"Michael Moore Hates America" coming soon

[T_Bone]

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/8843207.htm?1c

:angel:

[odin]

Sign In or Sign Up. It's Free!

When you register on Twincities.com you will have privileged access to our articles and services, free of charge. By learning a little about you, we are able to provide the kinds of information, offers and services that are of the most interest to you.

:ranting:

[T_Bone]

sonofabich

damn regs

Posted on Sat, Jun. 05, 2004

Moore gets a dose of his own

Twin Cities filmmaker aims to reveal famous documentarian's bias

BY CHRIS HEWITT

Pioneer Press

In his controversial films, Michael Moore has been the David taking down corporate Goliaths. But now, a local David wants to take down Moore.

Twin Cities filmmaker Mike Wilson's upcoming "Michael Moore Hates America" details his unsuccessful attempts to interview Moore, the director who won an Oscar two years ago for "Bowling for Columbine." Moore's earlier film, "Roger and Me," detailed his own failed attempts to interview General Motors honcho Roger Smith.

Wilson says his documentary tries to point out the biases behind Moore films such as "Bowling" and the highly anticipated "Fahrenheit 9/11," which will be released June 25 and which Wilson has not seen. He says it's not only a response to Moore but also to others who have added to "the shrillness that has engulfed the American conversation."

At least three months before its release, the film has catapulted Wilson into national prominence. When an item about "Michael Moore Hates America" appeared on a showbiz Web site earlier this week, Wilson says, he was contacted by nine distributors who want to help book the documentary into theaters.

Wilson says two things persuaded him to make his first film. One was "Bowling," in which Moore tells the story of a Flint, Mich., schoolgirl killed with a handgun, an incident Moore implied occurred because the assailant's mother was distracted from having to work two jobs as a result of changes in Michigan welfare laws.

"He left out a lot of stuff that was widely reported in the media at the time," says Wilson, 28, who says death threats have persuaded him not to reveal where in the Twin Cities he lives or works as a marketing writer. "But the real reason that bothered me is my mom worked two jobs when I was a kid, and it was like a personal slap to her to say you can't work two jobs and raise your children properly. My mom worked really hard, and she taught us right from wrong."

The final straw was Moore's 2003 Oscar acceptance speech, in which he characterized the war in Iraq and President Bush as "fictional." The remarks drew a mix of applause and jeers from the tuxedo-clad crowd. "Afterwards, I was saying to Chris Johnson, who's a producer of the movie, 'I guess I don't need to make my Michael Moore movie because he already made a jackass of himself.' "

But Wilson decided to go ahead with the project, conducting dozens of interviews. None of them with Moore, despite "at least 50" attempts. Moore did not return Pioneer Press phone calls seeking comment for this story.

"The closest I got was I did run into him at the (University of Minnesota) when he was on his book tour, and he started screaming at me," says Wilson. The screaming began when Wilson mentioned the title of his film in the middle of asking a question. "It was quite a sight — 7,000 Michael Moore fans, just booing me."

Wilson will finish "Michael Moore Hates America" by August. "The interviews are mostly shot, but we are actually kind of right-heavy now," says the director, who describes himself as a Libertarian who voted for Bush. "We've talked to a lot of people who don't like Michael Moore, but I'd like to talk to some more who do."

The budget for the film is $200,000, some of it supplied by Seattle-based entrepreneur Brian Cartmell, who stumbled upon Wilson's Web site, www.michaelmoorehatesamerica .com, which spoofs "Roger and Me." By comparison, "Fahrenheit 9/11" cost $6 million.

Wilson says he expects to make an announcement next week about when the film will be released, but it definitely will be after Moore has his say with "Fahrenheit 9/11," a documentary about Bush's response to the events of Sept. 11.

"What I'm out to influence is how people perceive what he's telling them. I just want them to know documentary makers are inherently dishonest. They walk into something with a point of view," Wilson says.

He doesn't exclude himself from that charge. "I'm being very honest," he says. "I'm manipulating (audiences) with this film."
Chris Hewitt can be reached at chewitt@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5552.

[Wilse]

"We've talked to a lot of people who don't like Michael Moore,"

No sh!t?

" but I'd like to talk to some more who do."

Yeah, that might be an idea, for a documentary...;-)

Mike Wilson?

His stuff is full of lies, half-truths, twisted facts and misleading
editing. ;-)

[KennyR]

I think I'll wait for the Ann Coulter sequel, "Anyone With Even Slightly Liberal or Leftish Views Hates America and Are Traitors." I'm sure Bush would write the foreword. Or forerworder, or whatever. :) I'm sure it would be a big seller in the US.

[macto]

My understanding is that Michael Moore uses sensationalism to attack issues. He may do a hatchet job on individuals in the process, but it is about the issues. The producers of this film are using it to attack an individual. Unless, of course, they are arguing that Michael Moore is an issue. If that is the case, what is the underlying problem? The freedom of speech?

But it is the title which ticks me off, seeming as we don't know much about the film itself. (Though the producers seem to be proud of the hate mail they are receiving, check their website.) It strikes me as a variation on the them "Mr. Soandso is Unamerican," and the other giberish Americans use to drum up the good ol' nationalist hate against people. Such quips aren't meant to drum up controversy (like Mr. Moore's titles), but to end an argument -- much like crying out the name of a certain mid-twentieth century fascist leader.

For a country which harbours some of the greatest minds, the US has the tendancy to create some of the greatest dimwits.

[Glaucus]

heh, even the title of this film seems rather questionable. But, unlike some of the Moore haters, I'll actually sit down and watch it with an open mind BEFORE commenting on it's statements. Take that T_Bone!!! ;-)

- Mike

[cecilia]

the real ann coulter (http://www.justinrairden.com/phpBB2/files/ann_coulter_scary.jpg)
:roflmao:

[T_Bone]

:lol:

[MAD]

Hoya!

Sure Moore is biased...

After all, he is a leftist in right-wing America.

Like any right-winger would be in a leftist America, so where is the big deal???

Stop masturbating. :-)

Be funky

M A D

[T_Bone]

MAD wrote:
Hoya!

Sure Moore is biased...

After all, he is a leftist in right-wing America.

Like any right-winger would be in a leftist America, so where is the big deal???

Stop masturbating. :-)

Be funky

M A D


Being biased is one thing...

Completely making up fictional interviews and passing them off as "documentary" is another.

[Glaucus]

Completely making up fictional interviews and passing them off as "documentary" is another.Give me a break T_Bone. Moore doesn't do that. I find it funny that you conservatives can't argue the issues based on facts and instead try to weasel out of the argument by poking jabs like this. If you wanna prove to us Moore is all wrong, go ahead and do so using facts, but spare us these outlandish claims of lies and deceit. Fact is, the biggest criticism one can lay onto Moore is that he lacks originality. Most of the stuff in his movies are not news, and I'm sure everything in Fahrenheit 911 has already been discussed here on A.org.

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
Completely making up fictional interviews and passing them off as "documentary" is another.Give me a break T_Bone. Moore doesn't do that.

Yes, he absolutely, most certainly, does.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp

I find it funny that you conservatives can't argue the issues based on facts

Moore doesn't argue with facts, that's the whole point. He's a painter, painting a picture of reality with colors that don't appear in the original, then using his fiction to make his point.

If you wanna prove to us Moore is all wrong, go ahead and do so using facts, but spare us these outlandish claims of lies and deceit.

It's a fact. The "interview" in question never happened. It's lies and deciet. If you were interested in fact based discussion, Moore would be the last person you'd source.

[Glaucus]

Okay, just looked into this, and have one simple question: how are you so sure Fred isn't the one telling the lie or perhaps forgot about a low-key interview with Michael what's-his-name some 16 years ago? If Fred is telling the truth, why not sue Mr. Moore? Perhaps because he can't prove it? Perhaps. Anyway, here's Michael Moore's response:

WACKO ATTACKO #2 – FRED BARNES FLUNKS – AGAIN! (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=19)

Btw, the Iliad isn't that "easy" to read.

- Mike

[Glaucus]

Here's one for you T_Bone:

Sakulich misrepresents Moore's documentaries (http://www.thetriangle.org/news/2004/06/04/EdOp/Sakulich.Misrepresents.Moores.Documentaries-684451.shtml)

It seems those who call Moore a liar are the true liars.

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
Here's one for you T_Bone:

Sakulich misrepresents Moore's documentaries (http://www.thetriangle.org/news/2004/06/04/EdOp/Sakulich.Misrepresents.Moores.Documentaries-684451.shtml)

It seems those who call Moore a liar are the true liars.

- Mike

I forget who coined it, but they got it right when they called Moore an "Intellectual Con Artist."

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:

I forget who coined it, but they got it right when they called Moore an "Intellectual Con Artist.":roll: heh, personally, I wouldn't even consider Michael Moore a true intellectual. He's an average joe calling it as he sees it. It seems Michael Moore is beating you concervatives at your own game! Just be thankful Noam Chomsky isn't making films! Now if only you guys could start reading some books!

http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~abpaula/chomskythumb.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394751736/qid=1086587394/sr=8-8/ref=pd_ka_8/104-0051504-0854325?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

- Mike

[Wilse]

Having read a couple of accounts of this over the last few days,
I get the impression that Mr. Barnes is the one lying, although I
suppose we'll never know for sure.

[Dagon]

"Now if only you guys could start reading some books!"

What's the use if they are full of lies?

11:25 - CHOMSKY THE CHEAT: Believe it or not, the linguist and conspiracy theorist Noam Chomsky is the commentator on American foreign policy that is most read by Europeans. That’s sad. His sometimes relevant criticism gets lost in his grotesque perspective that the US and Israel is to blame (http://www.reason.com/0211/cr.js.pride.shtml) for everything that is going wrong in the world. If they do something bad it is always because they are evil, neo-liberal and imperialistic. If someone else does something bad it is always a legitimate reaction to the evils of US and Israel.

But it is also sad because Chomsky does not hold truth in a high regard. Many are impressed by the long list of notes and sources in his books and articles, but few take the trouble to investigate how he uses them. But today Gellert Tamas (http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=265092&previousRenderType=6) pays attention to Chomsky’s defence of Diana Johnstone, who denies the Serbian mass murders in Bosnia. To show that critical Swedish commentators got it wrong, Chomsky writes (http://www.manifest.se/balkan/chomsky.html) that her book "has been very favorably reviewed, e.g., by the leading British scholarly journal International Affairs, journal of the Royal Academy". But Tamas read the review, and it was not very favourable, instead it explains that the book is full of mistakes, selective in its use of facts, and try to paint a revisionist picture of Milosevic as a multi-culturalist. Chomsky even gets the name of the reviewer wrong.

Chomsky does this a lot – invoking the authority of some prestigious journal which none will pick up. For example, in 1977 Chomsky denied Pol Pot’s mass murder in Cambodia (he denies mass murder a lot too), by explaining that "such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands".

Those who took the trouble to look (http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm) at these journals found out that this was a complete distortion. The Economist had written precisely the opposite of what Chomsky claims, and what he is referring to is a letter to the editor, protesting against The Economist’s view – which makes it a lie to invoke the magazine’s credibility against the evidence of massacres. As for the Far Eastern Economic Review, the author merely wrote that he had not found evidence of massacres, and that he doubted some of the stories, but he presented no evidence against them, and concluded that "the numbers killed are impossible to calculate" – not that they "numbered at most in the thousands".

Of course there are instances when the US behaves in a bad way, and when massacre reports are false – but never, ever take Chomsky’s word for it.http://www.johannorberg.net

same thing about Moore's films and books..

...

Michael Moore knows this, of course. He is not stupid. And he has done it before. But he excuses his conspiracy theories, distortions and outright lies when they are exposed, by saying that it is only satire. Just read this extract from an interview on CNN 12 April 2002:

DOBBS: Salon.com just took you to task on this book, pointing out glaring inaccuracies, which -- what in the world...

MOORE: […] you know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don´t respond to that sort of stuff, you know.

DOBBS: Glaring inaccuracies?

MOORE: No, I don´t. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?

Remember that convenient loophole when you read the reviews tomorrow, about how the coruageous Mr Moore has managed to uncover the Bush administration’s secrets. If there are no inaccuracies, it’s only because it is not even an attempt to describe facts.http://www.johannorberg.net


PS: I'm not conservative, I'm libertarian

[Dagon]

If you know greek, read this article of Andreas Andrianopoulos "Noam Chomsky isn't telling the truth (http://www.andrianopoulos.gr/articles/articles2004/407_onoatsomskidenleeithnalhueia.htm)"

[manicx]

Glaucus wrote:
heh, even the title of this film seems rather questionable. But, unlike some of the Moore haters, I'll actually sit down and watch it with an open mind BEFORE commenting on it's statements. Take that T_Bone!!! ;-)

- Mike


Amen!

[redrumloa]

@Dagon

A man with open eyes :-)

Exactly what I have been saying all along.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Dagon wrote:
"Now if only you guys could start reading some books!"

What's the use if they are full of lies?

11:25 - CHOMSKY THE CHEAT: Believe it or not, the linguist and conspiracy theorist Noam Chomsky


Beware when you see the phrase "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy theory". It is highly likely you are dealing with propaganda as this is a very common smear technique (and Bush has used it too in speeches). The implication is that they are kooks and nutbars and you can disregard anything that they say without paying it any attention. Paying attention to "conspiracy theorists" is very dangerous as you might discover that they are not so crazy as you have been told.

[Glaucus]

I agree with Fluffy. Although Chomsky often seems like he's going over the top on certain issues, he's got some interesting perspectives on things. If a conspiracy theorist can make people stop and rethink about things, then they've justified their very existance.

Also, calling Chomsky a liar is going a bit far as I'm sure he believes everything he says. Sure he may be wrong on a few minor things, but that does not make him a liar.

- Mike

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:


Yes, he absolutely, most certainly, does.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp


In the spirit of tit for tat I present for your amusement ...
Fred Barnes' credibility (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080803.shtml)
and
more of Fred's cred (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002516.html)

[zudobug]

Hi Glaucus,

I don't think you can call Professor Chomsky a conspiracy theorist. Although I suppose there are many who do. He's better described as a political dissident.

The fact is, he tends to avoid conspiracy theories. I remember he was asked about a conspiracy theory concerning Bush having forewarning of (or even a hand in) the events of 9/11 and he basically said he didn't pay any attention to such theories, and doesn't believe it.

Everything Chomsky talks about is well documented, and well researched. He uses official records, some of which are released through the freedom of information act. All sources are credible and listed in his books (at least the ones I have read.) It's quite scary what information is out there for anyone who wants to spend the time collecting it. Thankfully, people like Chomsky do it for you.

I also recommend the fantastic Arundhati Roy (http://aroy.miena.com/) and Mark Curtis (http://www.markcurtis.info/) (More focused on the UK.)

There is a very detailed biographical entry in the wikipedia on Chomsky located here:
wikipedia - Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky)

Eeek, didn't mean to go off on one... Ah well :-)

-zudo

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:


Yes, he absolutely, most certainly, does.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp


In the spirit of tit for tat I present for your amusement ...
Fred Barnes' credibility (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080803.shtml)
and
more of Fred's cred (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002516.html)

:lol:

In a vacuum, I'd consider it... however we're comparing him to MICHAEL MOORE so it doesn't even register as a tit. ;-)
It's like comparing Mother Teresa and Charles Manson, and mentioning Mother Teresa has unreturned library books.

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:
In a vacuum, I'd consider it... however we're comparing him to MICHAEL MOORE so it doesn't even register as a tit. ;-)
It's like comparing Mother Teresa and Charles Manson, and mentioning Mother Teresa has unreturned library books.Except that you've yet to point out any real lies that Michael Moore has told. So far, all the lies are from those accusing Moore of telling a lie. From what I can tell, you consider him a liar only because you don't like what he says. Of course, that's rather typical of a concervative...

- Mike

[Wilse]

Indeed.

I've still to see an actual lie from Moore, despite seeing several
from those claiming MM is a liar.

How ironic.

So where are these lies?

Can someone please print an example of a verifiable MM lie?

(No, editing techniques don't count. I mean something he says right
out is a fact, but can be shown to be false.
You know, something like "Saddam has stockpiles of WMD", for example.)

I won't hold my breath.

[T_Bone]

Wilse wrote:

(No, editing techniques don't count.

Why don't they count? That's his entire vehicle of communication.

That's like discussing Enron and saying accounting techniques don't count. Michael Moore is the Enron of journalism.

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
Of course, that's rather typical of a concervative...

- Mike

As opposed to...?

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:
Michael Moore is the Enron of journalism.


Michael Moore is not a journalist. He is more of an editorialist and he makes opinion peices. However, he does back up those peices with information and facts. Heston may not have made the speech shown in Columbine on the day and in the place implied by association, he did say it. That's a fact and it isn't even unfair to take unrecanted public statement of position on issues to be representative of a persons position on that issue.

[zudobug]

I think Wilse was just joking when he said "editing techniques don't count" because the "shady" editing techniques Moore haters refer to are actually rather insignificant.

To see what I mean, watch the film "Bowling for Columbine" with the Charlton Heston "that bit of footage was from another event! shock horror" argument in mind. You'll be amazed that anyone can be so pedantic!

-zudo

[Fade]

Wilse wondered
"Can someone please print an example of a verifiable MM lie?"
"I won't hold my breath."
---------------

I kind of like Fred Barnes' account of two of his lies, especially the one about when Disney told him they wouldn't distribute his film. Oh, and Barnes wasn't the one to catch him in this lie; it was about 200 US newspapers that did.

Article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp)

You should have held your breath Wilse. :quickdraw:

[T_Bone]

zudobug wrote:
I think Wilse was just joking when he said "editing techniques don't count" because the "shady" editing techniques Moore haters refer to are actually rather insignificant.

I don't think they're so insignificant, especially given that it's this exact color he uses to paint the whole picture.


To see what I mean, watch the film "Bowling for Columbine" with the Charlton Heston "that bit of footage was from another event! shock horror" argument in mind. You'll be amazed that anyone can be so pedantic!

-zudo


When you try to make a point that Heston was being an inconsiderate ******* right after a crime incident, when in fact he was very considerate in both words and actions, it's not being pedantc, it's recognising it for what it really is, complete nonsense.

[T_Bone]

Wilse wrote:

How ironic.

So where are these lies?

Here's a big one, one that many of you believe too.

Moore - "What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except this one fact — WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden! Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!" ("Sept 12")

Laden - "“Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” (1993)

Laden - “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.” (1996)

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:
Here's a big one, one that many of you believe too.

Moore - "What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except this one fact — WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden! Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!" ("Sept 12")

Laden - "“Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” (1993)

Laden - “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.” (1996)Nice try, but wrong again. Read this Slate article that links Bin Laden and your favorite president:
Reagan's Osama Connection (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102243/)

Next thing you'll be telling us is that the US didn't supply Saddam with weapons!

- Mike

[Glaucus]

Fade wrote:
I kind of like Fred Barnes' account of two of his lies, especially the one about when Disney told him they wouldn't distribute his film. Oh, and Barnes wasn't the one to catch him in this lie; it was about 200 US newspapers that did.

Article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp)

You should have held your breath Wilse. :quickdraw:More nonsense! This was never a lie, This has been covered here already, but let me explain it again, and I'll do my best to use small, easy to understand words in the hopes it sinks in this time:

About a year ago when Moore was still in early production, Disney informed Moore that they would not release the movie. Miramax, the division of Disney that Moore was dealing with directly, told Moore that they will continue funding the movie and that once Disney sees the final product may re-consider. With Miramax's reassurance Moore completed the movie, showed it to Disney, who then decided to stick with their original decision. Moore goes public, stating that Disney has recently decided not to publish his movie - which is technically true if they indeed watched the movie and re-decided not to distribute it.

Is that so hard to udnerstand? Where was the lie???

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
Here's a big one, one that many of you believe too.

Moore - "What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except this one fact — WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden! Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!" ("Sept 12")

Laden - "“Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” (1993)

Laden - “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.” (1996)Nice try, but wrong again. Read this Slate article that links Bin Laden and your favorite president: Reagan's Osama Connection (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102243/)

- Mike

There were TWO fronts in Afghanistan. Osama, and in fact the entire front he belonged to were funded exclusively (at their insistance in fact) by Saudi Arabia.

This piece by Richard Minter explains.


Two years after the Sept. 11 attacks, no memorial service, cable-news talkfest or university seminar seemed to have been complete without someone emerging from the woodwork to wonder darkly why the CIA ever financed Usama bin Laden “in the first place.”

Everyone from Washington Post reporters to Michael Moore seems to buy some version of this.

It is time to lay to rest the nagging doubt held by many Americans that our government was somehow responsible for fostering bin Laden. It’s not true and it leaves the false impression that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks down on ourselves. While it is impossible to prove a negative, all available evidence suggests that bin Laden was never funded, trained or armed by the CIA.

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”

More...

In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.”

There are many reasons to believe them. They knew where the money went. Both men have retired from the CIA; they have no motive to mouth an agency line. And no compelling evidence has emerged that the CIA ever paid bin Laden: no cancelled checks, no invoices, no government reports.

Those who contend that bin Laden received U.S. funds usually make the following argument: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden.

This ignores a key fact: There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets, united only by a common communist enemy. One was financed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists who migrated from across the Muslim world. They called themselves “Arab Afghans.” Bin Laden was among them. When the Saudis agreed to match U.S. contributions dollar-for-dollar, the sheikhs insisted that their funds go exclusively to the “Arab Afghans,” possibly including bin Laden. Meanwhile, U.S. funds went exclusively to the other rebellion, which was composed of native Afghans. Mr. Bearden told me: “I challenge anyone to give any proof that we gave one dollar to any Arab Afghans, let alone bin Laden.”

Even if the CIA wanted to pay “Arab Afghans”—which agency officials insist they did not—bin Laden would be a far from obvious choice. Bin Laden himself rarely left the safety of Pakistan’s northwestern cities and commanded few troops of his own. At the time, bin Laden was the Arab Afghan’s quartermaster, providing food and other supplies.

If a CIA officer tried to give money to bin Laden, he probably would not have lived through the experience. The arch-terrorist was known for his violent anti-Americanism. Dana Rohrabacher, now a Republican congressman from California, told me about a trip he took with the mujahideen in 1987. On that trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Laden’s camp. “If he hears an American, he will kill you.”

Why is this myth of CIA support for bin Laden so persistent? Some find the myth persuasive because they do not know that America and Saudi Arabia funded two different sets of anti-Soviet fighters. Others on the anti-American left and right, in both Europe and America, find it oddly comforting. It gives solace to those who want to think the worst of us. The CIA-funding myth allows them to return to a familiar pattern, to blame America first. Whatever the cause, this myth weakens America’s case for the war on terror by setting up a moral equivalency between America and Al Qaeda. This animates protests at home and makes it harder to win allies abroad.

When former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani learned that a Saudi prince had blamed U.S. policies for the Sept. 11 atrocity, he famously turned down the prince’s $10 million donation. His words at the time could be applied to the myth of CIA support for bin Laden: “There is no moral equivalent for this attack,” he said. “Not only are these statements wrong, they’re part of the problem.”


That aricle on Slate actually mentions both fronts by name, but fails to establish them as indipendant of each other. Heck, I doubt the writer even understood that too well, as it doesn't even link Bin Laden to Reagan in light of that fact.

Also that article is irrelevant to Moores comment that "The CIA trained Bin Laden", the article fails to even mention weather or not we funded or trained Bin Laden.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
Oh, and Barnes wasn't the one to catch him in this lie; it was about 200 US newspapers that did.


Tell me you're not this lame brained. One wire feed printed in 200 papers is not 200 sources for one story! No wonder you are so easily gulled.

[FluffyMcDeath]

@ T_Bone

Oh. You didn't fund Osama. Just the other terrorists in Afghanistan? Well, that's OK then.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
@ T_Bone

Oh. You didn't fund Osama. Just the other terrorists in Afghanistan? Well, that's OK then.

;-) Yep, but that's a whole 'nother issue. (we only funded one front) We only funded the native Afghanistan front, we refused to pay other Arabs to come into Afghanistan, yet it was important to fund native Afghan fighters to protect their soverignity. Osama Bin Laden belonged to the second front, funded by the Saudis.


...back on topic, Michael Moore lied. :-P

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
@ T_Bone

Oh. You didn't fund Osama. Just the other terrorists in Afghanistan? Well, that's OK then.

;-) Yep, but that's a whole 'nother issue. (we only funded one front) We only funded the native Afghanistan front, we refused to pay other Arabs to come into Afghanistan, yet it was important to fund native Afghan fighters to protect their soverignity. Osama Bin Laden belonged to the second front, funded by the Saudis.


...back on topic, Michael Moore lied. :-P Actually, even if you're right about the CIA and Bin Laden, you'd still have to prove that Moore knows about it. You see, to lie means to tell a false truth, and you've yet to establish that's what Moore has done. Simply telling me Moore was wrong isn't enough.

At any rate, I think you're very naive if you think the US was so picky about who they funded to fight against the Soviets. Even if they didn't fund them directly, they funded them indirectly through other players. And it's no big surprise that Osama would deny any US involvment, as it would not benefit his cause any. We all know that Bin Ladden not only needed funds, but he needed weapons. Who gave him his weapons? Who sold him those Stingers? Not the Soviets I would think....

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
@ T_Bone

Oh. You didn't fund Osama. Just the other terrorists in Afghanistan? Well, that's OK then.

;-) Yep, but that's a whole 'nother issue. (we only funded one front) We only funded the native Afghanistan front, we refused to pay other Arabs to come into Afghanistan, yet it was important to fund native Afghan fighters to protect their soverignity. Osama Bin Laden belonged to the second front, funded by the Saudis.


...back on topic, Michael Moore lied. :-P Actually, even if you're right about the CIA and Bin Laden, you'd still have to prove that Moore knows about it. You see, to lie means to tell a false truth, and you've yet to establish that's what Moore has done. Simply telling me Moore was wrong isn't enough.

Moore - "What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except this one fact — WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden! Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!" ("Sept 12")

He said it was a "Fact."

He said "We created the monster known as Osama Bin Laden."

He said "Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA."

He guessed, took a chance and lied by calling it a "Fact", and turns out he guessed wrong. He lied About Osama Bin Laden. He lied about who trained Osama Bin Laden. And he had the nerve to do it on {bleep}ing 9/12.

If I say "The center of the moon is made of green cheese, it's a FACT" I am lying. Just because I'm guessing doesn't mean I'm not lying. Hell, even if my guess turns out to be correct and nobody caught me fibbing I'd personally still consider it a lie. Unfortunately, Moore guessed wrong and got caught in his fib. According to the defence you're giving Moore, I might as well stick to my stance that "It's a Fact - the moons center is made of green cheese, oh and the CIA put it there." since I *could* be right, notwithstanding that I said it's a fact.

At any rate, I think you're very naive if you think the US was so picky about who they funded to fight against the US cause. Even if they didn't fund them directly, they funded them indirectly through other players.

I suspect the goalposts moving... I kicked that damn ball straight into the net pinning Moore in a blatant lie, but now the goalie is complaining that I didn't justify Reagans forein policy in the process.

And it's no big surprise that Osama would deny any US involvment, as it would not benefit his cause any. We all know that Bin Ladden not only needed funds, but he needed weapons. Who gave him his weapons? Who sold him those Stingers? Not the Soviets I would think....

Well, if we're going to extrapolate "uses a weapon originally manufactured by the US, sold into the open market, then, eventually into said persons hands funded by a third party" into "Trained by the CIA" you might as well say that I, personally, have been trained by the CIA in terrorist techniques. That's actually a shorter stretch, as the paper trail between my weapon and it's manufacturer doesn't even involve a third party, and the funding was even tracable back to a personal check at an American bank.

- T_Bone, a monster created and trained by the CIA. ;-)

[zudobug]

T_Bone,

What the hell are you talking about? Have you even seen the movie?

The overall message that Moore is getting across isn't changed. What he is saying is true. A young girl was shot by a young boy who had gotten hold of his parents gun, shortly afterwards Heston and his NRA crowd show up to big up guns, much to the protest of the locals. The fact remains he acted thoughtlessly and upset a lot of people.

But this isn't the whole focus of the documentary. Just a little bit. And if it were cut from the film all together just to end this idiotic debate, it wouldn't make much of a difference to the overall message.

If you haven't seen the film, I recommend you do, just to get some perspective on the argument you are making, which is totally flawed!

-zudo

[T_Bone]

zudobug wrote:
T_Bone,

What the hell are you talking about? Have you even seen the movie?

You talk about this movie like it somehow is more credible than what really, actually, happened.


The overall message that Moore is getting across isn't changed. What he is saying is true. A young girl was shot by a young boy who had gotten hold of his parents gun, shortly afterwards Heston and his NRA crowd show up to big up guns, much to the protest of the locals. The fact remains he acted thoughtlessly and upset a lot of people.

That's not true, he actually cancelled most of it, in fact as much as he could by *law*, and I'm going to have to call you out and ask you *specifically* what Heston did that was thoughtless?

You've been lied to. (or as Wilse might object to this use of the word "lie" let's just say what you think happened because of the "movie" you watched, didn't actually happen)

He cancelled the rallies.

"Much to the disappointment of NRA members, Heston took initiative to cancel the fun and merriment that normally surrounds these gatherings, normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies, holding only its annual members' meeting"

Charlton Heston then made this speach at the *members only* meeting, which he only attended because he was *legally required* to appear there.

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

The rally was cancelled. Nothing took place but the NRA members meeting.

You probably think Heston actually said "Mr Mayor, we're already here!" when asked by the mayor to cancell, right?

Wrong. Moore spliced spoken words together to make that sentence. What a contemptable slimeball scumbag.

Aw hell, just drudging back through this slimebags dirty tricks and quote hacking pisses me off, someone else do it, I need a smoke! :pissed:


If you haven't seen the film, I recommend you do, just to get some perspective on the argument you are making, which is totally flawed!


The only thing flawed is Michael Moore.

[zudobug]

Ok, I take it you haven't seen this movie and probably never will. If you hate the guy so much, that's probably a wise move.

"I'm going to have to call you out and ask you *specifically* what Heston did that was thoughtless?"

Well, having read your argument it seems it wasn't thoughtless, more a legal obligation to travel the country with more gun crime and murder than anywhere else in the world and rally support for the use of handguns and rifles. A side-effect of this will undoubtedly be upsetting locals who have recently lost loved ones through the use of handguns. My mistake.

And why did he *legally* have to be there? Was that the law of the land or the law of the NRA committee? Because, even if his being there was as low-key as you suggest, it still hurt people still in shock by what happened. Micheal Moore interviews Heston in the movie, reminds him of the events, and offers him a chance to redeem himself. Why did he not explain any of that?

I didn't mean to upset you so much. Enjoy your smoke. Infact, go on, have a few.

Next time I watch Bowling I'll skip that part to avoid forming invalid opinions about ol' Heston. It'll still be one hell of a good documentary!

-zudo

[manicx]

If Michael Moore was hating America, he wouldn't give a {bleep} about it. I do reckon though that he is more patriot than all those 'hardcore' politicians.

One of the things about MM lies Vs Politicians lies is that the former will not hurt anyone. Nobody is forced to read his books, nobody is forced to watch his movies.

On the other hand though, all American citizens will have to leave in a country whose politicians lie, make wars and get the {bleep} out of every single nation in the world that doesn't agree with them.

So even if MM lies, he is not harming anyone. On the other hand, most Americans have to leave in fear whereas, at the same time, they have to accept all political {bleep} full of lies imposed from the top.

[Glaucus]

T_Bone,

If you haven't seen the documentary, how you can you even comment on it?!? Just reading the anti-moore propaganda isn't enough to form an opinion on a movie. Go watch it, then sit down and discuss it!!! Sheessh!

- Mike

[cecilia]

time and again i have seen that the people who complain the most about this or that radio show/film/book/"fill in blank" are ALWAYS the ones who have never seen, head or read the subjects in question.

i must say, it makes me laugh!
:roflmao: <-- just like that!

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:

I kind of like Fred Barnes' account of two of his lies, [...]

Well, we've already dealt with Fred "The Liar" Barnes.

Would you say that Moore's film style was more or less honest (or about the same) as this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1170535,00.html) "journalism"?

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
T_Bone,

If you haven't seen the documentary,

Who said I haven't seen it? :-?

[Wilse]

@T_Bone:

Bin Laden saying he never saw any evidence of american help does not
prove there was none.

Furthermore, I believe there was help. If I tell you this, I'm not
lying. I'm telling you what I believe to be true.


Next! ;-)

[Tigger]

zudobug wrote:
T_Bone,

What the hell are you talking about? Have you even seen the movie?

The overall message that Moore is getting across isn't changed. What he is saying is true. A young girl was shot by a young boy who had gotten hold of his parents gun, shortly afterwards Heston and his NRA crowd show up to big up guns, much to the protest of the locals. The fact remains he acted thoughtlessly and upset a lot of people.


The problem is Zudo that didnt even happen, but Mike has you believing it did. Kayla Rolland (the girl in question) was shot on Feb 29, 2000 by her classmate in Flint Michigan. On October 17, 2000 as part of a get out the vote rally in Flint Michigan, Charlton Heston spoke at the Bush Rally, Gore was in the city at the same time at a different Rally, and two weeks before Mike had been stumping for Ralph Nader in the same city. The protesters shown weren't at Flint on October 17th, and were most likely staged. We know this because 1) they are in daylight complaining about a speech that didnt happen start till dusk and continued into the dark, trees in the background still have green leaves though every video and picture of the Al Gore and Bushs visit to Flint show bare trees on that cold October day in Michigan (as most would suspect) and despite 40-50 degree weather all day, apparently all the protesters decided to go with short sleeves and no coats. Another big issue with this video is not one mention of the Kayla protesters in all the ink that the two candidates were getting just over 2 weeks before the national election?? Someone else pointed that the NRA meeting was mandatory, they were talking about the one in Denver which occurred shortly after Columbine, it was required by both state and federal laws under which the NRA is incorporated and had been planned for over 3 years to be held in Denver. Instead of a normal 10 day or so event they turned it into a 2 day meeting where they did just what they were required by law to do and then left Denver, treating it as anything else (as Moore does) is silly, as a lifelong cardholding member of the NRA, Moore knew all this it just doesnt fit in with the story he wanted to tell.
-Tig

[zudobug]

Tig,

In an effort to be as fair and balanced as possible, I have read a bunch of anti-Moore and anti-left websites with articles about Michael Moore, I have read some pro/neutral articles and, dig this, watched the film again.

I admit that if you just read the anti-Moore sites (I also tried imagining that I was pro-Bush but this caused me some distress) this Heston thing seems to be a big attempt by Moore to trick and fool the people who watch his film into believing something that didn't really happen, in an effort to turn them against their homeland and bring the US to it's knees. I think they are going a bit far with that idea. I think the idea that Moore is anti-American is laughable. You already know my feelings on the term "anti-American" so I'll spare you that. Moore clearly cares about his country, seems the worst he's trying to do is get Bush out of power. Fair play to the man I say ;-).

Forgot to mention: I carefully watched the so-called staged protest. I found this list (http://www.hardylaw.net/flint.html) of what appear to be inaccuracies with the protest footage. I'm open to the possibility that this is right, but it isn't based on anything firm. Leaves on trees and warm weather in October? That would seem weird if I hadn't seen the exact same thing myself here in England over the past few years. I need to look further into this one if I can be bothered.

I also found an article written by Moore in which he confronts some of these accusations and defends his position, providing his sources. That can be found here: How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine" (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/) hehe, he's so cheeky ;-)

I personally feel that he can't be lying about this. Simply because I'm sure Heston and the NRA and any of their Republican members would love to sue Moore's ass if they had a legal leg to stand on. They could easily win a libel case if these allegations were true. The worst Moore could be accused of IMO is not checking his sources or overstating the facts.

Then when watching the movie again I confirmed my opinion that the Heston bit is a really small part of the overall picture and if it were missing, I would't miss it. Bowling would still be a damn good, thought-provoking documentary. At the end of the day that's the desired effect. Moore provides some interesting facts, gives his opinions, leaves you with the option to agree or disagree. Even if you disagree I recommend you watch this movie (assuming you haven't already.) I don't agree with every word Moore says.

Besides, the statement that this Heston thing could be false or exaggerated, therefore everything Moore says is rubbish, is fallacious. From your perspective it would be like me saying that the Bush government lied, or at least misled everyone about links between Saddam and al-qaida and Saddam playing a roll in the 9/11 attacks, therefore everything they say is rubbish. See? I hope I never stoop so low, but doubt I'll ever need to. :-)

-zudo

[another edit]Here's a review from a guy in Michigan who obviously doesn't agree with Moore's PoV on everything, and indeed agrees with some of the things anti-Moore types have said in this thread, but what's this?.. he likes the film! Shock horror! God, Guns, and Michael Moore (http://www.geocities.com/pageiv71/godguns.html)
Is Bowling for Columbine manipulative and biased in the director's point of view? Yes. Is it contradictory? Yes. Besides the Nazi omission, Moore never covers gang violence and the violent gun culture within the gang and drug filled places of our country. More importantly, Moore never actually answers any of his questions; that may be the reason why this movie works.

One distracting point is where Moore idiotically implies that the Central Intelligence Agency gave millions to the billionaire Osama bin Laden and taught al Quaeda how to fly planes into buildings. However, if you can get past his leftist social agenda, Moore has created a very thoughtful film that is not as anti-gun as it is anti-violence but with a little anti-military and pro-socialist health care thrown in as well.

[Fade]

@ Zudobug
"In an effort to be as fair and balanced as possible, I have read a bunch of anti-Moore and anti-left websites with articles about Michael Moore"
-------------

Then try this article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) about Moore and his new film, by Slate, an extreme "Left Wing liberal" web site.

When a liberal can't convince other liberals, you know something is not kosher. They are usually so easily led around by the nose, but even they find his new film hard to swallow.

[zudobug]

{bleep} me, theres a guy who knows how to write a long rant!

I was waiting for someone to post a link to this. Had a heads-up about this earlier today on one of my lefty forums.

This guy writes a lot of attacks but doesn't seem to justify any of them. Problem with stuff like that is it just makes me wanna see the movie to find out what he's going on about. :-)

As for that being 'an extreme "Left Wing liberal" web site', I'll have to take your word for that. I had a quick browse and didn't see much evidence of this except maybe in the forum... but nothing "extreme". I suppose they are limited to what they can get away with. It ain't on my list.

Did a quick search on this Hitchens character. Hardly what I'd call a lefty - although this is indeed what he claims to be. Heres a link to him having a go at Mother Teresa (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html). Do a google search and find articles he has written about why WE MUST FIGHT IRAQ (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12227453&method=full&siteid=50143). I've read similar stuff by other left-wing columnists. I think it's a conspiracy. ;-) Oh, he also wrote this attack of Reagan (http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/), but this isn't very good. Just attacking the mans character and skimming the major issues.

I don't know why but I can't help feeling that this chap has something personal against Moore. I'm gonna have to judge this movie for myself I'm afraid. But I promise I will try to keep an open mind.

-zudo

[yet another edit]

Now this is a lefty website: Hitchens Rant (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=P1075_0_1_0) [antiwar.com]

[T_Bone]

I personally feel that he can't be lying about this. Simply because I'm sure Heston and the NRA and any of their Republican members would love to sue Moore's ass if they had a legal leg to stand on. They could easily win a libel case if these allegations were true.

Libel must be a common excuse for lawsuits in other countries or something, because people keep saying this about a lot of things. It just isn't that common here. Spill some coffee in your lap, then you have an American lawsuit. ;-) Libel cases are rare.

[T_Bone]

zudobug wrote:

I don't know why but I can't help feeling that this chap has something personal against Moore. I'm gonna have to judge this movie for myself I'm afraid. But I promise I will try to keep an open mind.


Not a bad movie, as long as you keep in mind during the Heston bit that it's fake. It's about as much a documentary as Moore's other movie "Canadian Bacon" though.

[Tigger]

zudobug wrote:
Tig,

In an effort to be as fair and balanced as possible, I have read a bunch of anti-Moore and anti-left websites with articles about Michael Moore, I have read some pro/neutral articles and, dig this, watched the film again.


I see you say you did that, yet you dance around the fact the obviously Mike Moore tricked you (as he did most of the reviewers) into believing that Heston and the NRA went into Flint Michigan shortly after Kayla was shot, I show you actually he came over 7 months later for a get out the vote rally for Bush, and you just gloss over how Moore tricked you into believing an event that didnt occur. Just for your verification here's two articles from the Detroit Free Press:

Kayla Rollands Death (http://www.freep.com/news/metro/beech28_20010228.htm)

Charlton Heston Stumps for Bush (http://www.freep.com/news/politics/zero18_20001018.htm)



Moore clearly cares about his country, seems the worst he's trying to do is get Bush out of power. Fair play to the man I say ;-).

Moore cares about the size of his paycheck, thats pretty much it.


Leaves on trees and warm weather in October? That would seem weird if I hadn't seen the exact same thing myself here in England over the past few years. I need to look further into this one if I can be bothered.[/edit]


First of all you are forgetting several things about this protest I have already pointed out.

1) the heston speech started at dusk on October 17th and continued until after sunset in Flint Michigan, how can the protestors be upset with what Charlton Heston said in broad daylight (ie before he talks).

2) Footage from both the Gore and the Bush and Heston speeches are available, lots of TV cameras out that day, why are the trees bare of leaves in the footage, the people all dressed warmly, for the speeches, yet the protestors have a sunny day, lots of green leaves in the trees and wear those short sleeve shirts???


I personally feel that he can't be lying about this. Simply because I'm sure Heston and the NRA and any of their Republican members would love to sue Moore's ass if they had a legal leg to stand on. They could easily win a libel case if these allegations were true. The worst Moore could be accused of IMO is not checking his sources or overstating the facts.

First of all, I'm sure you dont understand libel cases at all, what would be the case?? Did Charlton Heston go to Flint Michigan?? Yes. Was Kayla killed in Flint Michigan?? Yes, was Heston there after Kayla was killed?? Yes. Are his inferences about Heston correct in this case?? Absolutely not, but that doesnt mean you could win a libel suit against him. Apparently Mike Moore doesnt believe Charlton Heston (or any NRA officer) can go to anywhere someone has been killed with a gun (ever) without it being an NRA rally, thats pretty ludicrous idea, but he had you buying in on it.


Besides, the statement that this Heston thing could be false or exaggerated, therefore everything Moore says is rubbish, is fallacious.

Who made that statement Zudo, surely not me, but implying that this Heston thing is the only thing false or exaggerated in this supposed documentary is pretty ludicrous.
-Tig

[Glaucus]

When a liberal can't convince other liberals, you know something is not kosher. They are usually so easily led around by the nose, but even they find his new film hard to swallow.Yeah, I read that. Hitchens is an idiot I think. Most Slate readers have nothing good to say about him. No surprise really, Hitchens supports the Iraq war too. I often wonder what Hitchens is doing on Slate, although I guess he's there to draw in some right-leaning readers and to stir the pot a bit. Over all, the fact that he hates Moore's film says nothing about liberals or centerists, and his arguments were rather sad to say the least (he devoted the first quearter of his article to bashing Moore for changing his mind over the Afghan war :roll: ).

- Mike

[Glaucus]

As for that being 'an extreme "Left Wing liberal" web site', I'll have to take your word for that. I had a quick browse and didn't see much evidence of this except maybe in the forum... but nothing "extreme". I suppose they are limited to what they can get away with. It ain't on my list.Slate isn't "extreme" left at all, it's Fade who's an "extreme" goof. When Reagan died there were just as many pro-Reagan articles as there were anti-Reagan articles - but then, I suppose the mere freedom of the editorialists to take whichever side they wish makes it a liberal site by default... If anything, I highly recommend Slate to anyone as it is by far one of the most professional online magazines I've ever seen. And when it comes to political issues I tend to always enjoy articles written by Fred Kaplan (war stories).

- Mike

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
When a liberal can't convince other liberals, you know something is not kosher.:-o Excuse me????????????
Can you repeat that?

[zudobug]

Cheers for clearing that up for me Tig, I think I see what you're getting at. It does seem a bit dodgy and when the searches I've done on the subject have turned up lots of anti-Moore articles but nothing in defence. So it does seem, for now, that those protestors were staged. Maybe I'll try emailing the man himself about it - but I guess he has enough to worry about with his new movie.

yet you dance around the fact the obviously Mike Moore tricked you (as he did most of the reviewers) into believing that Heston and the NRA went into Flint Michigan shortly after Kayla was shot

Yeah, I admit my mistake. It had been a while since I'd last seen the movie until I watched it the other day. I was confusing the Columbine event with the Michigan event. From the review I linked to:

Moore then demands to know why the NRA is so insensitive as to hold a pro-gun rally in Denver only ten days after Columbine and one in Flint eight months after the Buell shooting.

The Denver rally was not a public relations plus for the NRA, but the Flint rally was months after and during a campaign season; for these reasons Heston looks confused as Moore accuses the NRA for kicking the locals when they are down.

OK? I accept this. If I danced around the issue it's because I'm not a very gracious loser.

I'm sure you dont understand libel cases at all

Thank {bleep} you're here to help me understand. You know everything about {bleep}ing everything.

I really don't like your {bleep}ing tone. You talk to me like I'm a {bleep}ing retard just because I don't agree with you. I don't think I've ever stated any of my opinions as fact. When I re-read what I wrote it seems obvious I'm giving an opinion that I based on some limited knowledge - and I welcome any suggestions or criticism. But for {bleep} sake could you be a little less condescending? I know how you must feel about me because I had the same feeling when reading all the anti-left websites I researched. But I try to be polite.

[edit]Oops, got so upset I forgot what I was originally gonna say :lol:

Apparently Mike Moore doesnt believe Charlton Heston (or any NRA officer) can go to anywhere someone has been killed with a gun (ever) without it being an NRA rally, thats pretty ludicrous idea, but he had you buying in on it.

It is pretty ludicrous. It would certainly limit where Heston is allowed to go. Moore is blowing things out of proportion to make a point. He's silly for doing this. But - as I have said before - this is the charm of the movie and the overall message remains the same, even with this knowledge. I don't agree with everything Moore says (never have and never stated otherwise), but I do respect him. Bowling raises some very real questions, which cannot be disputed. Moore then gives his views to what is causing the problems. The problems are no less problems just because Moore has a few wacky ideas. It gets you thinking and discussing. Except here it seems where we go round in circles arguing about a minor error in the movie and miss the real points all together.

-zudo

[KennyR]

Zudobug wrote:
I really don't like your {bleep}ing tone. You talk to me like I'm a {bleep}ing retard just because I don't agree with you.

Oh, that's just vintage Tigger. Just be thankful he didn't try to insult your nationality. Yet.

[zudobug]

Hey Kenny,

I was gonna edit out all the bleeps because it looks silly, but I think there are times swear words (you can guess what I wrote) help get across exactly how I feel.

However, I don't think insulting one-another helps make people wanna be less condescending to each other. Tigger treats me like an idiot because he treats everyone he disagrees with like an idiot. But that's because he in-turn is being abused just as much by our side.

I think my outburst is justified because I feel pretty rotten. But I don't want to return any of this useless contempt.

I have some very good friends who are right-wing. They believe things that I find very difficult to swallow and they laugh at me for going on marches and call my anti-war friends "a bunch of looneys". OC I defend myself, but I don't insult them or stop being friends. I try to imagine Fade, Tigger, Red, etc as being similar to these friends of mine. I should be able to get along with them dispite differences of opinion.

We are each in these forums because of a shared love of the Amiga. I think most of us would get on just peachy if we ignored our political views and philosophies. But I don't see any reason why we should not be able to discuss these things without getting personally abusive towards each other.

That's my crazy - why can't we all just get along - moment for today. Have I written something similar to this recently? I'm getting mad deja vu... Not sure if I should hit submit.... Ah, {bleep} it.

-zudo

[cecilia]

Moore cares about the size of his paycheck, thats pretty much it.I just love it when people complain about that. if you disagree with the guy SUDDENLY he's not allowed to earn a living, which happens to be very much the American Way (earning from your own work).

Bush is very happy to give Halliburton, Ken Lay and Clear Channel and all his other buddies all the opportunities possible to get rich, rip people off, or EXPLOIT a situation for thier own benefit.

but, ghod forbid if a an artist - who just made a film - might like a bit of legitimate income! WHAT A SIN!!!!

btw, moron, here's the latest on the Money issue:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1086142396845_158/?hub=World

"In a settlement reached last week, the Weinsteins repaid their parent company for all costs of the film to date, estimated at around $6 million US. Any profits from the film's distribution that go to Miramax or Disney will be donated to charity."