for people (although I will admit that he wasn't asked challanging questions when I was in front of him). Hell, he even let the crazy lady in front of me give him a hug.

However, I know you Rich, and I know that you wouldn't embellish or say something untrue to push an agenda. If what you said came from someone else, I would have a hard time believing it bacause of my good experience. However, if you say he was a dickhead to you in person, then I do believe you.

I don't know what the guy is like in "real life" outside my one encounter, which was a positive one. The guy could be a dickhead in real life for all I know. I know if my experience with him was as you described, I'd probably have the same view on him as you. So, I definatily don't blame you for not liking the guy. It sounds like he lost a potential advocate for him...and I am sure that has happend before.

People aren't perfect, and I only have my experiences and his works to judge him by. I don't know him in person, but I like his works simply for the questions that they raise.

However, I don't blame someone for not liking him if their expeirience with him was a bad one.

Sincerely,

PAUL
:asian:

Originally posted by Ender
Then why didn't he decline the Oscar he won for best documentary??..if he was truly principled he would have said "my work is commentary and I have to decline this award based on the category that it was in".....but nooooo....he took it and ran...showing he has no principles or character...And that he is a lair.

:rolleyes: Please....spare me the B.S.....

If Rush, Coultier, O'Rielly, or a conservative counterpart whom you support made a movie with the same kind of of sensationalism and was up for an Oscar for best documentary, you'd have nothing to say about it.

Plus, as I said before, "Documentary" is the only way to classify the film as Oscars are concerned. They haven't made a seperate movie Genre for "Social Commentary," so he isn't showing no principles by accepting the award. The Oscars put him in the "Documentary" Genre...if you don't like it, talk to them

Fair Wage and Cost of Living.


Is $20 to $30 an hour enough for a sinlge person to make and live off of?

The Standard of living has doubled and doubled again since 1960, almost double a third time.

In 1960, you had a house 750 sq. ft. to 1100 sq. ft. Today people want 4000 sq. ft. People had one car and the male(* Usually *) used it for work transportation and he lived about 10 to 15 miles from work at most.

The average home in 1960 did not have TV's. They above average home had a black and white TV. People today need a TV and VCR and DVD palyer per room plus PC's in multiple rooms as well as basements with second kitchens and third and fourth cars jsut for pleasure. The Cost of living has gone up, I agree. the standard of living has also gone up.

The cost of the parts put into vehicles has incresed over the last ten years, yet the average midsized vehicle has actually decreased about $1200 per vehicle. I am not saying the company should not share the wealth. I also think a fair wage should be paid.

Greed is a motivator. And yes I believe the Unions were and are required to balance the safety and health and fair wages. Only the pendulum can swing both ways. And in this case, it has.

If you beat your dog until he bites you do not punish the dog.

In in my mind a Documentary is meant to educate not to entertain. Entertainment maybe one of Mr. Moore's objectives, yet I do not see it as funny.

Like I said, many of the issues I would be willing to talk discuss and help out on. Yet, when this guy presents himself, the way he has, I cannot support him nor anything he does.

I will find otherways to help out.

So, My main problem is a personal issue. Fine, what about all the rest of the people who do not like them? Has he also pissed them off on a personal level ?

My big problem is the idea that this is a documentary. Putting aside the idea that all presentations are inherently biased, this movie is well beyond the boarders. If I could get a child to sit through this movie, I'm sure he could tell you that Mr. Moore doesn't like people who own guns, without the child ever knowing what a liberal or conservative is. It may sound extreme, but such heavily political films shouldn't be up for oscar documentaries. If this is a documentary, then why aren't the nazi propaganda films of the forties?

My second issue is that he uses cheap film parlor tricks, like selective scene splicing and editing, to try to convince the public. What's next, subliminal messages.

Now that my complaining is done, I have to say that the film is entertaining, thought provoking, and I do get a chuckle out of his "clowning". I also checked out a few of his facts after I first saw the film and they were slanted, but correct.

As for the sensationalizing, he is a product of his environment. The rest of the US is sensationalizing everything that hits the news curcuit. Even unbiased subjects reach almost panic proportions, like the current flu "epidemic". From what I read this "epidemic" is neither more prolific, nor more virulent than any past strains and outbreaks. Essentually, the media created an epidemic, by predicting it would hit, thereby enciting more people to get shots that wouldn't have, thereby causing a shortage. Then while people are alarmed that the flu is in the news, the media covers the "progress of the epidemic" without referancing past trends. This is a product of people craving news and gossip, coupled with the fast new communications technology that allows the stories from around the world to be heard as it happens or as requested.

Rich (On standard of living and wage): Yes, I agree, the standard of living has gone up since the 60's. This is consumerism at its worst; the public is pushed to consume more, thus companies are pushed to pay workers more. Consumerism ends up being a double edged sword for corporate america.

However, unemployement has sky rocketed over the last few years. Millions of people are out of a Job, and another set of millions have jobs and can't make ends meet for their families, and I am not talking about just not being able to afford dish TV. Meanwhile, I have another subdivision of 2 million dollar homes being built down the street from me.

I can't disagree with anything your saying about standard of living and wages, Rich. But, I still think that there are serious problems that we have in this country that are of a structural nature.

On "Documentary" I agree that documentaries should be more informative from multiple perspectives, and less slanted for entertainment purposes. So....rather then Documentary, what Genre would you put it in? The next closest thing would be comedy...but it doesn't fit that Genre any better. I think that what you'll find is that there is not one Genre that we have that perfectly fits his films. This is not Micheal Moore's fault. All the guy did was make a few movies. Everyone else catagorized them as documentaries out of a lack of a more accurate category.

I don't think that because his movies are categorized as documentaries, yet don't fit the classical definition, is his fault, his doing, or an attempt to mislead his audience. I don't think that he should feel compelled to change his style because WE don't have a better genre to put him in.

Most importantly, I don't think that his movies being categorized as documentaries makes him a liar.

PAUL

To be honest I only saw it as an interesting documentary to watch while on the net chatting to mates. Now I've always been interested in America and its guns and so on, so I found this a pretty interesting and well done docu-movie. As with everything there is probably a whole load of differant sides to the story, so until I have read the crapload of sites you guys have bought to me, then I wont make any judgements :D

Originally posted by Master of Blades
To be honest I only saw it as an interesting documentary to watch while on the net chatting to mates. Now I've always been interested in America and its guns and so on, so I found this a pretty interesting and well done docu-movie. As with everything there is probably a whole load of differant sides to the story, so until I have read the crapload of sites you guys have bought to me, then I wont make any judgements :D

Yes...definatily don't base ALL your knowledge on american gun policy from Michael Moore. His documentaries are very "niched", only showing one side (and for good reason), but you definatily want to get many sides to the story before formulating an opinion. There are other sources out there that should be looked at, and that take a more serious look at gun policy in the U.S.

Also, I don't recommend that you waste TOO much time on the sites linked to this thread. Most of the "negative" Moore sites are directed at discrediting Moore and his docu-movie's (I like that word better then documentary), often giving misleading info, and completely missing the point. The "pro-moore" site is just more of a rebuttle to the negative sites. Niether will get you any good answers on US gun policy, laws, attitudes, or problems, so I wouldn't waste too much time.

Also, for many of those who either didn't see the movie, or did see it, yet missed the point:

Micheal Moore is not "anti-gun". Believe it or not, this is true. The movie speaks more against our "culture of violence" in this country as propigated by our media, government officials, advertising, and through many of the external sources around us. This "chasing of sensationalism" and fear-based society (oh no, code orange!) that we have created has proven to be great for the consumerist "buy-more" mentality. Yet, what happends when our children are numbed by all the fear-mongering, and our no longer afraid? Well, when that happends, people become so desensitized to violence, that the idea of blowing away their classmates, teachers, colluegues, or whoever, doesn't even give them the hebbie-geebie's anymore. And...this is when we are in a lot of trouble as a society.

Got it? The movie has little to do with "gun laws" and much more to do with our "culture of violence." And, Whether you think the guy is a hypocritical A-hole or not, I think the movie makes a DAMN good point.

PAUL

Paul,

That may be true of this Movie. When he came back to Flint to try to make another movie and also to raise hype to save a plant that was closing, I asked him how much had he given back to Flint? How much had he made from the movie and his followups and investments from others? How much had he spent for lunch? SO, I know how much you put into the local economy.

Micheal Moore does not really care about the issues he puts on film. He is there for his own reasons and he is there to make money. Yet, I do not think he cares about the people involved or the issue he attempts to raise as you say. He swoops in for the now story and then moves on.

Why did he not make a follow up like he said to Roger and Me, to explain how it was happening again? Why, it had been done and no money in it. He also found out that GM was in a Federal Renaisance zone and was not requried to pay Federal, or state or local taxes on the property. GM paid the local taxes anyways. Why because it was easier to just continue paying the previous amount then to not pay it. Besides it was good plublicity. The Plant in question had the highest ages for employees with the highest wages and the highest absentee rate with the highest number of employees per car, and the highest maintainence cost for the infrastructure, the highest, healthcare rate, the highest in everything you could tink of including the highest Strike rate.

In a five year period, the local was on strike five times with the longest inbetween strikes being 18 months. They were on strike twice in one year. Now some would say it is because they needed better health or more money. Is full health care, including dental and optical and the average of $3x+ an hour plus lots of overtime at time and a half. Yet, they were in strike for more money. How could they do this? They were building the Buick LeSabre and this was one of the cars that GM was rebuilding itself on from the late 80's and early 90's when GM did have some money issues.

How much is enough? Well, I take it that Micheal Moore realized that there was no way for him to put a positive spin on this. Why was he not still making a movie about how the Unions were abusing their power? or A movie about how times change and people and companies change?

And I still do not see any Docu in any of his movies.

:asian:

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
[B]Paul,

That may be true of this Movie. When he came back to Flint to try to make another movie and also to raise hype to save a plant that was closing, I asked him how much had he given back to Flint? How much had he made from the movie and his followups and investments from others? How much had he spent for lunch? SO, I know how much you put into the local economy.

These are all good questions. I would be curious to know the answers to these too. Hell, he could at least take his profits and invest in Flint-muni bonds (Of which I'd be happy to broker for him ;), anybody got his ph#? lol ). I don't know what he has done to give back to the community. Given the fact that he became world renown from a movie based in Flint, MI, I would hope that he has done SOMETHING. If he hasn't, then I would agree that this is hypocritical. In his defense, because he is oftened attacked by people who dislike him, and by people with different agendas, I am sure he saw your questions as attacks. This doesn't mean he hasn't done anything for the local economy, nessicarily; that's still up in the air as far as I know, and until I find proof either way. In YOUR DEFENSE, Rich, him seeing your questions as attacks, well, thats probably how his interviewees felt at times with his questions. So, my opinion (although I wasn't there, and there could have been a large confusing crowd, or what have you) is that he SHOULD answer your questions. I am now tempted to e-mail him the same questions!


Micheal Moore does not really care about the issues he puts on film. He is there for his own reasons and he is there to make money.

I don't know if he cares about the people on film or not. It seems like he does, from my perception, but I can't stand behind that opinion with confidence, because I honestly don't know. I do understand that he is there to make a living; one critique I do have on him is that he trys to make it appear that he doesn't care about his career, when I think that he most likely does more then he says.


Yet, I do not think he cares about the people involved or the issue he attempts to raise as you say. He swoops in for the now story and then moves on.

Why did he not make a follow up like he said to Roger and Me, to explain how it was happening again? Why, it had been done and no money in it. He also found out that GM was in a Federal Renaisance zone and was not requried to pay Federal, or state or local taxes on the property. GM paid the local taxes anyways. Why because it was easier to just continue paying the previous amount then to not pay it. Besides it was good plublicity. The Plant in question had the highest ages for employees with the highest wages and the highest absentee rate with the highest number of employees per car, and the highest maintainence cost for the infrastructure, the highest, healthcare rate, the highest in everything you could tink of including the highest Strike rate.


I don't know if "its been done, so there is no $$ in it" was the reason, as you say, or if he just felt that with the publicity he has recieved, he thought it would be more useful to attack bigger, more national issues. Your explaination is definatily a possability, and appeals to the skeptic in me, but isn't the only possability.$$ could have played a role, and I don't doubt that.

Also, I agree with you, and I think that he should do a follow up, even if it is shortly included in one of his other books, movies or shows (hell, he may have, cause I haven't seen everything he has put out, only his movies, but like you I doubt it). The reason is because the social conscience, since his movie (but not completely because of it), has raised, and GM's behavior has improved in many ways, in my opinion. This is good for people who are fighting the good fight to know, so they don't think all their efforts are in vain.


In a five year period, the local was on strike five times with the longest inbetween strikes being 18 months. They were on strike twice in one year. Now some would say it is because they needed better health or more money. Is full health care, including dental and optical and the average of $3x+ an hour plus lots of overtime at time and a half. Yet, they were in strike for more money. How could they do this? They were building the Buick LeSabre and this was one of the cars that GM was rebuilding itself on from the late 80's and early 90's when GM did have some money issues.

How much is enough? Well, I take it that Micheal Moore realized that there was no way for him to put a positive spin on this. Why was he not still making a movie about how the Unions were abusing their power? or A movie about how times change and people and companies change?

I totally agree with you that the UAW does often abuse their power. Hell, union workers with no college or work ethic are taken better care of then I am. I do see a need for unions, but I agree that they have gone overboard at times, especially in our state. Now, I can't fault Moore for not doing a documovie on that, because I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole if I were him, either! You say one thing, and your "anti-union, pro-corporate", you say another, and your "a communist liberal, who supports high wages for lazy ass behavior". Your kind of screwed taking on this issue no matter how honestly you speak, I think. Also, what we forget too, is that you know a lot of this information that is not as public (such as the local taxes thing, factory behavior, Union abuse) because of your position at GM, perhaps? So the issue is closer to you, and you know more. Micheal Moore may not even realize the facts that you mention.


And I still do not see any Docu in any of his movies.


He does bring up important statistics and facts in his works, and he does bring up important issues that need to be discussed, like I mentioned in my previous post. His last movie was his best in terms of stats, and facts, as well as his last book, "Dude, where's my country" in the first 2 chapters. The facts he brings to the table in these are very compelling, and lead to a lot of unanswered, yet important questions. That is the "docu" part.

Yet, I am sure you stopped at Roger and Me, and your experience with him. If I were you, I probably would have too. I've never been that close to him or the issues to have it effect me, I just have liked the points he has brought up. I am sure that he seems very self serving, which would be on his part hypocritical if he is. I can't say for sure one way or the other whether he is or not. You bring up some good questions, though. I should buy and bring over "bowling for Columbine" so you could actually watch it. I'll have to bring you a picture of Michael moores face taped to a heavy bag so you can punch it every time he annoys you (like every five minutes :rofl: ). Or, I'll just have my Brother nate come over, and I'll ask him to "wear this mask (it'll be a Micheal Moore face) ... :p :rofl: I should also copy the 1st 2 chapters of his most recent book (or just let you borrow it, but I might get only the remains of it back, lol).

Seriously, I think is most recent movie and book (1st 2 chapters) have been his best, despite whether or not he is a hypocritical A-hole or not.

:D

I have an awesome idea!

If he comes out with another movie about President Bush (which I believe he is working on) we HAVE to go see it! I'll get a huge group together, and I'll pay for your movie ticket. But, we will also bring in a "wrestling buddy" with Moores face on it, or something like that, so when he annoys you you could kick his @$$ Man, that would be hilarous!

You think I am kidding...but I am totally serious! :D

This is really very simple.

Michael Moore is a liar. The lies in Bowling for Columbine are well documented. Mr. Moore is a propagandist and nothing else.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
This is really very simple.

Michael Moore is a liar. The lies in Bowling for Columbine are well documented. Mr. Moore is a propagandist and nothing else.

I have seen the arguements that he is a liar, and it doesn't seem that black and white to me.

And yes, he is a propagandist.

I guess this is so obvious to me, that I don't see why people who disagree with him get so pissed.

PAUL

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
This is really very simple.

Michael Moore is a liar. The lies in Bowling for Columbine are well documented. Mr. Moore is a propagandist and nothing else.


I think your view is limited. It sounds as if you have not considered his discussion points before coming to your conclusions.

Where are the lies 'Well Documented'?

Mike

I think your view is limited. It sounds as if you have not considered his discussion points before coming to your conclusions.

Yes, my view is limited -- to the truth. I try to limit all my views accordingly. I have no room to spare in an "open mind" for illogic and unreality.

The Truth About Bowling For Columbine (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

Yeah .. we saw that link earlier ... and the way I see this web site ... is they web site doesn't like what he said ... therefore it is a lie ...

Yeah .. that's the truth ... Obviously, you haven't read the first 48 posts in this thread ...

Yeah .. that's the truth ... Obviously, you haven't read the first 48 posts in this thread ...

Obviously you haven't read the contents of the link, as your "analysis" of its contents is woefully inadequate.

Any "martial artist" foolish enough to support gun control isn't a martial artist at all, for he or she fails to grasp the concept of self-defense and all it implies.

"Any "martial artist" foolish enough to support gun control isn't a martial artist at all, for he or she fails to grasp the concept of self-defense and all it implies."

Here..read my quote regarding the movie from earlier in this thread...

Micheal Moore is not "anti-gun". Believe it or not, this is true. The movie speaks more against our "culture of violence" in this country as propigated by our media, government officials, advertising, and through many of the external sources around us. This "chasing of sensationalism" and fear-based society (oh no, code orange!) that we have created has proven to be great for the consumerist "buy-more" mentality. Yet, what happends when our children are numbed by all the fear-mongering, and our no longer afraid? Well, when that happends, people become so desensitized to violence, that the idea of blowing away their classmates, teachers, colluegues, or whoever, doesn't even give them the hebbie-geebie's anymore. And...this is when we are in a lot of trouble as a society.

Got it? The movie has little to do with "gun laws" and much more to do with our "culture of violence." And, Whether you think the guy is a hypocritical A-hole or not, I think the movie makes a DAMN good point.


I am just saying for the record that I don't feel that movie was an advocate for tighter gun regulations...it was more of a critique on our social culture.

I liked the move. I also like guns.

PAUL