# Michael Moore is in trouble...



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

There is a growing movement to the south of us to remove Michael Moore's recent Oscar for "Best Documentary".

It's not so much that he is an unrepentant lefty, in a world that is rapidly moving to the right...it's actually because he has stepped so very far from the truth with "Bowling for Columbine".

He has created new dialog, staged events and presented them as real, mixed and matched statistics from different sources and presented outright lies as if they were the truth. This is well-documented...as are his previous departures from reality.

This puts him into the "Fiction" category. It disqualifies him from the "documentary" classification. Once and for all.

And a great number of people are starting to question his "facts"...not to mention his "motives".

He counters this by saying that his movies and books are "just political satire and are regularly found in the "comedy section" of most bookstores and video rental outlets." (Does this TELL you something? It should!)

He then finishes this question off with a laugh and leaves in his chauffeur-driven limosine while drinking expensive ...and very old...French Champagne.....no doubt he is chuckling all the way to the bank.

He is a ficticious man making ficticious "documentaries" and is busily cheapening a subject that needs to be looked at with a serious eye, by ALL of us.

Too bad that a lot of people still deign to take him seriously.

To these people, I would just like to say....


WAKE UP!!!

And read ALL of the links in this URL. Revoke the Oscar

[ May 06, 2003, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I am far more concerened with the travesty of the Pulitzer Prize awarded to the Stalin apologist, Walter Duranty, who denied the planned Famine-Genocide in Ukraine that killed 7 million people.

To this day, it remains a black mark on the NY Times, the Pulitzer Prize committee and of course cheapens the memories of the millions that died so horribly at the hands of one the world's evil dictators.

http://www.uccla.ca/

A far greater "wrong" than some "leftie pinko commie hack" who won an Oscar for a documentary.

A little perspective, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good point, macspectrum.  

How would you rate the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat? A known terrorist...and an active supporter of terrorism to this very day?

Or the awarding of the same Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter...just after he negotiated a deal with the North Korean government that gave them all of the raw materials they needed to produce an atomic bomb...in exchange for the "promise" that they wouldn't actually produce such a weapon?

(in a Mr. Rodger's voice) "Can you say naieve?" Can you say "we are a bunch of idiots?" 

If not...then I suggest that we all practice. Lots!!!


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

dude, can you list some of these fictitious events?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Read the links in my first post. 

Carefully! 

It's all there...and is being reported by radical yellow-press rags like the "Wall Street Journal"...among others.

Look for yourself, and you will see.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Here's what's in the "OpinionJournal" which is NOT the right wing Wall Street Journal but is owned by the same. There is no reference to Michael Moore or revoketheoscars.com via WSJ search. We will have to trust macnutt's "company" connections.









This surely warms the cockles of the rabid right.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110003435

"The battle of Iraq may be over but the warriors for peace struggle on. Theirs is not an easy road, particularly, we hear, in the entertainment industry, which is packed with notables fresh from their vocal campaign against the war, the president, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney--objects of scorn in all the best circles, from Paris to California. 
Now, it appears, some celebrities worry about damage to their careers. The Dixie Chicks have taken a hit. ......
(guess what, ..they're bigger than ever!)









The "revoketheoscar.com" folk *do not wish you to know who they are* and are proxy registered no doubt to keepthe financial donation that they request of you from the prying eyes of the Internal Revenue Service.

You too like these "honest" folk can hide from them and other law enforcement agencies here:
http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*macnutt said:
[moore has] staged events and presented them as real *

You mean like the US army did in Iraq by having some Iraqis tear down the Saddam Statue?

*
a great number of people are starting to question his "facts"...not to mention his "motives".

He counters this by saying that his movies and books are "just political satire and are regularly found in the "comedy section" of most bookstores and video rental outlets." (Does this TELL you something? It should!)

He then finishes this question off with a laugh and leaves in his chauffeur-driven limosine while drinking expensive ...and very old...French Champagne.....no doubt he is chuckling all the way to the bank.
*

You can't deny that Moore stretches the truth somewhat, sometimes a lot. This does not however make him evil or wrong for making his movies. Often times they are found in the humour/comdey sections and this does tell me something: That using humour and comedy have been, are now, and will probably always be the best way to get a point across to everyday people. No doubt there are people who take what he says face value, but most of us don't.

I also don't believe as you seem to that while not on camera he perpetuates a corporate/celebrity stereotype by chucling all the way to the bank drinking champagne in his limo either. Do have basis for this fact? I'll believe it when I see it thanks.

Like I said, you can't deny that he stretches the thruth, but this does not mean that his movies (specifically Bowling for Columbine) have not raised questions about american society that are unfounded. Why are there so many gun deaths in the states anyway? 

Here's an idea, instead of playing Mr. Moore as an evil lie telling bastard and focusing your energy on tearing him down, why not concentrate on getting more accurate facts across?

History has told us that there is no such thing as bad publicity, so every time you bring him up in an attempt to tear him down, you are only going to fuel his popularity. 

--PB


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Yes, “Bowling For Columbine” was an exaggeration, but the satire was extremely funny. I had some good laughs. I have a friend who lives in New York. He saw the movie and said there was a lot of truth to what Michael was portraying, albeit blown a bit out of proportion. But then, how successful would it have been if without the drama and poignant portrayals of the “gun society”. If it weren’t so successful, he wouldn’t have gotten his word across and make a lot of people stop and think for a moment. Getting people to actually _think_ about their society or government in itself is a worthy motive. In this case, we have the “Charlton” view on one hand and the “Michael” view on the other. People can weigh the information and arrive at their own conclusions. Michael's was just much more humorous.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

i recall that when I taught grade six in Waycross, Georgia, I had students ask if they could bring in their dad's new 20-20 guage shotgun for show and tell. I was shocked at this request, but they thought that I was crazy to object. I did not want guns in the classroom, but the students knew how to use these guns before they were teenagers. I mentioned this to my principal, who said that I should have stipulated unloaded guns, but that they had been brought in to school before as props for class plays!?! This is how I got the name "the dumb Yankee in Georgia". Still, better a dumb Yankee than a damn Yankee that would make a pact with the Devil.

My father-in-law is forever inviting me to come out to Alberta and go hunting with him and two of my wife's brothers. I decline each time. As the old saying goes "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"........and put a gun in my hands and there shall be all sorts of inadvertantly killed animals and people all over the landscape. I shall stick to "shooting" photographic and digital pictures.

8 to go Peter. Remember, give us some warning when #1000 is about to roll across our screens. I have Times Square booked for a grand reception befitting one of ehMacLand's finest citizens.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I agree with Posterboy... Moore does tend to bend the truth in most instances. But they never stray far from the truth. Moore likes to play it up...









I've read in posts and heard various discussions on how Moore "creatively edited" the Heston interview to portray the NRA spokesperson/Actor in a negative light. And you know what? To that I say horse$h!t I've seen "Bowling" twice and I can tell with a great deal of confidence that if there was editing involved, then Moore should give his editor a hefty raise because the majority of the interview is without interruption or cuts — especially in the negative portions.

During a screening when "Bowling" was first released, after Moore had a Q & A discussion about his documentary and how he was especially interested with how the DVD release of "Bowling" would allow him to show the entire Heston interview uncut to silence the naysayers.

Anyway, I find it amusing to see how people slam both sides from either of the media fence for their lies... you can't trust the government, and you certainly can't trust the news... yet the independant thinkers are complete loonies so they're no good either. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. If this is the case — I'm scared.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Thanks posterboy and mannyp, for that boost. Macnutt has finally convinced me to spend the bucks, hopefully to help finance Moore's next opus called ""Fahrenheit 911".
I really don't like Moore's style which is necessarily crude and blunt enough to gain the notice of most Americans and has about as much class as macnutt's posts, but if macnutt's anti-Moore crusade is to have any credence, I must give it a fair chance ,,, eh?

Chuckie Heston's brain is toast







.... hmm .....I wonder if we can pry from his cold, dea.....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I just don't understand....  ....one would think that MacNutt would be proud of Michael Moore. I mean, he was a low-class, no-money hick who worked his butt off (well, metaphorically speaking) and made big bucks. 

Isn't that the "American Dream," after all?

M.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

*He has created new dialog, staged events and presented them as real, mixed and matched statistics from different sources and presented outright lies as if they were the truth.* 


Have you ever watched the news?
The media blows stuff out of proportion and bends facts all the time (Most recent in my memory is the guy that doctored the front page of the NY times, and got fired of course), he is just a news reporter that had much more time to put together his story.
Although some of his points are wrong, and some may be unmoral, I respect him immensly as a filmmaker.
If I could do something like that, then I would have a chauffeur-driven limosine while drinking expensive ...and very old...French Champagne


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

In America, whoever yells the loudest wins and whoever gets shot loses.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Reader reviews sent in to the Guardian.
reader reviews 
This from an American:

Reviewed by: Lynn 
Reviewed on: 14 Nov 2002 

"The film is excellent. I found it to be very powerful -- I went from laughing to crying and left wondering what is going to become of my country. I grew up in a small town in northern Wisconsin and recognized the characters, the mentality, the nutters, and the fright that Moore presents in Bowling for Columbine. It is a very truthful film. I wish that he presented clearer answers. Or maybe I just want fast and easy solutions and there are none for the mess that the US has become."

I think that what the secretive *revoketheoscars.com* folk must most object to is the portrayal of that ultimate symbol of gun fetishists and white suprematists alike, Charlton Heston of *Moses, Ben Hur and the Non-Monkey* in Planet of the Apes in his current and pathetic state of mental capacity. 
I suppose it's just lucky that Moore didn't get near Ronald Reagan.

*revoketheoscars.com* asks for your financial contribution .....








but you are not allowed







to know who they are ....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, Geez, guys... it's not _that_ hard to find out who's behind this.

I mean, these jerks <u>are using Windoze</u> after all...

I just downloaded the MS-Word version of their "sample letter" and opened it in BBEdit.

What did I find in the notoriously insecure Word file?

"James Kenefick Lee Croft"  

That's the guy who's name is in the MS-Word user info, and in the C:\ drive path to the templates.

And who is Jimmy Kenefick?

http://www.jameskenefick.com/jim/index.shtml
http://right-thinking.blogspot.com/

Want a picture?










And this, apparently, is his wife:










Gotta love that Microsoft....  Always being helpful...









 
M


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

at the 1st website mentioned, go thru and read the "About Me" section and the 2nd last paragraph from the bottom is most telling.

4 types of anti-depressants in one year?
weekly therapy?
" I want to rip the head off each person in line in front of me at the grocery store..."

i kinda' feel sad for him in a way.
he desperately needs help and is venting his anger, despair, angst out at moore

more of a symptom than a cause.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Here's a character







reference on the Wall Street pundit touted by macnutt:

John Fund is the former  editorial-page editor of The Wall Street Journal

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0220/cotts.php 
http://www.weaselsearch.com/jfund4654544318.htm

John Fund, the forty-six year old writer on the staff of the Wall Street Journals' editorial page, has staked out a position as a man of integrity. On his frequent appearances on cable and network talk shows, he espouses the position of the right-wing conservatives He is friends with people in the Bush White House. He is a dear friend of Conservative Grover Norquist. He recently met with Vice President Cheney. During the Clinton presidency he wrote often of the terrible acts committed by Clinton against women. On his appearances on Television evangelist Pat Robertson"700 Club" show, he often condemns those who do not live up to the highest moral standards. This conservative pundit seems to be on television more often, than "I Love Lucy" reruns. Although he portrays himself as a voice of the religious right, the never married Fund has cut a wide swath of sexual relationships through-out the Libertian and Conservative parties. He's a regular right-wing Lothario. He is also a hypocrite. 

There is nothing newsworthy about consensual sex between two unmarried adults, even if one of those supposed adults, acts badly. But, when a high profile public person stakes out the moral high ground, that person had better not be standing on quick sand. A few months age, Morgan Pillsbury a twenty-seven year old woman, contacted me with information about her former lover of three years, John Fund. Although, I heard stories of Fund's less than cavalier treatment of women and particularly his Clintonesque treatment of one particular woman, I did not think that information worthy of a story. Amusing gossip yes-newsworthy no. But, the story Morgan told, gave me pause. If her allegations were true, Fund's relationship with her was not only bizarre; it was treacherous and bordered on the perverse ..........


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

redux


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well...I certainly got a whole bunch of you _talking_ about this subject.  

Perhaps now I can get a whole bunch of you _thinking_ about it.

Really.  

As I have stated in my opening post, I think that some of the ideas that Michael Moore puts across in "Bowling for Columbine"...and in many of his other films and books...are pertinent and deserve a closer look.

The problem I have with him is that he scrambles data and makes things up and generally cheapens the message to such a point that no one really takes it seriously any more. 

At the very least, he causes a great number of people to question his motives. ESPECIALLY when there is so much good data to work with on these subjects already availble!







(BTW....as many of you here already know, I am against guns, racism, stupid white guys and a great many other of the very same things that Michael Moore has espoused as his "causes)


And, while all of this debate is going on, many of you here in this community are simply reduced to "damage control mode" instead of working from a point of strength. You attack the people who are questioning his credibility with a fervor that might be better spent in backing his arguments.

John Fund....or whoever...apparently crticised Clinton for his many "dalliances" and extramarital affairs and you use this as "evidence that he is "biased against the liberal/left"....and is therefore not a reliable spokesman.

Perhaps some of you have forgotten that Bill Clinton (or, rather Hillary and her very rich old-money family) had to pay out more than a million and a half dollars during his eight year Presidency to several women who had been abused, assaulted or otherwise wronged by this sad excuse for a man.

It's all there in the public record. look for yourself.

And there is an awful lot of stuff out there in the public record that calls into question Michael Moore's facts on pretty much every subject that he has chosen to fopcus his attention upon.

It's all there if you care to look. Just do a Google search.

Still want to attack the credibility of his detractors? Then you will be VERY busy, indeed!

















Michael Moore takes serious subjects that _should_ be looked at in the clear light of day...and cheapens and demeans them (by outright lying and omitting facts, among other techniques). 

And he does so while making huge amounts of money for himself! 

And he does this while being totally convincing to a certain segment of the population. They think that "he is on our side"...so they defend him with all of their energies, while almost ignoring the original message!

To those people, I would just like to say.....

_WAKE UP!!_ 

We need a really good spokesman who will deal with the really tough subjects that the mainstream media seem to ignore.

And He ain't it!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Wait a minute, what does the fact that he makes money from his creations has to do with it?  Get bent. I guess in your world, in order to represent the voice of the people, you need commune with nature and live off the fat of the land?

Since you've got such dissaproval of Moore and anyone who enjoys his work, why don't you step up to the plate? You seem hellbent on pointing out how wrong he, and everyone else is (not to mention how other people should think, no less), why not throw your hat in the ring.

From the sounds of it, you're who everyone "needs".

Maybe you could start by posting corrections on the factual errors on everything Moore has twisted, or in your words "outright lied" about. I mean, if Moore is standing on a house of cards, why hasn't anyone knocked him completely off his pedestal? It would seem easy, given your opinion of him.

I'd respect a person a lot more if they took the time to really put forth an effort to make a case for their opinion, rather than post a silly diatribe with hearsay and conjecture.

But, then again, what do I know? 









[ May 09, 2003, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: mannyp ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

"John Fund....or whoever...apparently crticised Clinton for his many "dalliances" and extramarital affairs and you use this as "evidence that he is "biased against the liberal/left"....and is therefore not a reliable spokesman."

Not true macnutt:
Try scrolling up one post on this page (May 08, 2003 12:29 AM) and read. ....duh ......









The fact that John Ford in his position as a high profile and morally outraged editor for the WSJ hounded Clinton for his personal affair might be fair but because he carried on with his own sex affairs at the same time speaks to *HYPOCRACY*.

*Bias* is a *preference*. The WSJ is biased and has such a subscription base. Business as usual ...... okay?

*Hypocracy* is a *lie*. John Ford preaches a moral high ground and practises the vices of those he accuses. This disqualifies him as a liar







. It cost him his job at the WSJ.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*macnutt said:
while all of this debate is going on, many of you here in this community are simply reduced to "damage control mode" instead of working from a point of strength. You attack the people who are questioning his credibility with a fervor that might be better spent in backing his arguments.
*

So they can question Mr. Moore credibility but we shouldn't look into theirs, is that it?

While I agree that simply attacking the arguer instead of the arguement is not the best way to defeat said arguement, but simply accepting an argument from _any_ source without looking into who's giving it and from where they are basing their statements is stupid too. 

You yourself often attack Mr. Moore, and your rarely offer more than "He lies and skews facts! _Trust me_!" Why not spend more time telling us where he is presenting outright lies, skewed opinions or misrepresented facts. I think you'd be much more effective that way than just by slamming him.

--PB

<font size ="-1">Edited for some puntuation issues</font>

[ May 11, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let's see.

"Bowling for Columbine"
....hmm sounds like a satire.

Over stating, highlighting, creative editing.
....hmm looks like a satire.

well by gosh Edith it IS a satire.....









and some American's don't like someone pointing out the flaws in their "wonderful world".
Remember it IS billed as a comedy/documentary.

The Oscar was also a political statement by the Academy IMHO.


----------



## mose (Jan 14, 2001)

Hmmm... not sure I know where I stand on this? But probably left of centre.

I have met Michael Moore and I think he is a pretty eloquent and sincere guy. Also extremely intelligent. I also have been yaking to him recently as I wanted to - and did - get the folks who wrote The Cluetrain (I am involved peripherally with this effort) and wanted to see if there was a chance for a MooreTrain???

Columbine was a documentary - but loosely so. It was supposed to be - much like Roger and me it was entertainment - but entertainment that would cause you to think. like "Songs from the Second Floor." Great movie if you haven't seen it.

It (BFC) did get the bullets out of Wallmart and maybe got a small number of folks to think about why the US citizens happen to kill each other at an alarming rate. Certainly a rate far greater than other countries.

I, like MM, am a gun fan. But, I am not a fan of killing folks. Big difference.

I also loved Stupid White men. Read it you will see a better glimpse of MM.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

as an epilogue to BFC;
U.S. Congress passed a bill this week to shield gun manufacturers from any liability suits brought against them.

U.S. Senate to follow suit as early as next week and to be signed into law by Dubya.

No health care for 40 million americans, but let's make sure gun makers, who sell to distributors that have been shown to sell to criminals at an alarming rate, immune from prosecution. 

And by the way, the NRA spends millions lobbying the gov't to spend less on the ATF which is already understaffed and underfunded as it is. ATF is the gov't arm to try and police disreputable gun dealers.

Gun makers say the ATF should be doing the watching of bad dealers, yet the NRA is eroding the ATF's ability to do so.

Burning the candle at both ends?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I find it somewhat curious...and a bit ironic...that a small but vocal group here at ehmac seem to demand exact facts and verifiable figures from anyone whom they percieve to be "right of center"....but are more than ready to accept pretty much everything Michael Moore says at face value.

Heck...they even quote some of his figures as actual "facts"!









And all of this despite the fact that there are a multitude of websites devoted to exposing Michael Moore for what he truly is. 

And despite the reality that Michael himself has clearly stated on major network news shows when he was questioned about all of his errors and ommissions. He told everyone who was watching that "it's just humor and political satire" and then went on to point out that his "documentaries" are regularly found in the comedy section of most video stores.

Wake up, people. It's just an act. And a very sucessful one, at that. He makes noise, and raises hell and is very,very good at feigning outrage...both in public and privately.

And he's laughing all the way to the bank while he does it.









I put him in the same league as David Blaine. A great conjurer, and quite entertaining to watch while he is working.

Trouble is....I KNOW how Michael Moore does his sleight of hand. So do the vast majority of the people who watch him. But we still enjoy it.

David Blaine, on the other hand, has me rather baffled.

I KNOW it's gotta be faked....I just don't know how he actually _does_ it.







  

But I guess that there are people out there who think that both of them are for real. Really.

Sighhh.....(_shakes head_ )


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Macnutt, I don't disagree with you, but as an observer, I have noticed that the only "proof" that you offer to discredit Moore's "facts" is the mention of numerous web sites dedicated to discrediting him. How can the average viewer know that these sites are operated by people without motive? They could twist the truth as much as Moore is accused of doing. I don't think anyone with a level head could argue that there isn't a gun problem in the USA. The question is how accurate or how distorted Moore's portrayal was. My American friend says he is closer to truth than fiction. At any rate, it was food for thought and certainly good for some laughs (the tool he used to get people to go and see it)


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The assault rifle sale ban in the US is nearing its ten year term. The Democrats want this act renewed. The Republicans are refusing to even table a vote thanks to the usual lobbying by the NRA. Without it, the ban will be dissolved. And you wonder why people like Moore (and millions of Americans) question their societies apparent acceptance of the tens of thousands of needless deaths every year?

Moore is still in the best sellers. I'd say his stock is pretty high and will remain so as long as he continues to act as a foil to the many idiocies and contradictions of American society.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

No, MacNutt, the irony is how you expect us to take everything you say at face value.










_On the net nobody knows you're a dog._


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Even more scandalous would be seeing George W. Bush and Tony Blair nominated for the Nobel Prize . 

Nothing like breaking international law, ignoring the UN security council and global public opinion...and then illegally occupying a foreign country to get you the Nobel Prize to make you feel good. 

I tell ya, there is nothing like starting a war to get people thinking of nominating you for a peace prize.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

There is an interesting difference between attitudes of Canadians and Americans where massacres committed by gun enthusiasts are remembered.

Whereas the massacre of 911 rightly outrages all peace loving Americans, they seem to be blind-sided when it comes to them killing their own.

*Americans seem to have a romantic attachment to guns as well as the use of guns to solve problems.* (Surprise! ...eh?)
As macnutt correctly insists, "the right has a very definite basis in reality", as he has posted elsewhere.
Victims of gun violence would surely not argue with macnutt if they could.









Below is news of a "quiet" local anniversary memorial service in Littleton, Colorado:
April 20, 2001 
[ The names of 13 people killed in the Columbine High massacre were read aloud during a memorial service Friday as about 350 people quietly marked the second anniversary of the attack. 

"It's just a time to remember," Chris Bernall said from Littleton, Colo., pausing at a cross bearing the name of his sister, Cassie. "I've moved on. I've had a sense of peace about it, knowing where Cassie is. She's up in heaven." ] 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/29/columbine/main253027.shtml 

Contrast the murdered Cassie Bernal's brother Chris' "no big deal" comment with that of the Canadian mother's comment: 
One of the women taking part in the Montreal Massacre service was Suzanne Laplante-Edward whose daughter Anne-Marie was one of the victims. "Listen, we worked 10 years towards that goal. (gun registry) And don't forget, our daughters are dead. They're very dead. They're buried for 13 years. And I would have grandchildren by my daughter by now." 
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/06/dec_6_memorial021206 

*To solve problems of gun violence, Americans* led by the NRA and the Republican party wants to remove restrictions on personal ownership of weapons which have the capability of murdering large numbers of people in a single firing.

*To solve problems of gun violence, Canadians* have passed the the federal Firearms Act which is a response to the massacre at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique on December 6, 1989, when a gunman killed 14 women and wounded 13 others in one of the worst mass killings in Canada's history. 

The law is meant to help enhance public safety by making it illegal for anyone to own a firearm or purchase ammunition without a Firearms Licence. It also makes it illegal to lend a firearm to anyone who is not licensed. 

*The Montreal Massacre is a National Day (Dec.6) of Mourning in Canada.*
*There is no official US government recognition of the Columbine Massacre*

Members of Parliament observed a minute's silence in Ottawa on Friday December 6 2002 to remember the 14 women who were shot and killed by a gunman at Montreal's 'École Polytechnique on Dec. 6, 1989. 

Federal buildings across Canada flew their flags at half-mast all day in memory of the slain women. 

In the US on the anniversary of April 20, 1999, no federal or state flags were lowered in memory of those children and their teachers who were murdered in the Columbine massacre. There is no official US government recognition of the tragedy of that event.

[ May 15, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Which is why GWBush quietly hides behind the other shrubs when it comes to taking a stand on matters of substance.

The running joke on the Globe & Mail today is the bumper sticker saying "Re-elect Al Gore".


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Macnutt thinks:
I find it somewhat curious...and a bit ironic...that a small but vocal group here at ehmac seem to demand exact facts and verifiable figures from anyone whom they percieve to be "right of center"....but are more than ready to accept pretty much everything Michael Moore says at face value.
*

Uh, whoever said that I wouldn't want his sources verified too? I haven't even seen Bowling for Columbine yet, but when I do you can rest comfortably that I don't take his word at face value either, and if it makes you feel better I would probably look into it a bit deeper than before due to your constantly posting about how much he skews his facts.

--PB

[edit: spelling/punctuation]

[ May 15, 2003, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt 
posted: May 16, 2003 12:49 AM

"Here is a link to a site that I found in about ten seconds. It lists articles from numerous good and reliable sources."

If those are good and reliable sources, let's see the looney ones .....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

That one singlelink, quickly found, contains numerous articles. Some are good and some are not. Read them and decide for yourself.

( _note: I said some people would just attack and ridicule right away, without actually READING anything)_ 

So...I say again. There is a bucketload of this stuff all over the net. LOTS of it comes from very reputeable sources. (Ones that do not have Michael Moore's credibilty problems, BTW)

Look for yourself. Do a google search. Or follow a link from the above site. 

Or check THIS one out.

The Mayor himself posted this one a while back. Michael Moore


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt mused


> . Even the Wall Street Journal has several articles that detail how badly MM has screwed up the data


Wow, the WSJ. A real bastion of independant thinking, eh??? Not like they would have an agenda promoting big business like the tobacco industry, auto industry, oil and gas, the gun industry. Never bite the hands that feed you.

High percentage of gun toting NRA, keep the gov't hands out of my business and accounting practices - "pry my gun from my cold dead hands" - kind of people.

What's next? Articles on how the caribou in Alaska actually enjoy oil and loud machinery?

I wonder how many McDonald's non-unionized employees are members of the NRA?

By the way, I'm still watching the WMD count in Iraq. Let's see now... carry the 4, add the 6..... ZERO.

Tell me again how UN resolution 1441 justified that invasion? Something about WMDs, but seems that the White House says; "Oh yeah, we're on to other things now."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummmm dissecting a satircal piece hardly seems to be a worthwhile exercise of intellect.









Clearly the US has a gun culture.

The US loses thousands of citizens a year in firearms deaths.

Clearly MM worked creatively to point out the comedic/tragic elements to enhance the point and appeal of the movie.

If you want to discuss the US gun culture do so but attacking a cartoonist for his political cartoon .......realllllly


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

for some reason the words *gun* and *culture* just don't belong together.....


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

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

The website points out a number of problems with Bowling for Columbine. Kinda makes me wonder how Moore can call BfC a documentary with a straight face....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Bush and Blair being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Now that has got to make ya wonder.

War is Peace.

Somewhere Orwell is weeping.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Definitely a "hot-button" here, this silly clown.







 

Mention him or his legendary "looseness with the facts" and several outraged voices are suddenly blasting away at me with....ahem....both barrels.  

These very same voices seem to be the ones who somehow have missed or skimmed over many of my past posts on the subject of guns (Posterboy is excused from this group. He seems to read things quite carefully before replying. Mostly)

To re-state an oft repeated stance here....

I DO NOT LIKE GUNS! I don't own one and won't have one on the property. And, unlike 99% of the citizens of ehmac, I have had a long and somwhat treacherous exposure to firearms. And I didn't LIKE it. Not a bit.

I think that Michael Moore has taken a very real subject and cheapened it terribly by spewing out bad data and calling his own credibility....and therefore the credibilty of his subect...into question.

And it's not like he just fudged a few bits to make it more interesting. The man is a liar of Clintonesque porportions. His work is largely fiction and he does not deserve to get an Oscar in the documentary category. Simple as that.

And, judging by how many sites are currently dedicated to exposing him for what he really is (check for yourself), I can only come to the conclusion that the man has become the main subject here while much of the message has been lost.

Too bad. It's a good message.  

And there is no shortage of REAL facts that he could have used to present his argument against firearms. TONS of em!

What a shame.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Here is a link to a site that I found in about ten seconds. It lists articles from numerous good and reliable sources (plus a few looney ones) that refute much of what Michael has stated as fact. both in his books and in his movies. Chapter and verse...with proper references. 

Michael doesn't use these, by the way. They seem to get in the way (_arf arf arf)_ .









Moore Lies.com

Note: Some of the more hardcore left/lib types will instantly write this off as yet another attack from the rabid right upon their hero. They won't bother to read any of the articles or do a further search for more data on the subject. They will, instead, attack and try to diminish the source with an almost religious zeal.(they have so very few real heroes, after all. And they'd like to keep this one alive a bit longer)

I invite all of you who are reading this to do some further research on this. It's all out there, and it sure won't take much searching to find it. Even the Wall Street Journal has several articles that detail how badly MM has screwed up the data, and how fictitious his "documentaries" really are.

The facts are real. Michael Moore is _not_.

See for yourself.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Je confess! ....







.... I've not yet seen BFC, I guess I'll check it out tonight. It is still showing in six theatres here.
I will enter the theatre quite biased as I've always thought Heston to be the second** worst actor on the planet so I'm sure to get some glee from Moore's apparently vicious  attack on him. 
Macnutt's secretive "revoketheoscar" source says that Moore's portrayal insinuates that Charlton Heston " one of Hollywood's few upstanding men







is a callous fool ". Many of us see him as the ultimate icon for white trash







. 
Cold and dead would be just fine Chuckie, just spare us the "acting" ... and you can have the gun.









The Motion Picture Academy is a private corporation that sells advertising space for profit by delivering hundreds of millions of wallets to the client.
There has been no reply from the Academy to protests concerning the outcome of the 2003 votes (5,000) as it has apparently no mechanism for a second vote or any other form of redress.
End of matter.  

According to the CBS, at the start of the Gulf War ll 45% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attack on the WTC even though a month before the Iraq invasion Bush announced publicly that he had no claim to such a link.

What this seems to say of that 45% of Americans is that their beliefs are based on what they want to believe and not based on facts.

*Is this not called seriously deluded *







even though it appears to be the American Way ?  

Moore effectively highjacked the Oscars, an American institution. 
No small feat. 
Who remembers "Best" anything else ?

**Ronald "where's the rest of me?"Reagan #1


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Fact: Bowling for Columbine is the most financially successful "documentary" ever made (one of the reasons it won the Oscar)

Fact: Bowling for Columbine has raised public awareness of gun controls (or lack of)

Fact: The NRA has more financial resources and lobbying power than Malcolm Moore and a heck of a lot more than individual victims. Who else can speak up against the NRA?

Fact: Malcolm Moore hasn't killed over 10,000 Americans every year for the past 20 odd years. His "documentaries" haven't resulted in pain and suffering (except, perhaps, for the mental suffering of gun lobbyists)

Malcolm Moore may use misleading film techniques and exaggerations but there is no getting around the fact that the ethic of Bowling for Columbine is to stand up, to smell the caudite and to question the price of American's love of the gun.

People can quarrel with man and his methods, but his message is gallant and the tragedy he portrays is real.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

*It's All Showbiz Folks!*









Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/politics/16IMAG.html

"On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut." 

"For the prime-time television address that Mr. Bush delivered to the nation on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House rented three barges of giant Musco lights, the kind used to illuminate sports stadiums and rock concerts, sent them across New York Harbor, tethered them in the water around the base of the Statue of Liberty and then blasted them upward to illuminate all 305 feet of America's symbol of freedom. It was the ultimate patriotic backdrop for Mr. Bush, who spoke from Ellis Island." 

"For a speech that Mr. Bush delivered last summer at Mount Rushmore, the White House positioned the best platform for television crews off to one side, not head on as other White Houses have done, so that the cameras caught Mr. Bush in profile, his face perfectly aligned with the four presidents carved in stone."


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Malcolm Moore may use misleading film techniques *


WHAT !!! Now he's changed his name. Just another attempt to mislead us from knowing the truth about his identity.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Whoops, Freudian slip Peter. I work with a clinician at PMH called Malcolm Moore. Although he runs a GI clinic, a research lab and marathons I am not aware that he moonlights as a movie director and author.

Be glad I didn't confuse him further with Patrick Moore, the first TV astonomer in Britain; Gordon Moore of Moore's law fame; Roger Moore aka the Saint and 007 and Dudley Moore of 10 and Peter Cook fame. More's the pity.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and Henry Moore, the "artist"

creator of that "thingamajig" outside Toronto City Hall, called "The Archer"


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

I am now extremely embarrassed for not having seen "Bowling for Columbine" sooner than this evening. 
The tenor of this topic as posted by macnutt now seems to me to distract completely from the overwhelming profundity of the message of BFC for an understanding of the fearfulness at the root of the currently most violent nation on the planet. 
That this film has taken the US and world by storm is not at all surprising.
Perhaps if macnutt has or has not actually seen the film might have some bearing on this.
It goes for denial's jugular and does not let go.
It is obviously intentional bait for the more rabid right wing "revoketheoscars.com" type of trash. Moore even gets them to make themselves proud of their obviously low mental capabilities.
The movie seemed no less factual or no more slanted than most American TV news reports.
Some complaints of some detractors may be reasonable but for the most part almost all urls posted by macnutt amount to partisan name calling. 
Selective editing seems to be the biggie to these detractors but they would have to complain much more loudly about FOX-TV etc. before complaining about this wicked piece of work.
I can see the Academy floored by the technical virtuosity. Two hours plus of dead perfect pacing and not a boring second!
Moore's portrayal of the pathetic and vain Heston gave me no glee.
Heston actually admits that America's love of violence comes from a bloody history of racism and ethnicity.
When Moore asks him to look at a photo of the six year old shot by a six year old classmate, Heston with a face of benign denial shows a cold, dead heart and walks away.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

if heston's heart appeared to be cold and dead, perhaps his hands are not far behind?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I started by forwarding the link re: the Bush/Blair proposed nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize and indicating my dismay at how two men who took their countries to war by invading a sovereign nation, that had not attacked either country, could be considered for a "peace prize"

The following exchange ensued....
========================================================
From: NYC person, lawyer at big firm, staunch Republican
Re: War is Peace

Is there a reason you chose to share this comment ? Your biassed liberal "canadian" sentiment, about Bush and the war, is really of no moment to me. 

=========================================================
From: Michael Kulyk 
Re: War is Peace.

I thought that as a lawyer, being trained in logic, and as a Republican
(less government and more power to the citizenry) you would find it strange,
to say the least, that men who invaded a country ("the war" in your words)
would be proposed to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

It was a link to an article, which I assume you did not read.

It has nothing to do with alleged " biased liberal 'Canadian' sentiment" - a
comment which is the refuge of U.S. knee-jerk right-wing neo-cons.

Just good old fashioned logic.

Unless, of course, you believe Orwell's infamous words that "War [really] is
Peace."
==================================================

And you wonder why there is a idealogical gulf across the 49th parallel.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*macnutt said:
These very same voices seem to be the ones who somehow have missed or skimmed over many of my past posts on the subject of guns (Posterboy is excused from this group. He seems to read things quite carefully before replying. Mostly) *

I certainly try. Whaddyamean Mostly though?  

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just saw a short article on the US news about a guy called Michael Wilson who is in the process of making a documentary about Michael Moore. He has already gotten a whole bunch of very in-depth interviews from celebrities (not just right-wing ones, either!) who have some very illuminating things to say about poor Mr. Moore and his particular brand of legerdemain. They showed a clip of Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) talking about how he uses every sort of method of misdirection known to man in his Las Vegas act....and how Michael Moore does the very same thing in his act. Penn then said " at least WE tell everyone that it's NOT real. HE pretends his stuff IS real!"

Should be a VERY interesting documentary.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macnutt,

Do you know the name of the documentary? I poked around IMDB, but I couldn't find anything associated to a writer or director named "Micheal Wilson".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW....some of you here seem to be willing to justify Michael Moore's questionable methods because they bring important points to everyone's attention. Bullsh*t or bad data is okay as long as the end justifies the means...right?

Right?


Okay then....I propose that we coin a brand new "Moore's Law" here. We'll call it "Moore's SECOND Law".

Anytime one of us has a major relevant point to make....one that we all really need to be made aware of for our own good.....then any sort of twisted factoids can be utilised to bring it to everyone's attention. And no source ever needs to be named. Lies, outright fakery, omissions of relevant realities and huge steaming piles of you-know-what will be allowed....just so long as there is a real issue that needs to be pointed out to all of us.

What do you think? I mean...hey...it works for Michael Moore. Why not here?

"Moore's Second Law"

Got kind of a ring to it, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

JFP...the news item called the documentary " Michael Moore HATES America".

It also promised that, unlike Moore's recent works of fiction, this particular film would actually qualify as a real documentary. Apparently a lot of his leftist friends, who he stepped on while getting to the big time, are willing to dish up the real dirt on the guy. Imagine poor Michael getting a camera stuck in HIS face while sitting on his expensive yacht and asking him to explain some of his more questionable "facts"....especially when the guy who helped make up the bad data is standing right there beside the cameraman.









I can hardly wait.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Moores Second Law seems to perfectly apply to the justification of the invasion of Iraq.

It says a lot that Moores detracters (with the obvious exception of the NRA) avoid challenging his message and instead attack his methods. Talk about shooting the messenger.....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> BTW....some of you here seem to be willing to justify Michael Moore's questionable methods because they bring important points to everyone's attention. Bullsh*t or bad data is okay as long as the end justifies the means...right?


if it's good enough for CNN, Fox News, and the NY Times, it's good enough for M. Moore.

when they start fair and accurate reporting, then there will be a level for others to get up to. right now it's a level others can sink to.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Macnutt's reasonable critique of Moore does not as yet mention the message even if most of those sites he sources are a tad rabid.

Having finally owned up and seen it ... I feel better about any relevant discussion.

Moore's methods where suspect seem to be typical of any current political or especially military press release out of the USA.







:

I wonder if macnutt has seen the film.

Any guesses?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Sorry, maybe I'm terribly naive but I think that one has to have seen BFC to make qualified comments on it.

Those qualified in my extensive reading of macnutt's sources to comment have not revealed in my reading one instance of actual factual error. 
They are upset about editing techniques commonly used to persuade viewers to a political(?) point of view (eg: US Central Command's Jessica Lynch story using "embedded" journalists) that those critics do not share with Moore"s thesis. 

This is why I posted a poll on who has actually seen it.
There has been one response.

The "topic" as worded tells me only that the "right" is upset with the "left" .... so what's new?









Documentaries are not "real" any more than a map is the territory. (Media 101)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macello, I have some really big news for you...

It's not just the "right" who are upset about Michael Moore getting an Oscar for a category that his film did not qualify in. If you care to read up on it you'll find that a rather large number of prominent left/lib types are a tad cheesed as well.

And "selective editing" doesn't cover what he did at all. Not by half. Read and see for yourself.

His film is far more fiction than fact...and that disqualifies it from the category of "documentary".

Or......now this is a possibilty.....are you one of the people who believe that Spinal Tap is a _real_ band and that they kept losing their drummers to tragic gardening accidents or unexplained explosions? Do you believe that, if you look hard enough, you'll eventually find an amplifier for sale somewhere that goes to "eleven' instead of "ten"?

Hey...maybe that was real, as well. Could happen.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

There's an interesting article here about some of the factual problems (along with some other problems) with Bowling For Columbine. The author seems to have a number of valid points.

I used to really enjoy watching Michael Moore's work (including Roger and Me and TV Nation), but after reading the problems in Bowling for Columbine (and hearing that similar problems exist in his earlier work) I'm not sure I'll be able to trust any of the information Moore presents.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I'm not sure I'll be able to trust any of the information Moore presents.


ditto for Ari Fleischer, Donald "cranky old man" Rumsfeld, U.S. military, CNN, Fox News et al.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, *WHOA!* 

Back the truck up... okay, now you're saying Spinal Tap _isn't_ a band?  

Man next thing you'll tell me is that the tooth fairy isn't real.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"does not yet even mention the message'...???

It seems a little remedial reading is in order, Macello. Yet again.  

On page two of this thread...may09 posted at 6:05AM I said...

"I think that some of the ideas that Michael Moore puts across....are pertinent and deserve a closer look.

The problem I have with him is that he scrambles his data and makes things up and generally cheapens the message to such a point that no one really takes it seriously any more.

At the very least, he causes a great number of people to question his motives. especially when _there is so much GOOD data to work with_ on these subjects already available."

Then, on page 3...posted may16 at 12:38AM...

"I think that Michael Moore has taken a very real subject and cheapened it terribly by spewing out bad data and calling his own credibility...and therefore the credibility of his subject...into question."

Sort of sounds like I GET the message, doesn't it Macello? There's lots more...if you care to actually _read_ my posts instead of skimming.  


And besides...that's not the subject of this thread. The subject is this:

Michael Moore got caught lying and falsifying data. He then publicly said that "it's only political satire and humor"...but he still submitted it as a _documentary_ , and was given an Academy Award for "Best Documentary".

And now a WHOLE BUNCH of people are questioning why his political satire was awarded a serious Oscar in a category that it did not qualify for. A growing number of people are stating publicly that he should give it back.

Just as the Grammy for Milli Vanilli had to be given back when it turned out that they were faking it.

Sure...he has a good message. And he is entertaining, no doubt. But it is NOT a documentary, and he does NOT desrve an Oscar in that category.

Like I said earlier, if he gets to keep his Oscar for "Best Documentary" then Rob Reiner should be given a "Best Documentary" Oscar for "This is Spinal Tap" retroactively.

And for the very same reasons. Humor and satire masquerading as reality.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Question then.

What if all the voting acadamy members came out and voted because they were is support of the message, not so much the man presenting them?

If people go and see the film and leave thinking about the issues that are raised, and hopfully maybe even thinking they deserve more research, is the goal of the documentary not achieved?

Regardless of how much data was stretched or misprepresented (I have yet to read anything saying he out and out falsified any info. I haven't read all the link presented here either though), why don't the can't the ends justify the means? They do for basically every reporter on the planet. Just try and find an article in a major news paper that doesn't leave out facts and present others as far more important as they really are.

The problem with this whole thing is bias. It is nearly impossible to find anything written without it. It is a subconcious thing for a writer to weave their own thoughts and opinions into supposedly unbiased presentations, be they written, photographed or made into a documentary.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I suggest that you take a few moments and read all of the links that have been presented so far on this subject. They show, chapter and verse...and in very great detail...how Michael Moore _falsified data_ and made up facts. Facts that a lot of people have been quoting as reality. Even here at ehmac.

They are not real facts. Michael Moore has stated that his "documentary" is actually a work of political satire. It is NOT a documentary and does not deserve an Oscar in that category.

And _that_ is what this thread is all about.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum,

So, in your eyes, Micheal Moore is as trustworthy as Donald Rumsfeld? Interesting!


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

jfpoole,

What makes Rummy trustworthy given his admission today that there are no WMD in Iraq? 

With all the intelligence at his disposal?

One intelligence official said Mr. Rumsfeld had become irritated by disagreements within the intelligence community over the possible links between Iraq and the Qaeda network. Before the war, some Pentagon (news - web sites) officials expressed frustration over what they perceived to be excessive caution on the part of C.I.A. analysts who found scant Qaeda-Iraqi connections, according to several intelligence officials. 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=18&u=/nyt/20030522/ts_nyt/prewar_views_of_iraq_threat_are_under_review_by_c_i_a_ 

"Rumsfeld has repeatedly expressed optimism that it is just a matter of time, and of interviewing enough senior Iraqi scientists and former government officials, before military teams uncover the illicit arms that President George W. Bush cited as a major reason for attacking Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein's rule."

*This Just In*  
NEW YORK Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested publicly for the first time that Iraq may have destroyed chemical and biological weapons before the war there, a possibility that senior U.S. officers in Iraq have raised in recent weeks. 
 http://www.iht.com/articles/97762.html

This does make Moore look good ... or did Rummy make an "honest" mistake?









You can be sure that your esteemed source, hardylaw.net won't be examining this!
Home Page of David T. Hardy (hardylaw):
"The Hardys have been providing speedy justice







in Arizona since 1871, when an outlaw named Nathaniel Hickman fled justice in Ft. Lyons, Colorado and escaped to Arizona."

Here's a page showing a Lockheed Martin's splash page Hardy's "Swords to Plowshares" company.

Hardy's critique is as selective as is Michael Moore's.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macello,

What? No comments about the _actual content_ of the link I provided?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

JFP...this is macello's standard dodge when his arguments are countered by compelling data to the contrary. He switches the subject and points his finger at something totally off-topic. That's SOP for the shrill leftist types. (I suspect that it's taught during their indoctrination).









So....macello...now _I'M_ also asking you if you care to comment on the subject of this thread, and have you checked out the link that jfpoole kindly provided?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Has anyone sued Moore over Bowling for Columbine?

Legal action is usually an indicator of blatant misrepresentation of the facts, especially given his deep pockets.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole mused


> macspectrum,
> So, in your eyes, Micheal Moore is as trustworthy as Donald Rumsfeld? Interesting!


if you discount Moore then fine.
BUT, you must in the same tone discount the propoganda machine known as the White House, the Cabinet and PNAC.

if you do not discount PNAC et al, then you must allow an "artist" like Moore some wiggle room or is that reserved hallowed ground for the neo cons and their lackies??

If Moore exaggerated, then Rummy lied.
WMD count to date still ZERO !

lies, lies and more lies.
and the avg. amerikan gets laid off, 40 million with no health care, but damn!!! those flags look good when you wrap yourself up in them !!


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

jfpoole: "macello, *What? No comments about the actual content of the link I provided*?" 
Do you speak of "hardylaw.com" and the other certifiable right wing Pit Bulls... sites?
It certainly has been a source of amusement since this topic started, especially the hunt for the various site owners' "credentials". 
I cannot find compelling "data" on hardlylaw's







"_The Hardys have been providing speedy justice in Arizona since 1871_ " site.
Hardy's hardly unbiased given his client list and his sources are the usual rabid BS. His Lockheed Martin BS I've shown by taking you to that company's web site. L-M is currently under contract to develop tactical nuclear weapons as I've shown in a prior post.

Please point me to "data" NOT from a right wing small town lawyer in AZ or other certified Republican ideologues .... This is your authority?







That anyone finds Hardy credible is laughable. Look at his anti gun control and anti environmental protection papers. His bias speaks for itself and at least he's proud of it. 
FOLLOW THE MONEY KIDDIES!
Hardy's defense of the NRA (his client) and the brain dead Heston only works for the gun freaks. 
Charlton Heston *IS* a callous fool. 
If you have seen the film you KNOW this.
End of matter.

Revoketheoscars.com is even more pathetic given the source:
http://www.right-thinking.com/
... and his incarnation as a "right-thinking" porn peddler ... 
(hint) ... jameskenefick ....

Moorewatch, Moorlies and many others posted by macnutt seem to share the same server in Arizona and are either for sale or begging for money







. 

Documentary film is non-fiction as characters portrayed actually exist where in fiction they do not. (Media 101)
Documentary film is NOT news footage. (Media 101)
Documentary film is not plot driven as is fiction. (Media 101)
Documentary film is an artistic pursuit. (Media 101) 
Documentary is subject to artistic license and constitutional freedom of expression. (Media 101)
Documentary film is edited at the "pleasure" of the maker to his or her wishes. (Media 101) 
Example: "Reefer Madness"?

That the right wing posers as "critics" lack basic post grade school knowledge of literature and communications is self evident and sadly laughable in the context of their concept of what is and is not acceptable in a work of art ... little wonder for the most part they seem to be artless folk who want politicians to control artistic production. Granted this is normal Republican dogma.

*The subject of this thread suggests that Michael Moore is in trouble*.









*Macnutt: care to comment*?

Okidoke .... 
No, Michael Moore is not at all in trouble. 
He is by US law fully protected from prosecution.
He has helped to make America a safer place:
_Saturday April 5, 2003 4:20 AM SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Wal-Mart agreed Friday to immediately suspend sales of rifles and shotguns in its 118 California stores, following nearly 500 violations of state firearms laws in six stores._ 







No trouble there, I hope.

His business is ROARING:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story608.html
"_Visitors flock to Michael Moore site Posted: 31 March 2003 By: Caroline White Email: [email protected] 

Film-maker Michael Moore's web site gained more hits than any other political site in the world following his controversial Oscar speech last week. 

British viewers made up 16 per cent of the hits to michaelmoore.com, after they saw him make his 'Shame on you, Bush' speech during the ceremony in which he won the best documentary award for 'Bowling for Columbine'. 

According to research from Hitwise, the site captured nearly 8 per cent of the market share, and figures show that 6.27 per cent of visitors bookmarked the site._ 

Important endorsements:
_The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and I would like to extend our praise and congratulations to Michael Moore on Bowling for Columbine?s Oscar nomination for best documentary. We are very pleased that Michael Moore?s Bowling for Columbine is receiving the acclaim it deserves. The news is the latest success for Michael, whose film explores gun ownership and gun violence in the United States. The film presents to millions of Americans the horrors of gun violence and the destructive attitude within the NRA. His hard-hitting film inspires dialogue and activism across the nation on gun violence prevention. And the nomination helps focus much needed attention on an issue that the NRA wants legislators to ignore._ 
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=450

*Bowling for Columbine  Box Office Total: $21,244,913*   

Stupid White Book: April 20th, 2003 
Stupid White Men is #1 in its fifth month on the German bestseller list. 
#1 in Canada in its 63rd week. And #1 in Ireland and Australia, too! 
And back home in the US, after 58 weeks, Stupid White Men is STILL #8! 

Michael Moore WAS in trouble when the book "Stupid White Men" was released in September of 2001: 
'_Michael Moore may have thought he squashed rumors when he gave an interview to Page Six of the New York Post about why ReganBooks/HarperCollins withdrew his latest book from publication in September. 

The book, "Stupid White Men and Other Excuses for the State of the Nation," which is critical of George W. Bush and others of his administration, has been kept in the warehouse "for obvious reasons," says Page Six, quoting a HarperCollins representative who said that "both Moore and ReganBooks thought its publication would be insensitive, given the events of Sept. 11."_ 

Today the book is still on the top non-fiction seller lists at #8 

Macnutt, Would you care to describe what kind of trouble your opening statement speaks to?
Have you seen the film?

Don't be scared, it's only a movie ....


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macello,

You still haven't responded to any of the claims made on hardylaw.net. Instead you've dismissed the entire website out of hand. Again, I'd be very interested in seeing your responses to the arguments made on hardylaw.net.

Oh, where was the link you posted to Lockheed Martin? You mentioned it in a previous post but I couldn't find it. 

I also find it troubling that you've labelled Heston as "brain-dead". Are you this insensitive to everyone who is battling a degenerative brain disease?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole, even for you, that shot about the "brain dead" comment was a low blow.

it was a metaphor or don't you believe in that either.

killing children is ok, 
selling guns is ok
selling ammo is ok
fostering a gun mentality is ok
40 million americans without healthcare is ok
ken lay screwing thousands out of their life savings is ok
NRA as the 2nd most powerful lobby group in the U.S. is ok (all they do is want guns for members)
huge military buildup in the shadow of the end of the cold war is ok
having enough nukes to kill the worl 10x over is ok
kids not having lunch at school is ok
parents losing their jobs is ok
U.S. economy is in the toilet is ok

but making a little comment about AN ACTOR (with a Moses complex) is somehow out of line?

shame on you. you should know better.

PS - He really isn't Moses you know


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum,

Eh? I didn't call Heston "brain-dead", so how was what I said a low blow?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I gotta back JFP on this one macspectrum.

HE didn't call Heston "brain dead". He was referring to macello calling Heston "brain dead" in his page five post dated may 28 8:26PM.

In that post, macello also referred to the elderly actor as a "callous fool".

And I must comment on the usual leftist method of "dismissing the source"... and therefore not having to deal with any of the well-documented falsehoods that it reveals in Michael Moore's latest work of _fiction_ .

Look around on the "revoke the oscar" site or on "Moorelies.com" and you'll find some very well researched articles debunking pretty much all of the "facts" that poor Michael has used to back up his arguments in "Bowling for Columbine". Some are from very well-respected Newspapers and authors who are not necessarily considered "right wing".

Look around on the net for a bit and you'll find many instances of noteable luminaries on the left rapidly distancing themselves from the redoubtable Mr. Moore.

Just as the well-known leftist publication "Mother Jones" did when it fired him many years ago for stretching the truth and making them look more than a little silly.

BTW....I just saw a short filler piece on TV featuring Michael Moore speaking during a press conference at the Toronto Film festival. He said...quite clearly...that:

"Bowling for Columbine was _NOT_ about gun control. It's about a nation that has gone nuts and guns are just a small part of it. Take the guns away and there would STILL be a huge problem with our national psyche"

He's _still_ crawling around the house backwards. And he can't understand why all of us can't simply do the same. It would be better that way...after all.

















Final note to macello. 

I didn't just watch Bowling for Columbine...I _bought_ a copy for my movie collection. I have "Roger and Me" and even "Canadian Bacon". I've read most of his books too.

I find Michael terribly entertainig. 


But then again, I _really_ liked "This is Spinal Tap" as well. And for many of the same reasons.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

So what you are saying then is that you are fine with Macello making insulting Heston, but not with jfpoole making a statement that could be construed as insulting towards Macello?

How do you drive that double standard anyway?

--PB


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

jfpoole,
*You have to have seen the movie* to understand that Heston has no humane reaction to Moore's description of the horrors perpetrated by gun enthusiasts upon their victims and walks away when confronted by a photo of a 6 year old girl shot to death by her 6 year old classmate.
In my esteem that makes Heston not only brain dead but also devoid of heart, soul and spirit. For that I have only derision. 
This has been his condition long before being struck with Altzheimer's disease.
In BFC, he has been rightly exposed for these truly despicable traits.

As to Lockheed Martin, Hardy lies for sure. L-M has manufactured WMD's throughout it's history. His touting L-M as a "swords to plowshares" tweety-bird is pathetic. 
This proves his lie:
(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued May 20, 2003) 
OMAHA, NEB. --- Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $1.1 million Phase 1 contract to for the U.S. Strategic Command's (USSTRATCOM) Strategic War Planning System Modernization (SWPS-M). SWPS-M is a broad effort to enhance strategic war fighting from operational concept development through planning and execution. 
Plans and coordination for nuclear deterrence, global strike, missile defense, and information operations missions will be conducted through SWPS. 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/data/communiques/data/2003May15908/index.htm 

The type of sites pushed by macnutt et al have no data and if you think that they do you were truly born yesterday unless you regard opinion as data.









*This is data ... OK?*:

http://www.business.com/directory/aerospace_and_defense/military/defense_and_armaments/nuclear_weapons/ 

And this:
http://www.lasg.org/StockpileStewardshipReview%5B1%5D.htm 

Shortly after this meeting of the "stockpile" folk, the Pentagon announced plans to re-stock nuclear weapons and develop new tactical delivery systems.

The above makes those pathetic anti-Moore sites reek of the loud name-calling BS they are. The lack of even-handedness is an early clue for dummies. Even the most cursory name search reveals less than rigorous net presence, to put it nicely. (see my previous post)

My criticism of Moore has been a dislike of his style of delivery which looks like an unmade bed (like Moore). His editing I agree is mildly reprehensible, not to my liking and too typical of current American news reporting standards especially on Iraq.
And I really can't read his book past page 5 .... too loud and ranty for me. But it is changing many American minds away from the Republican "mind" set.  

Having seen the film though, I understand the rage foaming at the mouth of the many right wing pundits as they can target only the methods in very small portions of the film and not the message as one of substantial truth and self-evident power. Most certainly he deserves the Academy Award.
Even counting Hardy and some other's valid points which I find weak given the importance of the message of the film, the "stretches" of editing shown by critics are very few in number relative to the film's 2 hr. running time. They certainly are not serious when compared to Dubya &Co's many nose stretchers over Iraq.

Hardy's mention of "Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award" only gives credence to those who defend Moore's artistic freedom.
In no criticism that I have read here is any fictionalization proven. Editing for emphasis ... yes ... as permitted by rule 12.

In fact, under rule 12-2, if it was unfiltered footage, it would not be eligible as a documentary.

*Here it is verbatim*: RULE TWELVE: SPECIAL RULES FOR THE DOCUMENTARY AWARD 
I. DEFINITION 
1. A documentary film is defined as a non-fiction motion picture dealing _*creatively* with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects_. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ _partial re-enactment_, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on factual content and not on fiction. 
http://www.oscars.org/74academyawards/rules/rule12.html 

Now I await macnutt's explanation of exactly what kind of trouble Mr. Moore hath brought upon himself ........... are we waiting for the black helicopters or Waco or what ? .... or are we waiting for macnutt to see the movie?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

HEY Y'ALL!








I'm the one insulting Heston, a right-wing icon for white trash and possibly the worst actor in history or possibly second to Reagan .... whatever. 
The supreme leader of gun lovers.
The Moore interview in the movie was great like a cat on a mouse ... 
... a false American god-like legend finally exposed in an Academy Award winning film!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macello,

What makes you think I haven't seen the movie? One of the points I've been trying to make is that large parts of the movie are either inaccurate or misleading. Most of the footage of Heston at NRA meetings has been edited so the original tone of what Heston said was lost. Heck, Moore spliced together clips from two entirely different speeches and presented them as if they were from the same speech.

You are, of course, aware of how active Heston was in the Civil Rights movement in the 60s? How he marched along side people like Martin Luther King Jr. on several occasions? He can't be _all_ bad, can he? You could even argue that he is continuing to pursue civil rights since gun ownership is protected by the US constitution.

I'm still confused on how you think hardylaw.net is lying about Lockheed Martin. I can't find the section where the author claims that Lockheed Martin has stopped making military hardware.

He does state that the particular plant featured in Bowling For Columbine is part of the Swords to Plowshares program (and has been since 1997) and is converting missles that were designed to carry nucelar weapons into missles that will carry weather and communications sattelite into space.

You _do_ understand that Lockheed Martin has more than one plant, right?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

jfpoole has just made exactly the point I was going to bring up. 

In the movie, Moore intimates or infers that part of the reason for the teenage carnage at Columbine High was because they lived in the same town as a plant that made "weapons of mass destruction" . He points his finger at upper-middle-class Littleton Colorado as a big part of the problem.

Trouble is....the plant at Littleton makes rocket boosters that launch communications satellites for cell-phone and TV use. Not bombs and guns.

And THIS is just one of his more minor transgressions of the truth.

He did alter and edit together several different speeches that Heston made and show them as if they were made just after Columbine. He aslo added footage from a much earlier Heston NRA appearance where he was awarded a reproduction musket as a gift from the members of the NRA. He then held it up and said the classic "you'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers" to lots of cheers from the adoring crowd.

Michael Moore made it seem like this was Heston speaking IN Colorado just a short time after Columbine!

That is not stretching the truth. That's lying.  

Mr. Moore also made extensive arrangements with the bank that was giving away rifles if you opened an account with them. They do NOT give you a gun while you're IN the bank...and you certainly don't get one without some sort of background check. Michael Moore's research people spent weeks and quite a lot of cash to set this particular scene up so that it _appeared_ as though he could walk in, open an account, and walk out with a brand new rifle.

Pure bullsh*t of course...but the simple minded bought it and were suitably shocked.

And Michael got even richer because he had stirred the pot and made himself into a celebrity of sorts.

There is a LOT more of this stuff, if you just spend a bit of time and read the links. And it has very little to do with Hardy or any of the dozens of others who have posted web pages exposing Michael Moore. They make their own point but then they go on to provide literally hundreds of links to well-established news sources who take Moore's work apart and show it for what it really is....for what _Michael Moore Himself_ says it is.

Political satire and humor. That's it. nothing more.


And that does NOT constitute a "documentary" by any stretch of the term. Not by half!

If that were the case...then "This Hour has 22 Minutes" would qualify as a "documentary series".

It does NOT.

Wake up. 

Defending Michael Moore is something like defending Saddam's right to retain power over the Iraqi people. It may seem terribly right at the time...based on principle...but it'll certainly make you look pretty darn silly in the long run.

Just ask Mother Jones magazine.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> So what you are saying then is that you are fine with Macello making insulting Heston, but not with jfpoole making a statement that could be construed as insulting towards Macello?
> How do you drive that double standard anyway?
> --PB


one is a shot at a public figure, the other just a cheap parlour trick at using the ailment of said public figure to try and diffuse the argument of a stubborn, yet well researched, ehMac member.

the one on one interview between Moore and Heston showed Heston's true "colours"
- problems in Amerika caused by ethnic diversity, my ass - racism pure and simple\
and that is what you are defending?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Doh.... macnutt it would really help your credibility if you didn't keep resorting to generalizations. We've been here before. People who appreciate the work of Moore are not simple-minded.

And puleeze, I don't recall anyone defending Saddam Hussein. You are using the rhetoric of Bush which interprets criticism of his actions as being support of Hussein - a long time ploy of politicians and its way under the belt.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ok, now i gotta connect the dots (didn't think i had to, but i guess i do)

jpoole's low blow was accusing macello of making some sort of anti-people-with-brain-disease comment.
to which great offence was taken, but the horrors i mentioned get not a mention from the Heston defender

i.e. it's more important in your eyes to defend Heston than to defend the plight of millions of Americans

heston is just one man against whom macello may or may not have taken some licence at his medical condition. he's had a very good life. he has put himself in the spotlight by becoming NRA pres.

i speak of the plight of millions of americans - which nobody seems worried about, cause they don't have money and cannot be a real force in today's politial landscape

i hope this explains things
if not, i don't have the energy to go into it further.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

*Sticking to the topic*:

Let it suffice that *Moore is not in trouble* .... or please show me otherwise.

The Academy and others here appear to disagree with macnutt's: "And that does NOT constitute a "documentary" by any stretch of the term". Perhaps the anti-Moore lobby, which has been around much longer than the 2003 event should have been consulted by the Academy before making it's rules.  

Each objection to Moore's editing is invalidated by the Academy's rules. (see prior posts)

Joining two non-fictive clips does not make invented content. It twists for effect in ways that we may or may not like. This is called creative license, something the right wing loathes and is also used copiously by the Republican administration to advance it's agenda. Born yesterday ...were we?









Macnutt regurgitations of Hardy's stuff I have addressed in prior posts. *Lockheed Martin is the largest manufacturer of WMD's on this planet,* 
I do ashamedly admit sometimes to glazing over and even nodding out through his opined pontification ad nauseum.

The Academy has deemed BFC a documentary.

The Academy vote is final.

No credible professional organization has challenged the Academy.

There are no legally based challenges to the Academy vote.

The anti-Moore movement is a political protest movement and doesn't have professional credentials or legal grounds to challenge the Academy.

The anti-Moore movement has all but disappeared from public interst radar since it started. (google)

I have stated my personal criticism only of Moor's style, given that editing for emphasis and effect is permitted according to the Academy. 
My admiration is reserved for the powerful impact that he has had upon the American conscience. Surely the mark of ultimate success!

I slag Carlton Heston (bastard father of Ted Nugent?)







as a very public icon for white trash at my pleasure.  

Of 18 sites posited on this topic 14 are of certifiable political right wing groups and individuals from the porn peddler's







"revoketheoscars" site to the "gunowners.org".  ...... reliable ...eh?

Not to be too insistent,  but we have yet to find out what kind of "trouble" it is that macnutt suggests in this topic.

We need some of that dire portent  from the topic starter. Only macnutt links those that disagree with his views with support of Saddam Hussein or is that his usual name-calling ..... get used to it ...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*macspectrum said:
one is a shot at a public figure, the other just a cheap parlour trick at using the ailment of said public figure to try and diffuse the argument of a stubborn, yet well researched, ehMac member.*

One isa pot shot at Mr. Heston, the other is a pot shot at a a member of our board here. They are both insults, one is just more strategic than the other.

*and then he followed up with:
the one on one interview between Moore and Heston showed Heston's true "colours"
- problems in Amerika caused by ethnic diversity, my ass - racism pure and simple.
and that is what you are defending?  
*

Um, so now I am a racist? with due respect, f*** you. I wasn't defending anyone, I was calling you on a double standard. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on that dude.

If you had been reading, for the most part I have been arguing on your side, even though i don't really like Michael moore too much, because really I think that Macnutt is a little overzealous about attacking Mr. Moore.

Of course, you are quite zealous in your own right too eh? Tell me, do you always turn so quickly on those who call you on these such things?
You seem to have a with us or against us mentality, akin to the current American President you seem to dispise so much. I attack you, therefore I am with them, the racists. Good stuff. Perhaps you have been examining him so closely that you start to take on some of his characteristics?

Just a thought.

Also, do you have to shift twice as often or are there twice as many gears or what? I really am curious.

--PB


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

PosterBoy,

I wouldn't get too upset over macspectrum. He seems to spend his time determining the most offensive statement possible for the situation (without, of course, going over the top). Not to mention the fact that macspectrum is adept at twisting words around and taking statements out of context. No wonder he's such a fan of Micheal Moore!

Neither he nor macello seem to be interested in having a reasonable discussion. macello admitted as much when he said he couldn't be bothered reading some criticism of BfC -- I guess if macello can't dismiss it out of hand (by smearing the authors as "right wing pitbulls") then it's easier to just ignore it.

I'm all for having intelligent discussions about various topics, but when macspectrum and macello jam their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", it makes the whole endeavour rather pointless.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

All this could be argued to the end of the world if the topic was worded as:
*What are the relative merits of BFC?*

If so, the sites submitted as evidence of foul play in BFC would have relevance.
_ Even that of "revoketheoscars" which is run by a pornographer (pornographers for Bush?)._








(This might upset macnutt's feminist sentiments.)

*I have stated my bias as extremely and happily anti-US Republican ad nauseum here at ehmac.*

My still unanswered question relating EXACTLY to the TOPIC is:

*What kind of trouble is Moore in?*

By regurgitating right-wing complaints in spite of the fact that the Academy stands by it's vote, this discussion too easily loses it's bearing on the topic.
All the research submitted here on the edited vs. unedited accuracy of BFC is moot in the Academy context.
Under no circumstance is Moore or any other film maker legally or morally obliged to run stock footage ... yadayadayada ... in real time. That is a no-brainer.
The disputed edits are clearly permitted by the Academy's rule 12 and are the constitutional right of every American.

*Film making whether fiction or fact is a CREATIVE ACT. There is no more a basic LAW of COMMUNICATION.*

The US Constitution is a powerful testament to this.

I have read the (sometimes boring) research submitted. (jfpoole take note ..)
It relates to the relative merits of BFC which IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION.
My discounting it is informed by the TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION:
Macnutt has stated in the topic title that *Moore is in trouble.*

*I THINK NOT*

Instead, the discussion becomes for reasons of political passions: DOES BFC HAVE FACTUAL MERIT? 
I'm glad that's not the topic since in macnutt's vivid wording, I couldn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks and that is why I find the right wing pitbulls research irrelevant in the context of this topic.

That Moore is in trouble with the "right-wing pit bulls" is a duhhh ... really?

I LOVE to attack public figures with whom I disagree because they beg for attention and publicity and that includes the pathetic Heston. His obvious vanity before the camera in BFC was so embarrassing to watch with all of his "hollywood hero" images of himself surrounding him.

*I may defend, question, attack, slag or make fun of opinions expressed in this discussion, but I DO NOT nor do I intend to attack participants personally. 
ALL here have admirable qualities.*

_I hope that posterboy and jfpoole will consider refraining from the very sickening and un-ehmac-like personal attacks._

(Mayor please note.)

I think that the whole business was someone's mistaking my joyous slaging of Charlton Heston as having been posted by someone else.

[ May 30, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Looks like not only Michael is in trouble. Funny how things can replicate themselves, eh


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Let me get this straight.

Slagging a public figure is okay, but slagging a member of ehMac is not?

I guess that uses the same logic macello uses to justify his belief that when Moore distorts the truth it's okay, but when, say, a member of the current US administration distorts the truth then it's not okay.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

A nice heated thread. 









Now everyone needs to step outside like dude love hear and get some fresh air and chill-out for a bit.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

"Time out is up! " says the mayor.  The topic is open again


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I guess that uses the same logic macello uses to justify his belief that when Moore distorts the truth it's okay, but when, say, a member of the current US administration distorts the truth then it's not okay.


public officials of the administration are supposed to *represent* the citizens they work for. something about "government for the people, by the people..."

michael moore is a private citizen and people are "voting" for his art with their $s

moore is NOT a public official and is NOT a public servant
moore never invaded a country on the premise of WMDs


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I've been away for most of the past week, but I HAVE observed this conversation....

In the Fulford Inn... (by this time ALL of you KNOW that a whole bunch of Hollywood types gather here on SSI...)


Guy with the great tan: "Michael Moore has some truly RELEVANT points to make..."

Guy with the PANAVISION jacket: "True...but why does he have to make up "facts" and twist the realities? Especially when there are SO MANY real facts that can be used to make his point??" I mean...it's not like he has any SHORTAGE of real facts to work with??!? This guy...if he was "for real"...could use all kids of "facts"

As reported by the :::

He woulndn't have to LIE at all...if he THOUGHT about it a bit.

It was at this point that MOST of these Hollywood -types recoiled backwards and began looking for the exits.

THEN..there appearred the. redoubtable ZMichawe

Ahhhh.....Michael Moore....

What can I say?


He's VERY entertaining!!

Know what I mean??


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"He's VERY entertaining!!"

Exactly...entertainment with a message, art with a message...amazing insight.


----------

