jokemaster Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit 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. Well, you see, there is actually no one who can be blamed completely, part of the blame is on the person who pulled the trigger, part of the blam is on K-Mart or wherever they got the gun and ammo from, part of the blame is on the parents, part of the blame is on whatever psychologist the kid may have been going to. Same wtih 9/11 there are so many people to blame that nobody can be pointed as the man behind everything, not even Osama Bin Laden. And yes, part of the blame does fall on the U.S. government, maybe not as much as Moore says (I haven't seen the movie yet), but some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 I find it amusing all the people who were so quick to point the finger at Bin-Laden and say "HE is responsible for 9/11" are the same people who are so quick to defend K-mart, even though THEY provided the ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 K Mart SUCKS! I fill all my amunition needs at my local Wal Mart Super Center. Garanteed the lowest prices everyday. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokemaster Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy K Mart SUCKS! I fill all my amunition needs at my local Wal Mart Super Center. Garanteed the lowest prices everyday. Always. So that's why the guy in your av never runs out of ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Its funny that Bush supporters get angry if Mike Moore 'twists facts' but Bush started a war on twisted facts. Bad intellegence? I doubt it. We're the best equipped nation in the world spying on one of the lamest nations and we got bad intellegence? HA!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wilson Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by Kain Its funny that Bush supporters get angry if Mike Moore 'twists facts' but Bush started a war on twisted facts. Bad intellegence? I doubt it. We're the best equipped nation in the world spying on one of the lamest nations and we got bad intellegence? HA!! Welcome to the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Well, i finally got around to watchin most of Bowling for Columbine last night and now i'm totally confused. Admitedly Moore takes pot shots at wal-mart, bush, republicans, nra, lockheed martin and so on, but he also take pot shots at lieberman, news media, democrats, welfare to work and the entire history of the USA. From all the fuss that has been made i was expecting this to be nothing but an ANTI-gun film, but it is no such thing. He seems pretty even-handed in looking for blame... and he even points out that other countries have the same culture (tv, films, music, games) and lots of guns, but they don't have the same number of deaths. Indeed, if he singles out one thing in the film as the cause for all the deaths it is the "culture of fear" factor more than the guns factor. Something that is impossible to prove empirically, but i think he made a good case. The UL has recently started to import the US style of "hard hitting" news and "The world's scariest police chases" etc... and it is entirely true that our fear of crime is dramatically overtaking the actual crime statistics. Gun deaths have started to go up recently as well. hmm. A world where everyone is scared of their neighbour is a world where people are going to overeact. That isn't the sort of situation where you want loads of guns floating around when they do. I thought the most interesting stretches of the film were the "us government supporting murderous people abroard montage" and the south-park-style "short history of the USA". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Its funny that Bush supporters get angry if Mike Moore 'twists facts' but Bush started a war on twisted facts. Bad intellegence? I doubt it. We're the best equipped nation in the world spying on one of the lamest nations and we got bad intellegence? HA!! This reminds me of the Iran-contra scandal; Oliver North acting under pretenses he thought was set by his superiors and even President Reagan. So, suddenly if you act under pretenses, which may be falsh, because that's what you were informed with, that's a lie now? Even if you thought that it was the truth? Good logic here... I find it amusing all the people who were so quick to point the finger at Bin-Laden and say "HE is responsible for 9/11" are the same people who are so quick to defend K-mart, even though THEY provided the ammo. I find it amusing where you found anyone pointing the finger directly, and only, at bin Laden. And I never defended K-mart, I just said that the total blame should not be placed upon them. Well, you see, there is actually no one who can be blamed completely, part of the blame is on the person who pulled the trigger, part of the blam is on K-Mart or wherever they got the gun and ammo from, part of the blame is on the parents, part of the blame is on whatever psychologist the kid may have been going to. Same wtih 9/11 there are so many people to blame that nobody can be pointed as the man behind everything, not even Osama Bin Laden. And yes, part of the blame does fall on the U.S. government, maybe not as much as Moore says (I haven't seen the movie yet), but some. I can agree with this. Let's split the blame up in fractions shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alegis Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 thats stupid. imagine the situation where you decide to steal something from someones house, because you know that person will be away on football training. But, the training is cancelled because the coach is sick, and he returns home, catches you, and you go to jail. Following your logic, its the fault of the coach beeing sick he's in jail. You can't give blame that easily As for Kain, moore does nothing but point to the bush administration and say things, with twisted facts. Bush started a war on twisted facts but not only that, but the regime there is down now, and thats something that will stay there for a long time. What moore is doing is asking someone to stop smoking because it's a "no smoking allowed" zone, but then smokes himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Heh, here's something to stoke the fires... Unfahrenheit 9/11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally written by Michael Moore I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them. Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them. So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by Alegis Gensan As for Kain, moore does nothing but point to the bush administration and say things, with twisted facts. Bush started a war on twisted facts but not only that, but the regime there is down now, and thats something that will stay there for a long time. What moore is doing is asking someone to stop smoking because it's a "no smoking allowed" zone, but then smokes himself They are NOT twisted facts. They are FACTS. None of what is in his movie is made up. They are real people, saying REAL things, that REALLY happened. And I am NOT saying that K-mart is entirely responsible, I'm saying that their role in the Columbine shootings are very akin to the role that Bin-Laden played in 9/11, and while everyone agrees that bin-laden should be captured, nobody cares about K-mart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 They are NOT twisted facts. They are FACTS. None of what is in his movie is made up. They are real people, saying REAL things, that REALLY happened. But I just wonder if he omitted some other REAL statements and REAL things that were positive, instead of just gathering all negatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior They are NOT twisted facts. They are FACTS. None of what is in his movie is made up. They are real people, saying REAL things, that REALLY happened. And I am NOT saying that K-mart is entirely responsible, I'm saying that their role in the Columbine shootings are very akin to the role that Bin-Laden played in 9/11, and while everyone agrees that bin-laden should be captured, nobody cares about K-mart. K Mart had a similar role in Columbine, that Bin-Laden had with 9/11? So you're saying K Mart financially paid for the guns, ammo, trained the boys in using the weapons, and trained them in making small explosives? Damn K Mart. Damn them to hell. You're right. Nobody cares about K Mart. At least not enough. They need to be on the FBI's most wanted list right under Bin Laden. Or maybe right above him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy K Mart had a similar role in Columbine, that Bin-Laden had with 9/11? So you're saying K Mart financially paid for the guns, ammo, trained the boys in using the weapons, and trained them in making small explosives? Damn K Mart. Damn them to hell. You're right. Nobody cares about K Mart. At least not enough. They need to be on the FBI's most wanted list right under Bin Laden. Or maybe right above him. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by Samuel Dravis Heh, here's something to stoke the fires... Unfahrenheit 9/11 we've already gotten that link. CapN it's the fact that K-mart sold munitions to minors. They broke the law in doing that. Also why would a hunting section sell 9mm bullets? who hunts with a handgun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith we've already gotten that link. CapN it's the fact that K-mart sold munitions to minors. They broke the law in doing that. Also why would a hunting section sell 9mm bullets? who hunts with a handgun? Are you implying that I'm somehow disputing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Maybe you are. >_> <_< I don't know, but fahrenheit 9/11 looks like a good movie to watch to me... "I encourage all countries to join the war on terror, now watch me make this drive" Just classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Are you implying that I'm somehow disputing that? no, just saying. *shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 i may regret resurecting this thread, but i finally got to watch this a few days ago (we are a bit behind the US)... Movie: I'd probably rate it a 7 1/2 out of 10. I found it interesting and thought provoking, but also slightly underwhealming after all the hype and discussion. I thought it started strongly, but petered off towards the end. MM's scattergun approach can be rather frustrating, as you often find yourself wiching he would concentrate on one area in a bit more detail, but he moves on to something else. The florida election stuff was ok, but only made much sense if you had read the book. I found the stuff about the bush family, the bin-laden family and the influence of saudi arabia (7% of US economy, etc..) to be the most interesting bits in the film. He did occasionally seem to link things that might not be linked, but on the whole it was an interesting view into the totally alien way that life works if you are part of that ruling elite. It actually almost made me feel sorry for bush... after all he has had people hand him stuff, put him back on track, give him another chance (and funding) so many times that it must appear completely normal to him by now. He must think that everytime a business fails a random saudi person pops up and gives people more money to try again. He probably sees nothing wrong with the way that they all look after each other's interests and act as a big club to protect each other. I've read some criticism of his protrayal of iraq as some sort of paradise (kids playing, etc..) before the US came, and it did strike me the same as i watched it. Although if you think about it life probably WAS like that for a large proportion of the population a lot of the time... unless you got on the wrong side of saddam. BUt anyway, i do agree that it was a little simplistic. THe Bonanza take off was fun. The clips showing Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld etc all saying "he isn't a threat", "he is contained", "he doesn't have weapons" etc... before 9/11, and then saying the opposite afterwards were fun too. I actually got fairly bored once he got onto actually being IN iraq. I thought folowing around US soldiers on Xmas was pointless and dull. Focusing on one berieved mom was moving, but i never like focusing on one individual's plight as a metaphor for everything. You could probably find a mom who's kid had been killed by a kite and use if to make just as moving a point about the threat to the world from kites, but you have to have the big picture to back it up. The second half also suffered from being stuff we already knew, old news if you like, and so not being very fresh. I know it was mostly about bush, but once he went into the war you would think he would have mentioned blair, especially as blair was pretty much the ONLY person in the "cooalition of the willing" who was both willing, and had troops. MM knows all about the UK, and had a tv programme here when no us network would air him so you would think he would be less insular. So, interesting but not great, good first half, boring second. Not as good(well, interesting/unique) as Bowling. the fuss: I've now watched his last two films, and found that the fuss made against them seems to be completely out of proportion, mostly missing the point he was ACTUALLY trying to make and on the whole (appart from a few valid points about his occasional sloppiness) seems to be attacking him for things they THINK he said rather than what he actually said, and using him as a figurehead for ANYTHING remotely "unamerican" anyone "liberal" might have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.