toms Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Haven't seen it yet. I have Bowling for Columbine sat on top of my tv waiting for a chance to watch it though... Michael Moore is michael mooore. He isn't going to change. I remember watching his BBC show TV Nation a few years back. It was about 33% Bad jokes, 33% Overdoing it trying to make a point and 33% valid, shocking points. He isn't as funny as he thinks he is, and he isn't unbiased. But to his credit he is always entirely open that he is biased, what his biases are and that the views are his own and should be taken as such. You can't say that for a lot of the media... (on either side. He also seems willing to attack everyone fairly equally. In a world where he is near enough a lone voice, i guess he needs to shout harder and be more controversial in order to get his views heard. Which is a shame. Still, as long as you have an open mind, and are intelligent enough to question things then his films are usually highly interesting and informative. As for that site, mostly it is a load of rubbish. What is worse is that it does EXACTLY what it blames moore for doing. It uses quick, out of context quotes, it assumes he was attempting some message and then attacks his method. Most of it seems to be clips of random rants taken from discussion boards like this one. Attacking media for clever editing is a bit silly these days, even non-controversial documentaries about bits of flint end up with clever editing these days. It is just a way to catch and keep the attention. Anyway, if this film EVER makes it over here then i will post my review at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith no, but my vacation doesn't take up 42% of my time on the job. and what does your golf thing have to do with anything? I think he's referring to Moore insulting Bush for playing golf, yet many of the past Presidents do play golf, and he hasn't insulted them yet; and also to other adults with jobs who play golf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit I think he's referring to Moore insulting Bush for playing golf, yet many of the past Presidents do play golf, and he hasn't insulted them yet; and also to other adults with jobs who play golf. And most presidents weren't dealing with a national crisis on the scale of 9/11 while they were out on the greens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior And most presidents weren't dealing with a national crisis on the scale of 9/11 while they were out on the greens. ... Bush was in a Florida Elementary class on 9/11. http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/florida/article/0,2071,NPDN_14910_2985640,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit ... Bush was in a Florida Elementary class on 9/11. And you think that he only had to deal wtih 9/11....ON 9/11. That the days following he didn't really need to get involved with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I've got no probelm with bush waiting to find out what happened before jumping up and panicking... about the only sensible thing he did do. The problem was that he got all his info through political aides and not from the sources, and that the communication (in both directions) between the president, the white house, the FSA and the flight controllers was appaling. But then that isn't relevant to the film. If he is simply criticising bush for staying in the classroom then that is a mistake IMHO, but then i haven't seen it so i can't say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I don't know why everybody raises hell about where Bush was during 9/11. What difference does it make? The body count would be the same. Last time I checked people can't fly and/or physically stop a jet from chrashing from the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior And you think that he only had to deal wtih 9/11....ON 9/11. That the days following he didn't really need to get involved with it? And I'd like to see exactly where did you find the source that says Bush was on the greens on 9/11 or after? And that statement was for the fact people claim "oh Bush had 7 minutes to react". Originally posted by CapNColostomy I don't know why everybody raises hell about where Bush was during 9/11. What difference does it make? The body count would be the same. Last time I checked people can't fly and/or physically stop a jet from chrashing from the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit I think he's referring to Moore insulting Bush for playing golf, yet many of the past Presidents do play golf, and he hasn't insulted them yet; and also to other adults with jobs who play golf. he wasn't insulting bush for playing golf, he was pointing out that he spent 42% of his presidency vacationing. No other president has done that. Also, his film is about Bush, not other presidents also I dunno about you, but most people with jobs don't spend 42% of their career time on vacation, usually it's about 2%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith he wasn't insulting bush for playing golf, he was pointing out that he spent 42% of his presidency vacationing. No other president has done that. Also, his film is about Bush, not other presidents also I dunno about you, but most people with jobs don't spend 42% of their career time on vacation, usually it's about 2%. I just want to see the direct source where the number "42%" comes from, other than Fahrenheit 9/11. And yes I was aware that the movie is not about other Presidents- but my statement basically meant that Bush is being insulted for doing something, that past Presidents and people have done unhindered. So basically, if you're going to insult someone for doing something, you might as well insult everyone else who does the exact same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted June 30, 2004 Author Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit And yes I was aware that the movie is not about other Presidents- but my statement basically meant that Bush is being insulted for doing something, that past Presidents and people have done unhindered. So basically, if you're going to insult someone for doing something, you might as well insult everyone else who does the exact same thing. Oh gawd, you haven't even seen the movie, so quit complaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by Pie™ Oh gawd, you haven't even seen the movie, so quit complaining Oh gawd, I've already read and seen enough excerpts about F911, with proof that it insults Bush at one time or another. But in PICTURE form, your opinion is presented in a ridiculous manner that cannot be taken seriously, I can see why that would be desireable..... And exactly when did I say that was my opinion? That PICTURE as you say was me expressing how I've viewed Michael Moore, how he is as shown on TV. And that isn't blaming the administration for HOW it handled the 9/11 events.........why? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with blaming Bush for it happening. I'd say his reaction to getting the knowledge of the attacks is part of how he handled the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 You guys can read this if you want some kick ass art... It's even got Voltron for crying out loud! That's what I'm talking about! Get your war on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJackal Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 My brother told me something very funny today. He told me this after he saw Farenheit 9/11. Somebody should make a bumper sticker: "At least nobody died when Clinton lied" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by Prime You guys can read this if you want some kick ass art... It's even got Voltron for crying out loud! That's what I'm talking about! Get your war on! .... I love you.... *wells up with tears of joy* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit I just want to see the direct source where the number "42%" comes from, other than Fahrenheit 9/11. Here. A few more Bush facts Oh and lets not forget this. Lets not forget this can of worms. Oh and here's a lil timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 And Kain gets owned by the url tags "At least nobody died when Clinton lied" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by Alegis Gensan Michael at the bank [/b] You know, I've looked at that assertion that the bank scene was staged. The site tells us that Jan Jacobson, the bank lady in the film, says in an interview that the scene was pretty much forged to make it look like getting a gun there was easy. I ran a search about this. It seems like several articles also confirms this. The problem is that all of these articles are pointless Moore-bashing. And an even more interesting fact is that all the sites had, word by word, the same text about Jan Jacobson and this interview, which indicates they had the same source. The interview itself was never sourced. And it seems like the actual interview is nowhere to be found on google. Seems like just another urban myth to me. Also, you might want to take a look a this site, where Moore responds to all the accusations of the movie being false and forged. He even specifically responds to the "The bank scene was staged!" assertion. "That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!" Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh? Or... The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!" There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film. When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922). Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here). And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior And Kain gets owned by the url tags :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 :eek:Holy double posts Batman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by Kain Here. A few more Bush facts Oh and lets not forget this. Lets not forget this can of worms. Oh and here's a lil timeline. All those URL's other than Time bash Bush and cloud facts in the form of news articles or letters. Overly. And in none of them did I find the number "42%" though I did find the "one-month" statistic. Wage-slave? Real change? Disinfopedia? Common Dreams? Nice site names that can be truely relied upon. You guys can read this if you want some kick ass art... http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.008.gif It's even got Voltron for crying out loud! http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/voltron.001.gif That's what I'm talking about! Get your war on! That guy drew those comics, I just cut, stitched, etc. in a photo editor. Of course the graphics in those have to look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokemaster Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Let me put it this way: no matter who sold the bullets or guns, it's the people who hold the gun and pull the trigger that cause death. Not K-Mart that sells bullets and/or guns. It's the people. Then why punish the financers behind 9-11, they didn't crash the planes, they just provided the means to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by jokemaster Then why punish the financers behind 9-11, they didn't crash the planes, they just provided the means to do it. That's a good point then... hmm... Let's just say we're preventing further attacks and punishing those who are ready and poised to; and in the financer's case, well we can punish them by preventing them from financing further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokemaster Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Let's just say we're preventing further attacks ...we can punish them by preventing them from financing further. Couldn't it be possible for them to limit the types of ammunitions and guns the stores have, and require people under say, 18 or 20 years to have parental permission or something? Think about it, if there's less ammo types, then the kids can only use weapons used for hunting and not much more, and if they need permission, the parents know what they're up to. Of course, there's a chance that, like with movies and video games, the law or whatever will go ignored by many stores. And I'm taking this whole 9/11 arguement like a court of law, listen to both sides of the arguement, then deciding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 All of that would be perfectly fine if we didn't place the blame, at least all of the blame, of the deaths on K-mart, or whatever the analogy matches up to. What I've been referring to is where the blame/all-out punishment should be cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.