This article is nonsense. Much like other websites in the past which have discredited Moore's facts, this article only tosses facts which are quite trivial. Infact, the author of this article prooves pretty much nothing, because his points aren't valid. Michael Moore doesn't contradict himself in the film, and this article makes it sound as if he does. That is not to say that some future argument won't come along with some merrit, but until then, this article is just a peice of crap.



If you look at discussions on this forum which discuss Bowling for Columbine, you don't see very much progress, do you? I'd say people have generally become increasingly set in their ways since this administration first took office.



You'll find this movie to be far more informative than his previous movies. While it does follow formulas which he first began to structure earlier on in his career, it also has far more validity than previous films, and I think that Moore was aware he would be critized for 'stretching the truth' before he began to work on this movie, and therefore he was careful to be more honest.



I suppose you call yourself an American? I suppose your proud of you government?

There are many proud Americans. Many of them are proud of their government and their nation's values, but that doesn't mean they support the people in government. You don't have to be a supporter of your president to be an American. If that were a law, than we wouldn't be living in a democracy at all.



------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

I don't know about the film, but he goes into that in quite some detail in Stupid White Men. I haven't really persued that matter extensively, but assuming he isn't flat out lieing the book is interesting.



I didn't.
How exactly did you 'know' that before? Unless you're stressing the 'might' as in "We know that Cheney MIGHT be a raving bisexual with webbed feet and a third nipple (but he probably isn't)". I had never heard the Bush-bin Laden connection explicitly stated before.
Considering the wealth and power of the bin Laden construction company, it wouldn't wholly surprise me, though.

I think you're overestimating what people know.

The ignorance exhibited by Bush supporters is almost infathomable. I cannot believe that anyone could possibly be so blind!

How can you call this man a great leader? How, when someone makes a film that discusses his many errors and inconsisencies can you simply say that guy is an ******* and he is wrong?

And let me guess, Gore Vidal is an idiot too? Is that it? He doesn't like Bush and he has many books, but I bet you don't bash him do you? Most of you don't know **** about politics and you're just agreeing with the ideals of your upper class parents that are going to brainwash you into thinking that good old George is doing alot for our country.

It's rediculous. I cannot even believe that anyone could be so mindless as to bash something you have not seen, just because it doesn't come out in support of W.

------------------
I don't want your signature on the same page as mine. It's talking to my signature, and making it feel bad about itself.

No, MeLoN. I call Moore an imbecile because I've never seen anything come from him that didn't make me think less of him. Whether it's all some big "conspiracy" or not (and it's not), I can at least say that of Bush.

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

I find Kroko's first reply to this thread wonderfully ironic.

------------------
GhostOfYoda - General doer of stuff.

Hah Hah Hah...you're so funny Emon...Hah...I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me that.

I did not say that people should not be allowed to bash the president. I simply don't think people should make movies to insult and *possibly* encourage irrational action against their leader.

Tracer, see the above.

Eversor, see the above. Also, the article is very accurate and proves a lot. I do not know whether or not you are a diehard supporter of Moore, but I saw the film too. And the article says a lot that is very true. Moore manipulates his own words and that of people and has a history of doing so.

It would be nice if everyone would stop making absurd assumptions and drawing random conclusions only to throw some sort of insult at me. I am a proud American. I am just willing to give up a couple things more to promote the security of the country and our leader. Regardless of whether Bush is a good or bad president, any damage on that level can and will hurt us. And don't think for a second that I support anything close to a dictatorship. When I say I'm willing to give up a couple more things, I mean exactly that. There is always a place to draw a line. Like anyone else, there are security measures I don't support and others that I would like to see implemented.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited June 22, 2004).]

Even Newsweek has reported on the misleading nature of this film. Newsweek. Go figure.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Tell that to my parents, who refuse to believe I have gotten less and less money back in my tax returns since Bush came to office, despite the fact I presented the copies of my W2 and 1040 statements, showing I've gotten less and less.

------------------
I can't think of anything to put here right now.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but what exactly is Bowling for Columbine about?

Care to be in the slightest bit civilized? Your post is outright offensive to say the least.

I, too, would rather have someone in the presidency better than Bush. I just don't think Kerry is that person. However, if Edwards was running instead of Kerry, I would cast my vote for him.

And Moore does discuss things negatively of Bush...He just does it while contradicting himself several times and excludes relevant facts that serve as a rebuttal to his points. He also makes points that are entirely irrelevant.

IE. He complained that only one congressman had a child in service. So what? Do people not have the right to choose whether they serve or not?

Moore's past and present actions hurt his credibility. I would never listen to a thing he said. If you want to listen to someone bash Bush, listen to someone who does so reasonably and who maintains tolerance for what others believe.



[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited June 22, 2004).]

Note to Wookie06: The mass media is generally conservative. Therefore, it is no shock to me that Newsweek would say something of that sort. Same with msn, nbc, cbs, abc, cnn, and anyone else. Not to mention fox, because they're so fair and balanced. Case in point, Bill O'Reily interrupting people, not letting them finish, and telling them they're flat out wrong. I suppose that cutting them off saves enough time on the show to let him get in more republican *** kissing.

------------------
I don't want your signature on the same page as mine. It's talking to my signature, and making it feel bad about itself.

And you know when the New York Times (super super ultra liberal) bashes Michael Moore, something is up

------------------
"His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

"None knows what the new day shall bring him"

It was a documentary Michael Moore made about guns, violence, etc. in the United States.

It had some valid theses, even if much of it was unfairly constructed to make his arguements seem much more valid.

I'd give both a look, but anything you find shocking or unbelievable should be checked out. Moore has a habit of making so-so arguements look like gold.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

I ask again -- Can you be more civilized in your posts?

More reporters have been proven to be liberal than republican since the 1960's.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/28/opinion/main620207.shtml

Michael Moore is an entertainer, not a political genius. He takes advantage of the blind passion of others and feeds them lies and misinformation and has done so on numerous occassions. Fahrenheit is just one more instance. You want one of his lies? Lets take the bin Laden family for instance. The bin Laden family WAS interrogated before they were allowed to fly. And when they flew out, it was on the first day commercial flights were allowed again. No special treatment. but...but wait, that's not Moore said, so it absolutely can't be true. I mean, Moore is god. He doesn't desire things like money, fame, or anything else. And am I the only one that finds it hard to take someone seriously when their main form of argument is insulting the person they don't like. You know, instead of acting like a respectable human being and treating people with decency.

You think Bush is untrustworthy? Well, you sure as hell aren't much better off with with Moore.

Well yeah, those news organizations are conservative........if you're so far left that you're off the scale.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

Cloud: Specifically, the Columbine shootings. More generally, the culture of fear and fear-mongering that pervades America and its media.

Morf: You would support outlawing critical political speech because it could possibly encourage irrational action against the president? I'm sorry, but that places you firmly in the "Irrational: do attempt to engage in conversation" pile.

Tangentially, I remember an interview that quiet NPR lady did with O'Reilly. Surprisingly enough, he storms out of the studio after he realizes a) he sounds like a jerk and an idiot b) the NPR lady is tearing him apart and c) he can't turn off her microphone. It was awesome.

Are you not capable of reading either, Ictus? As I have said time and time again. I do not support outlawing critical political speech of all kinds. I simply do not support it on the national level by use of movies which: 1) increases said possibility dramatically and 2) brings in a profit by insulting someone.

Also, are you going to tell me that you have to go to name-calling and insults too? You're usually a reasonable debater.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited June 22, 2004).]

The amount that you have gotten back is irrelevant. The amounts that you have paid in taxes each year is what is relevant. The only way you could be paying more in taxes now than before is if you are making more money and are in a higher tax bracket than you used to be. Obviously that would be good for you as well.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Let me just point out that most non-retarded Conservatives also think that Bill O'Rielly is a self absorbed jackass. He is the Michael Moore of the Conservative agenda. All he has to do is make a crappy "documentary" and we're set.

As a documentary maker I find Moore a pretty comprehensive failure. The facts are in there, but the delivery and presentation is extremely subjective. As an entertainer though, he's pretty good in my book.

So yeah, I take in his work with a smile and a grain of salt. I'm not saying I think he's a liar, just that a documentary maker with an agenda is something you should always be careful with as whilst they may not lie they certainly are less likely to present all the facts and angles.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1, 2 & 3 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

And I would complain about that, also.

For that matter, you pay a higher percentage in taxes even if you don't move to a higher bracket. The tax system is graduated, so unless you're in the lowest bracket, every extra dollar you make slowly drives your overall tax rate up toward the rate of whatever bracket you're in.

Getting a refund is bad, anyway, since it means you gave the government an interest-free loan. You should increase your withholding rate if you consistently receive substantial refunds.

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited June 22, 2004).]

That was not irelevant at all. It was during a section of the film where he was discussing how congress had no problem sending people to war from poorer sections of the country, (Flint, Michigan is the example he uses, being as that it is his hometown) but didn't have the guts to send their own kids. Is it right to send other people's children if you would not be willing to send your own? The military is not volunteer only. Some people need to join the army, being as it can often times be the only method which would allow them to attend college.



The article proves points which are trivial and/or otherwise twist quite a few of Moore's own words, making it quite hypocritical. Printed out, that article is nine pages. How many of those pages are probably the author bashing Moore? Just about every paragraph starts out flat out calling him names! He's fallen to the same formula that he accuses of Michael Moore.

------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

I find it so offensive that people demean other people for choosing to serve in the military.

It's also idiotic to say that sending the military somewhere is the same as sending poor children somewhere. That's basically what the argument is. And it is absolutely hillarious that most of those making that same argument are those who have never even served themselves.

We that are in the military choose to be. Maybe some of these morons will quit second guessing our choice to serve someday.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

I'm offensive? Well... yeah I know.

But, to ask that I be more civil in my posts? Well, where's the fun in that? That's what the internet is for isn't it? So we can bash other people's belief's and interests in a consequence free environment.

Or at least that's what the popular belief is.

------------------
I don't want your signature on the same page as mine. It's talking to my signature, and making it feel bad about itself.

You'll grow out of it Melon. Everyone here started out as a little prick. We all(at least I think all) of us grew up and out of that habit.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

Hmmm... so if someone feels strongly that the government has become so abusive that it must be replaced they should be silenced so that they wont cause a national uproar?

Two things come to mind. The American Revolution, which I'm sure is near and dear to all the American hearts, and a much more recent example which I'll leave to you to figure out. Clue: Regime change.



------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

Or you'll become jaded with the entire human race and just wish that everyone except you, and an island full of hot women and good food, are obliterated.

------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

Schming speaks the truth

btw melon, registered date means nothing. It's all in the post count.
------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited June 22, 2004).]

I second that.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

I've heard alot about the President doing the war in Iraq for his own agendas. But what agendas? So far I all I have heard is oil. I'm not even going to grace that stupidity with a comment. If you can't see through that you shouldn't be living with out help. The only comments I've seen by these "hate Bush, Iraq War people" are only convincing to people who don't think beyond what people tell them, and people who already agree with them. Rabble rousing is very effective, seeing how Hitler started his 3'rd reich. (I'm comparing methods not goals so shut up before you make a stupid falme at me) It's just not true if you try thinking thoruhg it on your own for a litle while. Think for your self don't let your party do it for you. Political parties have a nasty habit of changing on you. For example I have fealing that the Republican party is drifting tward liberalism. Still, it's that not bad yet.

Buy the way facts can be portraied to make anything look like the truth by leaving out info and presenting it correctly. You could make this ishue look even beter for the opposite side if you did the same thing. I'm afraid that no ammount of aruing usualy turns sides.

[This message has been edited by Obi_Kwiet (edited June 22, 2004).]

I would actually say both parties are heading towards the middle, although the Republicans are getting there a lot faster as more and more politicians people want someone who is progressive, but has values.

Me, I'm waiting for a Libertarian who isnt whacked out and who's main platform is legalization. I want someone to tell the federal government to piss off, institute a national flat tax, and get the drinking age to 18 like it is in every other civilized nation.

------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

No, you said they should not be allowed to make movies that bash any of our presidents. Not liking and not allowing are very different. Also, why not? What's wrong with encouraging action against out president, against the goverment? If I recall, our very constitution states that it is our duty. I can't count how many times rebels during the revolutionary war did irrational and insulting things to inspire a positive thing. Now a revolution is out of context for today, but I don't see it as any different than voting people in or out of office, voting for or against particular bills, etc.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

HELL YEAH!


------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

HELL YEAH!


------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

HELL YEAH!

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

No one, I was referring to the generic cookie-cutter situation of what these types of threads boil down to and the idiocy there of...but you would of known that if you had taken the time to read my post carefully...

As for the topic at hand, I'm against anything that presents misinformation as though it were solid facts. Further more, I'm also against anything that blatently bashes anyone or anything (though I'm guessing that the term "bashing" is being exagerated in this case).

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

You have my vote. Although you'll have to convince me further on legalization. But the other stuff, you saw my desires.


------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Moore lies alot.

The worst thing I think, is how he attempts to use great literary works to support is moron retarded ideas. Like the title "Fahrenheit 9/11" which is stolen from "Fahrenheit 451". The problem is that 451 degrees fahrenheit is the temperature at which paper burns. It therefore loses all significance when he uses it. He also uses Orwell's works without understanding Orwell at all.

Here's a great article, which is actually written by a left wing writer.
Enjoy.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

------------------
Ω of 14

[This message has been edited by oSiRiS (edited June 22, 2004).]

Economics will take of everything....It's your friend....

------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."