scott_harpell Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 interesting choice, Scott. Enjoy the taste of your own petard.. (i'll explain the reference if it eludes you) I think Moore is too honest to be making political films. Which is it Scott? Is Moore a lying bastard, or "too honest?" Maybe you should pick more consistent sources. Hell, maybe you should think for yourself. Maybe you should give up and get some sleep. That was a very 'Moorish' edit... thanks for the example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 But Michael Moore is soooo last page of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 are you saying that he fabricated large portions of his doc and that's ok? or that he didn't fabricate his doc? Make your position clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Really? I'm flattered. Explain to me how that quote was out of context. The author does not agree with MM, but that quote is in no way out of context. The link, however, was irrelevant. So you found another fringe website that doesn't like MM; so what? Shall I post the numerous websites that don't like Scott Harpell? What does it add to the argument (remember, we're discussing whether or not MM decieves or lies merely to line his well-padded pocket). Stick to the topic, you're boring me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 1. The "Revolving Door" and Willy Horton. To illustrate politicians' willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor Dukakis. The ad begins with a "revolving door" of justice, progresses to Willie Horton (whom Dukakis paroled after a murder conviction, and who is black), and ends with dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." Fact: Bowling splices together two different election ads, one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton). Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added the subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." Fact: Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting, whose place and date had been fixed years in advance. Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 are you saying that he fabricated large portions of his doc and that's ok? or that he didn't fabricate his doc? Make your position clear. wtf are you saying here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Heston's Actual Speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Really? I'm flattered. Explain to me how that quote was out of context. The author does not agree with MM, but that quote is in no way out of context. The link, however, was irrelevant. So you found another fringe website that doesn't like MM; so what? Shall I post the numerous websites that don't like Scott Harpell? What does it add to the argument (remember, we're discussing whether or not MM decieves or lies merely to line his well-padded pocket). Stick to the topic, you're boring me. Unfortunately, Moore devoted much of the film to demonizing harmless, law-abiding gun owners and the NRA. It was never made clear exactly why he disliked them so much, but he obviously felt comfortable denigrating certain groups while protesting the similar treatment of others. One of his odious methods was to interview people from the lunatic fringe of the gun culture, then cut to images of mainstream gun owners and their organizations. Imagine Moore's outrage if a wacko right wing filmmaker used the same technique to associate responsible African-American citizens with radical black racists. There is another quote from the article... read the whole thing not just the points that you agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 I am not suprised you are resorting to ad hominim arguments, but what else can you do when you have no facts to back up your side other than the voice of moor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 1. The "Revolving Door" and Willy Horton. To illustrate politicians' willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor Dukakis. The ad begins with a "revolving door" of justice, progresses to Willie Horton (whom Dukakis paroled after a murder conviction, and who is black), and ends with dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." Fact: Bowling splices together two different election ads, one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton). Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added the subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." Fact: Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting, whose place and date had been fixed years in advance. Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. source ok - you're back on topic. The Bush campaign cannot 'plausibly deny' (remember that gem from the Regan years?) the tight correlations between itself and 'an independent expenditure campaign' the two were tightly knit, and led by Roger Atwater. Atwater repented of playing the race card during that campaign on his deathbed. The point is, Bush shamelessly played the race card that election...hell, he defined it for future generations. I don't believe anywhere in the movie did MM imply that the NRA meeting was held because of Columbine, rather, he was expressing his (and the parents') disgust that it would continue despite Columbine. I remain unconvinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Did you read?!? It was according to the law that they meet! Sheesh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Did you read?!? It was according to the law that they meet! Sheesh! Yeah, I've seen that law...it reads: "THE NRA MUST MEET IN DENVER, COLORADO. MOVING THE MEETING OUTSIDE OF DENVER COLORADO IS A VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES PENAL CODE AND CHARLSTON HESTON WILL BE SHOT DEAD ON SIGHT IF THE MEETING IS MOVED." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Current Score on this thread. First one to 20 wins. Squid = 7 Joshk = 6 Scott Harpell = 10 j_b = 3 klenke = 3 cracked = 17 All others = 2 or less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 (edited) The point is, Bush shamelessly played the race card that election...hell, he defined it for future generations. Apparently you don't know your history very well. The Willy Horton issue was first floated by Al Gore during his failed primary race against Dukakis. It was later revived in the general election as an issue by the Bush 41 campaign. Nice try. Edited May 14, 2004 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. similar to a stockholders meeting... did they get cancelled because of september 11th? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 really guys, admit here on page six, don't you really wish you'd let me hijack this phrase into griping about pad people lingo instead of whacking each other like a punch and judy show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 "That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss." This was a telling moment in "Bowling for Columbine," as it illustrated two of the film's major weaknesses, the first and most nauseating of which is Moore's shameless attempt to exploit the slaughter at Columbine for personal gain. The second of which is the deliberate distortion of the facts and the horrendously flawed logic that he employed in an effort to lay responsibility for the massacre of the students at Raytheon's feet rather than where it belonged, with the two sick, sorry-ass, dickless pieces of shit who constituted the "Trenchcoat Mafia." Yeah - if it weren't for the corrosive effect which Raytheon's presence had on the town's morals, these two hapless victims of the said corrosion might have known that the serial execution of their classmates was wrong. Right - these two individuals weren't responsible for what happened, the blame doesn't rest squarely on their shoulders - they were just two more victims of that horrible corporation. Jesus Fucking Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Raytheon is a scumbag company. Nevertheless, Raytheon had nothing to do with the Columbine tragedy. Moore is a fat ass mouthpiece of a marginal group of extremist thinkers. Limbaugh is a fat ass mouthpiece of a marginal group of extremist thinkers. No difference IMO other than Rush being a drug addict and a little less intelligent. Both of 'em deserve a good 'ol country ass whuppin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Current Score on this thread. First one to 20 wins. Squid = 7 Joshk = 6 Scott Harpell = 10 j_b = 3 klenke = 3 cracked = 17 All others = 2 or less Will = 75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 "That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss." This was a telling moment in "Bowling for Columbine," as it illustrated two of the film's major weaknesses, the first and most nauseating of which is Moore's shameless attempt to exploit the slaughter at Columbine for personal gain. this is ludicrous. pretty much all film makers have told the stories of people involved in tragedy. it doesn't necessarily mean they have "exploited slaughters". did spielberg exploit the slaughter of jews in schindler's list? did bunuel exploit the starving spanish in los olivados? did mel gibson exploit the murder of jesus? may be they all did at some level, but michael moore certainly does not stand out. The second of which is the deliberate distortion of the facts and the horrendously flawed logic that he employed in an effort to lay responsibility for the massacre of the students at Raytheon's feet rather than where it belonged, he does not place anymore blame on raytheon than on walmart, the gun culture and the nra, the glorification of violence and the goon mentality, etc ... you can say that he distort facts or show flawed logic all day long, until you show specifically that it is the case, it'll remain an unsubstantiated opinion with the two sick, sorry-ass, dickless pieces of shit who constituted the "Trenchcoat Mafia." Yeah - if it weren't for the corrosive effect which Raytheon's presence had on the town's morals, these two hapless victims of the said corrosion might have known that the serial execution of their classmates was wrong. Right - these two individuals weren't responsible for what happened, the blame doesn't rest squarely on their shoulders - they were just two more victims of that horrible corporation. Jesus Fucking Christ. what a wonderful use of nuances ... again, moore does not say that raytheon is specifically responsible so your criticism does not hold any water. second pointing the fingers at the kids (or demonizing them)without describing their environment is totally meaningless. to suggest that these kids (or all modern mass murderers) did what they did just because of genetics or because the parents did not teach them right from wrong is simplistic. bfc is in part a movie about the culture of violence which when conditions are ripe (kids, families, etc ...) leads to disaster. some people are exposed to this culture and don't go about killing people, yet in some cases we see the result. it's also a movie about how violence is a banal part of our environment through media, institutions, businesses, etc ... it's a very good movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 this is ludicrous. pretty much all film makers have told the stories of people involved in tragedy. it doesn't necessarily mean they have "exploited slaughters". did spielberg exploit the slaughter of jews in schindler's list? did bunuel exploit the starving spanish in los olivados? did mel gibson exploit the murder of jesus? may be they all did at some level, but michael moore certainly does not stand out. None of the examples you cited fabricated or manipulated the facts to achieve a political agenda. Moore did. he does not place anymore blame on raytheon than on walmart, the gun culture and the nra, the glorification of violence and the goon mentality, etc ... you can say that he distort facts or show flawed logic all day long, until you show specifically that it is the case, it'll remain an unsubstantiated opinion Have you read a single link ANYONE has posted? All most all of them CLEARLY point out where he lied, manipulated, or distorted facts. Refusing to look at and acknowledge the proof doesn't give you a free pass to keep saying it doesn't exist. what a wonderful use of nuances ... again, moore does not say that raytheon is specifically responsible so your criticism does not hold any water. second pointing the fingers at the kids (or demonizing them)without describing their environment is totally meaningless. to suggest that these kids (or all modern mass murderers) did what they did just because of genetics or because the parents did not teach them right from wrong is simplistic. bfc is in part a movie about the culture of violence which when conditions are ripe (kids, families, etc ...) leads to disaster. some people are exposed to this culture and don't go about killing people, yet in some cases we see the result. it's also a movie about how violence is a banal part of our environment through media, institutions, businesses, etc ... it's a very good movie. Whether it's good or not is a matter of taste. However, it's still fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 you apparently think that repeating the same unsubstantiated bs often enough will eventually be perceived as truth. your short but plentiful posting history provide ample evidence of this. every charge of distortion in bfc i have read has either been credibly answered by moore himself or just did not hold any water or was really minor. if you have a specific instance of moore lying in bfc, tell us what it is along with the evidence necessary to assess its veracity. pointing to websites cointaining the same unsubstantiated assertions is circular. we also all know that you have lots of time to waste on empty one-liners and put downs. we also all know that you think having the last post amounts to evidence of 'winning' the argument. so this time make an effort: no 'switch and bait', no 'dodge and insult'. say something new and substantiated by facts for once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 you apparently think that repeating the same unsubstantiated bs often enough will eventually be perceived as truth. your short but plentiful posting history provide ample evidence of this. every charge of distortion in bfc i have read has either been credibly answered by moore himself or just did not hold any water or was really minor. if you have a specific instance of moore lying in bfc, tell us what it is along with the evidence necessary to assess its veracity. pointing to websites cointaining the same unsubstantiated assertions is circular. we also all know that you have lots of time to waste on empty one-liners and put downs. we also all know that you think having the last post amounts to evidence of 'winning' the argument. so this time make an effort: no 'switch and bait', no 'dodge and insult'. say something new and substantiated by facts for once. You keep singing the same song. Why not just admit your argument doesn't hold water? I DID exactly what you claimed I haven't done. Why don't you go back and read the link I posted, where it specifically points out MM lies, specifically points out spliced tape to change the meaning, specifically points out misleading facts, then come back here and explain to us how how or where they were discredited. Otherwise, you're just dodging, as you've done this entire thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 if you have a specific instance of moore lying in bfc, tell us what it is along with the evidence necessary to assess its veracity. pointing to websites cointaining the same unsubstantiated assertions is circular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Why don't you go back and read the link I posted, where it specifically points out MM lies, specifically points out spliced tape to change the meaning, specifically points out misleading facts, then come back here and explain to us how how or where they were discredited. Otherwise, you're just dodging, as you've done this entire thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.