NationStates Jolt Archive

Try this one... Do a Google search of "failure". Include the quotation marks. Guess whose name pops up first on the list? This is too funny and rather appropriate, I think.

This is so old, not even the year 2000 wants it back.

This is so old, not even the year 2000 wants it back.
I feel this needs a ZING! warning attached

Try this one... Do a Google search of "failure". Include the quotation marks. Guess whose name pops up first on the list? This is too funny and rather appropriate, I think.
One man's "joke" is another man's insult. BTW ... WTF have YOU done of note? I notice that he's President of the United States and you're ... a troll on NationStates General! :D

Quite old. 'Miserable Failure' works fine too.

One man's "joke" is another man's insult. BTW ... WTF have YOU done of note? I notice that he's President of the United States and you're ... a troll on NationStates General! :D
Well, he may well have achived sobriety before the age of forty.

Well, he may well have achived sobriety before the age of forty.
Now if he could only achieve intelligence.

If you search for “amoral crackpot” you get Professor Farnsworth from Futurerama. :D

In "Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse" I'm sixth. Just shows what they know: not enough to bump me to the top of the list. Or is that me at the top? :D

That is the funniest thing ever!

I'm not surprised that Google would pull something off like that. Last time if you searched "French Military Victories", it'll display no results, redirecting you to "French Military Defeats".

I'm not surprised that Google would pull something off like that. Last time if you searched "French Military Victories", it'll display no results, redirecting you to "French Military Defeats".

It isn't google that pulls it - it's people on the web manipulating google's rankings. It's called google-bombing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlebomb)

It isn't google that pulls it - it's people on the web manipulating google's rankings. It's called google-bombing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlebomb)

Roger that.

Hey, Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore are numbers two and three! :D

Some retaliatory Google-bombing I guess.

Jimmy Carter is one Nobel Peace Prize winner. If only there's a Nobel Aggression Prize, Bush would be a repeated recipient. Mike Moore is just a failure no matter how you look at him. If this is still the Cold War, Moore would have defected to the Soviet Union long ago.

Jimmy Carter is one Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Yeah, but he also had double digit inflation.

Jimmy Carter is one Nobel Peace Prize winner. If only there's a Nobel Aggression Prize, Bush would be a repeated recipient. Mike Moore is just a failure no matter how you look at him. If this is still the Cold War, Moore would have defected to the Soviet Union long ago.

Why? Micheal Moore seems to like America.

Why? Micheal Moore seems to like America.

It may be a patriot's duty to criticize his government but it seems from the few episodes of his crappy programs that I've watched, he's attempting to spread Marxist-Leninist views to the American population with a good degree of subtlety as disguise. His similarity with the communists alarm me.

Michael Moore seems to like getting money.

(try reading Big, Fat, Rich White Man with the knowledge that he is a big fat rich white man)

It may be a patriot's duty to criticize his government but it seems from the few episodes of his crappy programs that I've watched, he's attempting to spread Marxist-Leninist views to the American population with a good degree of subtlety as disguise. His similarity with the communists alarm me.

Then you know very little about "the communists". It also makes no sense that in wanting to spread what you so, frankly, funnily accuse him of wanting to spread, he would defect from the place he wants to spread it to.

Michael Moore seems to like getting money.

(try reading Big, Fat, Rich White Man with the knowledge that he is a big fat rich white man)

Bloody liar he is, indulging in the wealth he reaped from his media production and sending his daughter to a private school. If he believed that he's so powerful with the people behind him, why didn't he start his own party and run for President?

Yeah, but he also had double digit inflation.

Not to mention appeasing dictators, trashing the military, and nearly costing us the Cold War; add that to one of the most prolonged periods of declining real earnings ever and you've got a real winner.

I still like his work with Habitat for Humanity and his election supervision; he's much better as a private citizen.

yes, Michael Moore is far from a communist. Rather, his various movies and books have taken advantage of political atmosphere in the US in a very capitalistic way. Make no mistake, Moore is no socialist, he just knows what the people want to hear.

'Bowling for Columbine' was more about criticizing the government then actually addressing issues of firearms. He crammed that documentary with so much unnecessary information.

When they compared to similar gun ownership figures between the US and Canada, he failed to point out that Americans possess far more automatic weapons and pistols (mostly likely to be used in a crime). Instead, he goes on ranting about how there should be better social welfare, so that there will be less crime.

I still like his work with Habitat for Humanity and his election supervision; he's much better as a private citizen.

I heard that Bush admitted to did weed in youth, indulged in periodic alcoholism, also went AWOL in the National Guard during 'Nam and was once convicted for drunk driving.

the only one I know he's admitted to is DWI.

I heard that Bush admitted to did weed in youth, indulged in periodic alcoholism, also went AWOL in the National Guard during 'Nam and was once convicted for drunk driving.
Not to mention ruining a few of his father’s businesses. Bush is a failure as a private citizen and as a politician.

Bloody liar he is, indulging in the wealth he reaped from his media production and sending his daughter to a private school. If he believed that he's so powerful with the people behind him, why didn't he start his own party and run for President?
1) He made a rather sarcastic chapter in one of his books "Woohoo! I got myslef a tax cut!" in which there was talk about how to spend the extra money. I think if you go to his website, you might still make suggestions, but I think it's been to long now.

2) He worked with Nader, but things got pear-shaped when he suggested working together with the Democrats to keep Bush from office.

Mike Moore is just a failure no matter how you look at him. If this is still the Cold War, Moore would have defected to the Soviet Union long ago.
No he wouldn't, because then he'd have to go on a government imposed diet. Mikey likes his free enterprise generated food.

No he wouldn't, because then he'd have to go on a government imposed diet. Mikey likes his free enterprise generated food.
It's amazing how conservatives can turn virtually anything into an attack on Michael Moore. Bravo! Good Job!

It's amazing how conservatives can turn virtually anything into an attack on Michael Moore. Bravo! Good Job!
He’s such a big target in so many ways.

Whats even funnier is that Michael Moore is second on the list. :D

It may be a patriot's duty to criticize his government but it seems from the few episodes of his crappy programs that I've watched, he's attempting to spread Marxist-Leninist views to the American population with a good degree of subtlety as disguise. His similarity with the communists alarm me.


He actually is a communist. Not that there's anything wrong with that though. I mean, come on? Wouldn't communism be beautiful for all those poor suffering people in his hometown? I can't blame him, growing up in Flint and not being a communist doesn't make any sense.

yes, Michael Moore is far from a communist. Rather, his various movies and books have taken advantage of political atmosphere in the US in a very capitalistic way. Make no mistake, Moore is no socialist, he just knows what the people want to hear.


Actually, he is a personal communist. But in the same manner I am (not with the party, about democracy instead of a vanguard party)

'Bowling for Columbine' was more about criticizing the government then actually addressing issues of firearms. He crammed that documentary with so much unnecessary information.

When they compared to similar gun ownership figures between the US and Canada, he failed to point out that Americans possess far more automatic weapons and pistols (mostly likely to be used in a crime). Instead, he goes on ranting about how there should be better social welfare, so that there will be less crime.


I find it much more satisfying to shoot things with a shotgun, so I don't know if that is a legitimate conclusion you just made. The facts still remain. Canadians are nicer and much less paranoid than Americans. Americans can be royal assholes, but I never met a Canadian who I didn't want to give a great big hug to.

But anyways, living wages for all would be a great way of ending property crime. Better social welfare would help too.

I can personally attest to the fact that poverty brings crime. I was waiting on a loan for several weeks, and me and my Girlfriend had no money in the bank (in fact, a big wad of negative money). We were about to go rob several ATMs for $1,500, it was a great, well worked out plan that couldn't be traced back to us, when she (Gum Tree) had her morals kick in. So instead of that I pickpocketed a guy on the train and we both shoplifted for food.

Now I come from an upper-middle class background, and when I was poor, I had to eat, so I stole. Proof that poverty breeds crime.

'Bowling for Columbine' was more about criticizing the government then actually addressing issues of firearms. He crammed that documentary with so much unnecessary information.

When they compared to similar gun ownership figures between the US and Canada, he failed to point out that Americans possess far more automatic weapons and pistols (mostly likely to be used in a crime).
Bowling for Columbine was nothing more than Mikey boy masturbating to his own cleverness. There were so many outright lies and bits of misinformation in that movie that it's a fucking joke that he has the audacity to give it the moniker of documentary.

Now I come from an upper-middle class background, and when I was poor, I had to eat, so I stole. Proof that poverty breeds crime.
All your anecdote proves is that poverty breeds survival-based crime. Not all crime. Biiig difference.

Bowling for Columbine was nothing more than Mikey boy masturbating to his own cleverness. There were so many outright lies and bits of misinformation in that movie that it's a fucking joke that he has the audacity to give it the moniker of documentary.
lol, wow. You really do a lot of research on your topics and back up your arguments with fact. You're almost as good as Cat-Tribe with your research! :rolleyes:

lol, wow. You really do a lot of research on your topics and back up your arguments with fact. You're almost as good as Cat-Tribe with your research! :rolleyes:
....Fine.



http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/title.htm

oore said on his website and on various talk shows that "the title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were at a bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders. The thing is that they weren't. Both the school and the police have confirmed that the 2 boys skipped class that day. Obviously they had other things to do, planning to get straight and preparation that made bowling class that morning not exactly a priority. Moore later changed his line on the BFC website to read "The title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were supposed to be in bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders." Moore also modified his spiel about the title on the BFC website to add the following:

"At least five witnesses, including their teacher, told the police that they saw one or both boys that morning at the bowling alley for their first hour class. Some school and law enforcement officials later maintained that the two boys skipped that class that morning yet no other witness has come forward to say they saw Eric and Dylan anywhere else that morning."

Although the fact is documented and established as being false, Moore drops in the point that there is no eye witness evidence to prove otherwise - but why the hell would there be? The whole reason for the massacre was because these boys were losers - it's not like they were having a before school party or anything.


Why not blame bowling?

About the meaning of the title, Moore says:

One reason the film is called "Bowling For Columbine" is that, after the massacre, all the pundits and experts started blaming all the usual suspects that are wheeled out for blame whenever a school shooting occurs-evil rock music (in this case Marilyn Manson), violent video games, and bad parenting.

Lets take a quick look at how much sense each of those claims make:

- 'Evil' Rock Music: I suspect it's phrased as "evil rock music" instead of "demonic" or some more appropriate term to trivialize the phrase and thereby trivializing the argument and make it sound like more of a judgmental puritanical term.


- Violent Video Games: Moore thinks that bloody games involving guns and killing won't affect a kids psyche, but that national defense will.


- Bad Parenting: Interesting that Moore thinks this is a stupid thing to blame a shooting on seeing as he uses it later in the movie. When manipulating the Kayla Rolland shooting, Moore blames the occurrence on lack of parenting which he in turn blames on Dick Clark.

Moore tells the audience that bowling was "apparently the last thing they did before the massacre." Wrong again. Even if the killers didn't skip class, this isn't right. Both Salon.com and the National Review reveal that Bowling class was at 6 A.M. while the killings began around 11 A.M. Moore continues on the site:

My point is that those scapegoats make about as much sense as blaming bowling. After all, Eric and Dylan were bowlers, they took bowling class at Columbine-was bowling responsible for their evil deeds? If they bowled that morning, did the bowling trigger their desire to commit mass murder? Or, if they skipped their bowling class that morning, did that bring on the massacre? Had they bowled, that may have altered their mood and prevented them from picking up their guns. As you can see, this is all nonsense, just as it is nonsense to blame Marilyn Manson.

Nonsense to blame Manson, but plausible to blame the news and the military? Moore doesn't explain this odd sense logic. He doesn't back up his claim that bowling and illicit glorified violence are on the same level of motivating violent acts at any point in the film. He simply says they are, says it plainly and in an obvious manner and seeks to make you feel foolish if you challenge it. Don't be fooled.

Moore's parallel of bowling with the kids other interests is inherently dishonest, seeing as there is no evidence to suggest the kids were bowling fanatics, but tons that prove their interest in the other culprits -- so therefore it is NOT by any means 'just as logical to blame bowling' for the murders.

The bowling class they were signed up for at Columbine was, as 2 students from the class even tell Moore himself in so many words - a blow off class. The boys skipped it. Moore shows a press conference clip of Deputy sheriff Steve Harris saying that he 'heard that the suspects were bowling' the morning of the attack and 'that's the only thing that I'm aware of'. But the public IS aware of what they did now.

Why is Moore using what someone 'heard might be true' to argue his point? He supports it with a clip of a random guy saying "I guess they went to their favorite class that morning" -- trying of course to make the point that (again) it's just as logical to blame bowling for the murders -- but just seconds before, he featured 2 students who told him that the 2 shooters didn't take the bowling class seriously and didn't care about it. Logic points towards the latter analysis and there is nothing Moore produces to suggest otherwise. They did not have bowling paraphernalia, books and posters lining their social lives -- so lets take a look at what the kids really WERE into, shall we?


Can glorified anti-social ideas influence behavior?

Since Moore seriously poses bowling as an equally plausible contributor to murder than anything else suggested, let us explore exactly what effect the 2 boys ideology had on them. An article in the web publication Salon.com (1), by Dave Cullen titled Kill Mankind. No One Should Survive, reports on, among other things, the writings of Eric Harris in his diary. He says: "Kill mankind. No one should survive."

Evidence, including information found in the article also indicates that Harris was a good Darwinist, an evolutionist. One source is reported as saying that when the murders began, "Harris tore off his trench coat to expose a white T-shirt reading "Natural Selection.'" One investigator who has seen Harris' writings says: "[He] talks a lot about natural selection and that kind of leads into his admiration of Hitler and Nazism and their 'final solution' -- that we, the human race have interrupted or disrupted natural selection by inventing vaccines and stuff like that."

The lead investigator on the Columbine murders, Kate Battan, also mentions the Harris/Klebold desire for fame. She says, paraphrased, that she thinks this was "the single biggest reason" the mass murders were committed. It is said that other key investigators agreed with this assessment. Battan says the writings of Harris and Klebold were littered with comments about their expected glory:

"They certainly wanted the media to write stories about them every day. And they wanted cult followings. They're going to become superstars by getting rid of bad people. And, you know, it worked. They're famous."

A footnote: I was unable to find any stories which in any way connected bowling to mass murders.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/bank.htm


Gunowners.org (a pro-gun source obviously) summarizes this scene accurately and eloquently saying "After the April 20 lead-in, Bowling begins an examination of middle-American gun culture, and indulges the bicoastal elite's snobbery toward American gun owners."

It's an accurate depiction of the intent of the scene. The scene, dubbed “Michael at the Bank” is a good example of what can be brushed off and casually justified as what has been called 'artistic lying.' The scene opens in a branch of the North Country Bank, with Moore supposedly receiving a free gun in exchange for opening an account. North County Bank — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years. The scene has Moore discovering an ad in a local Michigan paper touting that if you open an account at North Country Bank & Trust, the bank (“more bang for your buck!”) will give you a gun.

Moore goes to the bank, is greeted by a customer service representative and moves on to an unnamed teller who goes through the necessary paperwork (which looks ridiculously simple) for Moore to open an account. Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the only thing we see is Moore filling out a form where he says he is not crazy, or a criminal - and of course, that he's white; although he stumbles on spelling the word 'Caucasian' (which I actually had to just fix on spell checker) to further paint the process as unofficial and unsafe while feeding his 'Stupid White Men' theme in the same punch.

The audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle. Moments later, Moore is handed his new rifle in the North Country Bank & Trust lobby, at which point he asks another unnamed bank employee, “Do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?”

Before the employee can respond, Moore turns his inquiry into a punchline by immediately cueing Teenage Fanclub’s rendition of the song “Take the Skinheads Bowling,” the tune to which he marches out of the bank, to be followed by the opening credits featuring black and white footage of silly white folks bowling.

It is a dazzling opening, full of energy, irony and Strangelovian absurdity. Only one problem plagues it's cleverness: It was staged.

Staged scene

Indeed, there's more, a lot more, to this story. In an interview, Jan Jacobson, the woman at this bank shown in the movie, says they were filmed for about an hour-and-a-half during which she explained everything to Moore in detail. But, the way things were presented in the film, Jacobson says, it looks like "a wham-bam thing." She says she resents the way she was portrayed as some kind of "backwoods idiot" mindlessly handing out guns. She says Moore deceived her into being interviewed by saying of their long-gun-give-away program: "This is so great. I'm a hunter, a sportsman, grew up in Michigan, am an NRA member." She says: "He went on and on and on saying this was the most unique program he'd ever heard of." This is the first example of how Moore completely deceives and manipulates his subjects to be made to look stupid in his film. Unfortunately, it is not the last and more unfortunately, an ignorant audience plays patsy to Moore's dishonest depiction.

Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped.

In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. But wait a second... Didn't I see some long guns sitting right there on the rack above her shoulder? Yes - you're not going crazy - those guns you saw (as shown in the picture up the page) are models.

She says that Moore's signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check.

Jacobson says the bank's so-called "Weatherby Program" has "absolutely" been a smashing success. She says their corporate office was braced for some possible criticism because of BFC. But, they got only two calls -- and these were from people wanting to know the details of the "Weatherby Program" so they, too, could get their long-guns!



A non-issue point in the first place

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's careless craziness. Yet, aside to the falshoods the audience isn't aware of, just a moment's reflection on the given information shows that there is not the slightest danger. Aside from the thorough legal background check and paperwork we didn't see, there are fundamental common sense flaws to the scene. The process of getting a 'free gun' isn't quite as easy as Moore wants you to believe, and it's not dangerous unless the person tries to use the gun as a club and wants to be quickly caught by the police.

To take possession of the gun, the depositor must:

1. Produce photo identification; making it inescapably certain that the robber would be identified and caught.

2. Give the bank at least a thousand dollars -- (an unlikely way to start a robbery) (1).

3. Spend at least a half hour at the bank, thereby allowing many people to see and identify him, and undergo an FBI background check, which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery.

The label of this process being ridiculous is in fact ridiculous itself. A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred bucks on the black market, with no identification required, and would want to zip in and out of the bank as quick as possible.

Also - the bank is a licensed firearms dealer - not shooting range. They don't hand bullets to you. Moore had to buy them later, as seen in the barbershop scene. If Moore brought his own bullets and tried to load them into the long-gun right there in the bank, it would be obvious and he'd be immediately stopped.

The 'artistic lying' illustrates the genius of Bowling for Columbine, in that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank's program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore's apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists.

This theme is developed throughout the film. Don't be fooled.



YOU MISSED THE POINT! - The point of the scene

Many have e-mailed me saying I've missed the point of the scene, telling me that it's purpose is not the ease of which the bank gives you the gun - but the very fact that they are giving out guns! I ask these people to review the scene and actually watch it again if they can, and see if they don't think differently. I can't read the mind of Michael Moore, so I can't say for sure what his point was, however I can say positively that the way the scene was cut (asking for the account with the free gun, going directly to some cheesy questions going directly to holding the firearm and pointing it around to close with "don't you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank") certainly conveys an issue of ridiculousness on how easy

However - lets take a look at it under the alternate thesis. You come to basically the same conclusion: Moore is a lying hypocrite.

Moore mentions many times in Bowling For Columbine that gun use and gun culture is not what causes gun death. He illustrates this in his own childhood enthusiasm with guns and his endless praise for Canada, which he calls not only a "nation of hunters" but "one gun loving, gun toting country." So if Moore is making a farcical point out of American gun culture, then he is an exposed hypocrite when he advocates rifle use later in the film.

But like I said - I didn't get the impression that this was an attack on rifle users, nor the one I believe most get. But depending on what you think the exact point of the scene is - either Michael Moore deceived you with fictitious representation, or he lied to you to effectively play both sides of an issue. You pick.



Wrong on Killer toasters...

While on Oprah promoting Bowling For Columbine - Michael Moore talks about this scene and North Country Banks gun program. (2) Moore says: "What happened to giving out toasters, you know? I'd never heard of anybody killed by a toaster, you know?"

But, thanks to information that Larry Pratt from Gunowners.org delightfully uncovered - surprise! once again, Moore is fighting against himself:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (8/30/02) reports a woman who used a rolled-up newspaper and toaster to light a cigarette started a fire that killed her mentally ill adult daughter. The Irish Times (2/28/02) reports that in Cork, in 1997, one homeless man murdered another homeless man by hitting him in the head with a toaster. And the Philippine Daily Inquirer (8/28/01) tells of a young woman who saw her toaster on fire, threw water on it and was electrocuted instantly. A Global News Wire story (8/3/01) says a pop-up toaster is the likely cause of a fire killing a mother and son in Timaru, New Zealand. A Canadian Press report (7/28/2000) says that in Quebec a house fire started by a toaster killed an autistic young man. And the Richmond Times-Dispatch (5/10/99) says a Yorkshire, Virginia, couple filed a $4.7 million lawsuit against a Delaware business alleging that their toaster was faulty and caused a fire killing their mentally disabled son and his grandmother.

Larry says he found several more stories like this from around the world involving killer-toasters - but I think we all get the point. "Perhaps Michael Moore's next movie will deal with the obvious need for tougher toaster-control laws" he says. -Not likely. Michael Moore knows not the world of consistency.

Why did I say he's fighting against himself? Well, he may never have heard of anybody killed by a toaster, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And isn't that a main thesis in Bowling For Columbine? That the media isn't an accurate gage of current dangers in America? Furthermore, doesn't the media's lack of sensationalism over toaster deaths go strictly against his argument of media scaremongering? After all, toasters are a lot more common place than guns. Why not target THEM for demonization to scare the public? Obviously these media (non liberal leaning at all whatsoever of course) reports on guns put firearms in an unfavorable light - which I would think Moore would like.

Michael Moore makes less and less sense under the revelation of key facts to his arguments - and this is only 6 minutes into the movie!

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/moorenra.htm

Many of his fans point-out that Moore is NOT anti-gun, and point to his membership in the NRA (as well as the very guns he owns) as proof. However, at the same time, he is the poster-boy for gun-control.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in this, then you're a moron; he's preaching veganism while eating a steak.

In Bowling, Michael Moore brags that he is a "lifetime member" of the NRA. So it might be expected that Moore would inform viewers about the NRA's noble anti-slavery history, but not quite. In his brief history of America cartoon he attempts the opposite and does an admirable job of welding racism to the NRA wherever possible as detailed in other places of this site. The main issue here is Moore's phony respect for the organization. Instead of coming out against it and opposing what he feels are dangerous and detrimental actions, he feigns neutrality in Bowling For Columbine when it is clear he despises the organization.

Just look at what Moore says about the NRA himself :

"After Columbine, I decided that I would run against Charlton Heston for the presidency of the NRA. If elected, my plan was to try to return the NRA to a gun safety organization, instead of its current agenda of gun fanaticism. The rules said that to run for president, you had to be a member for the past five years or buy a lifetime membership for $750. And that's what I did. But after a while I realized this endeavor was going to take too much time, so I decided to focus all my attention on the movie I was making."

Too much time... Here Moore actually admits that he'd rather take pot shots and defame those he disagrees with in movies rather than actually make any real change. Perhaps the paycheck from making a movie vs. NRA president was more enticing to Moore than it was to Charlton Heston. Dave Kopel writes:

But Moore's connection to the NRA is bizarre; he told Tim Russert that he joined the group so that he could be elected its president and make it support gun control. This is aggrandized self-delusion, rather like Barbra Streisand announcing that she was becoming Catholic so that she could be elected Pope and make the Church support polygamy.



Distortion on Heston's record

Moore says that the NRA is responsible for gun crime despite vigorous and bold efforts by the organization and especially Charlton Heston while he served as president, to curtail gun violence. For instance - Heston was known for taking tough stances like the following:

If you're a felon out on the streets of Philadelphia today, I dare you to carry a gun," Heston warned. "Because if you do, you will go to prison. No plea bargain, no discussion. Just a cold, hard federal prison cell. So go ahead -- carry a gun on these streets. To quote my good friend Clint Eastwood, 'Make My Day'. (January 25, 1999)

But then again, Moore and his viewers may equally hate that approach. Others (myself included) love that kind of no nonsense "bring it on" type of threat when concerning violence when the subtext is that "because you will be punished if you dare". It all depends on whether you're one of those crazies who like to confront wickedness instead of appease it.

But opinions aside - Moore's representation of the NRA is dishonest at best.


http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/dog.htm

Another scene staged in Bowling for Columbine is the illustration of the story being told of a couple of hunters who dressed up a dog in hunting clothes, gave him a gun, and then accidentally got shot by it.

There are some trivial, rather silly details in the scene that arise from simple shoddy filmmaking. The scene shows a dog with gun on it's back & a wounded hunter lying on the ground. We're supposed to think we're watching video from the accident, but several mistakes make this pretty obviously not true.

1. The dog is calmly moving around -- which it wouldn't be if a hunting rifle had just gone off over his head and blown his eardrums in.

2. The Hunter, who was in fact shot in the leg, is lying there quietly - dare I say 'dead looking.' (I'm reminded of the scene towards the end of Trainspotting where a kitten innocently plays around a dead character).

3. Why would someone just be standing there filming this? They would no doubt be panicking to get help or help their wounded comrade in some kind of frenzy -- not calmly video taping the whole thing.

So the scene is staged. So what. The emphasis is on truth here - you're allowed to reenact things in documentaries - what's the big deal?

Well, what's more important is the fact that in reality, the Darwin Award winning hunters had tried to take a photo with a still camera, and did not have video (1). So in fact - this is no reenactment...but a fabrication. Moore films the scene with a shaky hand held cam to create the illusion of a home movie and even goes as far as to put digits in the (viewers) right-hand top and bottom of the screen as if you are looking through a home movie camera live (another subliminal trick that makes you think this is a real home movie).

Moore is trying to make you think that this is footage from a home video recording of the actual event, when it is really quite fictitious (like on Unsolved Mysteries & America's Most Wanted - only they tell you what you're seeing has been set up).

Not a huge damnation of the entire film by far, but information you the viewer should know when believing Michael Moore's statements of "liking non-fiction while living in fictitious times" and accepting Bowling for Columbine as an honest depiction of fact and truth telling documentary, as it shows the degree to which he goes to try and deceive his viewer.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/michigan.htm

Dave Kopel writes fabulously on this topic saying:

From the Michigan bank, Moore moves on to an examination of the rest of Michigan's culture — or, more precisely, to eccentric and unrepresentative segments of that culture, thereby playing to the audience's feelings of superiority over American gun owners.

Indeed, the first exploration of guns in the film is a smear on the image of hunters. Matt Labash from the weekly standard is even more blunt with his no crap summary of Moore in Michigan saying: "From [the opening scene in the bank], we are off across America to prove we are a nation of militia-joining, bloodthirsty gun nuts, who use the rubric of the second amendment as a fig-leaf excuse to pump lead into each other for sport...From the tofu farm of James Nichols, brother of Oklahoma City bomber Terry, to Q&A's with disenfranchised juvies, sporting bad skin and worse dental work, Moore seems to unearth every anti-government extremist who dreams of black helicopters and blood in the streets, proving that we are a violent nation almost beyond salvation."

Although Moore says he supports gun ownership for hunters, his first depiction of them is the label of being stupid and careless with his fake hunting dog video.

Kopel notes in his dissection of Bowling for the National Review that "hunting is a challenging sport, requiring outdoor skills, wildlife knowledge, patience, and good marksmanship. Most members of the urban audiences cheering Bowling for Columbine are no more capable of participating in a successful hunt than they are of conducting a three-day, backcountry cross-country ski trek, or playing rookie-league baseball." He cites that the vast majority of hunters are also very safety-conscious, and that In 2000, for example, there were 91 fatal hunting accidents in all of North America, within a population of over 16 million hunters.

Yet this is not the representation Moore presents.

Kopel observes that the American gun culture ideology of firearm ownership and civil liberty is not presented by reference to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, or to legal scholars such as liberal Democrats Sanford Levinson or Larry Tribe. Ha. No. Instead, Moore goes to the Michigan Militia.

Moore allows the militia members to present their case, and they no doubt believe they are in a favorable light with him the way he approaches them. The group has no record of illegal violence or any other illegal activity, yet Moore makes them look extremely dangerous by informing viewers that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols attended militia meetings.

But as Kopel informs us, Moore conveniently neglected to mention that the two were eventually kicked out, for talking about violence.

So then Moore interviews James Nichols to further push a gun nut image.

Honest representation would not have featured the brother of a convicted mass murderer, as a spokesman for the right of free people to resist tyrannical government.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/blindshooter.htm

In a quick and pithy scene demonizing gun-owners as crazy careless yahoos, Moore shows us news footage of a blind man, Carey McWilliams, shooting at targets. The audience is meant to be shocked that in America, even blind people can get a gun. We are told that despite his being blind, he passed his shooting test - even more scary. This story is presented as if it is self-evidently insane and further proof of our violent "gun culture."

Once again, however, Moore does not tell the whole story. True, the state of North Dakota did issue a permit to McWilliams to carry a concealed weapon. But, he is not totally blind. He is able to distinguish day from night, light from dark.

Pat Healey, a Case County sheriff's deputy who administers permit tests in North Dakota, as saying McWilliams passed the necessary background check and written and shooting exams, "hitting the black silhouette target nine out of 10 times on the first try and required 10 of 10 on the re-shoot." McWilliams is quoted as saying: "I get ticked off when people say I can't do something because I'm blind." Warning anyone who might attack him, he adds: "If you choose this blind victim, you might end up dead." (1)

When asked In an interview (2) if he could tell friend from foe in a crisis situation, McWilliams said: "Yes. Because if you have your hands around my throat or you're stabbing me with a knife or other such contact, then, yes, I would know you mean me serious harm.... the deal is that the Second Amendment applies to all American citizens. And I'm an American citizen, too, with the same rights and privileges."

Obviously Moore disagrees. Given all the facts, do you? Maybe you do. Whether you do or not - you weren't given all the facts from Moore.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/cast.htm

Mark Taylor - Columbine Victim

"I am completely against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide.

"He completely used us to make a buck."

Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Mich. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety.

Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said.

"I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

Taylor said people are placing the blame on him for Kmart pulling the bullets, and the film burned bridges between him and the National Rifle Association, whose philosophies he supports.

Ann M Kechter - Mother of slain Columbine student
(not featured in BFC)

From the Rocky Mountain News: "Recently, a co-worker asked me if I had seen the movie Bowling for Columbine yet, I told her absolutely not! My answer surprised her, given the fact my son, Matthew, was one of the 13 murdered during the deadliest school shooting in our country's history. I explained to her that prior to the public release of the movie the families of the injured and dead were invited by Michael Moore to attend a preview screening. How thoughtful.

Our family and others considered attending because we were genuinely interested in his message to the public regarding gun control and school violence.

However, once we discovered he was going to charge us admission we refrained from doing so.

It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view."

No he wouldn't, because then he'd have to go on a government imposed diet. Mikey likes his free enterprise generated food.

You get 100g of food per day into today's DPRK. Mikey could probably go there and get rich by selling his fat to all the starving NKs. LOL!

Bowling for Columbine was nothing more than Mikey boy masturbating to his own cleverness. There were so many outright lies and bits of misinformation in that movie that it's a fucking joke that he has the audacity to give it the moniker of documentary.

He more off topic than Hitler discussing with his generals! As for Mikey, aren't his followers just gullible to anything that's considered 'liberal', 'socialist' or 'progressive'?

Looking back at his Columbine documentary, it made no sense to interview either Manson, Heston nor the Michigan Militia. Towards the end, he just ranted on and on about some Negro woman who is a failure in society. That woman, not only did she fail to finish high school, she was also an unwed mother. Why should the film focus on her complaints of living a sh*tty life? Just because her six-year-old son some how picked up a revolver lying around a relative's house and shot a fellow student. The fact is, that's the case of a child not knowing sweet f*ck all about firearms or the serious side of the effects, but Moore goes on to rant about how if we redistribute wealth like a bunch of Commie fags, sh*t like school shootings won't happen.

When talking about the backgrounds of the Columbine criminals, he made direct and blatant references to Lockheed Martin, as if some major defense contractor emits an invisible and supernatural evil on the town itself. He criticized one of the boy's father, who was a USAF bomber pilot who spent little time with the family and had flown missions in Gulf War I. The real criticism he failed to point out along with the many cases of juvenile deliquency amongst sons of in military families is the lack of a suitable male rolemodel, the pilot father would be very suitable if he spent more time with the son.

Moore's propaganda is a classic case of quoting out off context, which is as old as propaganda itself. It's a very effective method to the poorly educated and gullible. One reason why communism was so effective was because the workers and peasants at the time were illiterate and poorly educated.

You get 100g of food per day into today's DPRK. Mikey could probably go there and get rich by selling his fat to all the starving NKs. LOL!
Sino, you’re an evil bastard, but man you’re clever. :D

I heard that Bush admitted to did weed in youth, indulged in periodic alcoholism, also went AWOL in the National Guard during 'Nam and was once convicted for drunk driving.
Sigh. One last time .... President Bush did not ... I say again, not ... go AWOL from the National Guard. Dan "I-don't-need-no-friggin'-research" Rather resigned over that very lie.

Actually, he is a personal communist. But in the same manner I am (not with the party, about democracy instead of a vanguard party)

I was born in a post-communist country and I can sniff out commies from more than two miles away! Mike Moore is a communist, from the views he expressed. But like the communists of today, they try to stay clear of their image of yesteryear and try to act more like sleepers. Subliminally, his attacks focussed on that all corporations are evil, but he would never express that directly.

The first time I saw that fat piece of turd on TV was when the People's Democratic Republic of Television (PDRTV) with the red star came up, it rang alarm bells in my head. I thought communist terrorists have captured the White House! The fat bastard then tumbled on stage and shouted jokingly, "All hail me! Chairman Moore!" and instantly I knew that it he's some clever communist.

Sino, you’re an evil bastard, but man you’re clever. :D

If I don't have such a sharp mind, I wouldn't be pursuing an engineering career. There's plenty more of those witty comments to come.

I see myself as good and I strive to be good and fight evil. Communism is an evil enemy of all mankind. By the way, my parents were married. LOL!

Communism is an evil enemy of all mankind.
On that, we agree.

On that, we agree.

Bring on the camps!

He’s such a big target in so many ways.

That's exactly what he wants. The more he's attack, the more he can argue and express his views.

Try this one... Do a Google search of "failure". Include the quotation marks. Guess whose name pops up first on the list? This is too funny and rather appropriate, I think.


LoooL :D


How did you find that out ?

If this is the Cold War and it went hot, Mike Moore would be a suitable candidate for heading to Soviet puppet government of occupied America, since he spreads communism and makes a profit from doing so. LOL!

BFC doesn't abbreviate Bowling for Columbine, it stands for bull f*ckin' cock!

Bring on the camps!
And that’s where you cross the line.

And that’s where you cross the line.

LMAO!