KFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2870 times:
Hey guys,
Just an hour ago I viewed "Bolwing For Columbine", a documentory trying to find the answer to America's gun/violence problem. Has anyone else here seen the movie? IMHO, I thought it was too biased to take alot of parts of the movie seriously, without some own research of facts/figures on the viewers half. I guess this could also start a topic on how you feel about our current stance on gun control, is it a problem? Do we really have a problem, when in Pakistan, for example, students threaten teachers with AK-47's? He did alot of comparisions of the United States, and Canada. How in Canada (According to Moore) there is a larger precentage of guns to people, but less violence. I really did not believe the scene depicting the U.S. history in foreign affairs as fair. How could you present a fair and accurate timeline in approx. 30 seconds? What's you opinion of the movie?
Illini_152 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2845 times:
To call that movie a "documentery" is an insult to all the hard working filmakers out there that actually make movies that document real facts.
So much of that movie was twisted, distorted, and modified to make his point any semblence of unbiased truth was removed.
Example:
When he got a shotgun for opening a bank account. The film makes it look like he just went in, gave them the cash, and got a gun. In reality, it took nearly two weeks for the background checks and approval to be made, THEN he gave them the money and they gave him a shotgun.
The speaches with Charlton Heston are complete fabrications as well. First, the dates that they were given are complete lies. They weren't given days after the shootings, but months, and sometimes years afterwards. AND the speaches are faked; Moore took bits and sentences from differant speaches and edited them around to change the intent of what Heston said.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html
and for a slightly biased review (of course, if you're willing to view one side's tripe, at least read the others before making a judgement):
http://www.nraila.org/Articles.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=105
--
Mike O'Malley
Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
KAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1955 posts, RR: 37 Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2835 times:
It has come out recently that a lot of the interviews in that movie were staged, eg ficticious. That said, I did not see it and have no intention to do so, simply because I refuse to contribute in any way to the wealth of Michael Moore.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 25 Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2830 times:
No one really cares about Michael Moore except those that hold the same ideology.
On a related topic, anyone want to bet his "documentary" on Sept. 11th will somehow twist it around and blame Bush and probably fake some of Bush's speeches.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 19 Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2808 times:
No one really cares about Michael Moore except those that hold the same ideology.
Not necessarily. I always thought you'd have to get BOTH sides of a view to be able to understand the issue. While Moore may be way out to the left, it's no different than all the far right-wingers who didn't serve in any war (Limbaugh and Gingrich) who blast the "liberal democrats" (the worst possible name to be called) for their opposition to THIS war.
Not getting information of the opposing viewpoint, however biased it might be, is akin to saying "Megaditto's Rush", and taking everything that guy says as the gospel truth.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 2774 times:
I really dismiss Michael Moore because the two documentaries he's best known for, Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, are so full of factual errors that it's hard to take the movies seriously.
LV-ARG From Argentina, joined Sep 2001, 50 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2712 times:
Today i have seen the movie and i have to say it it dosen`t deseve a 10 it deseves a 20!
In the 80`s the CIA gives $3 billons to osama bin landen tho kill soviets
09/11/01 bin ladden kills persons 3.000 using CIA tactics
Doug_or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3158 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
I would agree that MM's tendencey to play gast and loose with te facts in offputting, but it doesn't really defrenciate him from extemesitst on the far left or right. I personaly think he makes some good points in his books. Even if i don't agree with everything (or even a majority) he says, he raises a lot of issues that are important and sometimes ignored.
Hamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2688 times:
Today i have seen the movie and i have to say it it dosen`t deseve a 10 it deseves a 20! In the 80`s the CIA gives $3 billons to osama bin landen tho kill soviets 09/11/01 bin ladden kills persons 3.000 using CIA tactics
LV-ARG,
So...what's your point??
Are you blaming the CIA for not having a psychic friends network that specializes in making 20-year predictions? Hey, in the 80's, the former Soviet Union was problem #1. At that time, maybe an alliance with a then little-known wealthy guerilla was the right thing to do!
Times change! Can you honestly say that ALL of your personal relationships with family and friends are EXACTLY the same as they were twenty years ago?? If not, why criticize a government(that has seen four different administrations since those days) for change?
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2643 times:
Hey, in the 80's, the former Soviet Union was problem #1. At that time, maybe an alliance with a then little-known wealthy guerilla was the right thing to do!
That's probably a good example to understand the American point of view: no matter what mistakes were made, it's always possible to justify and it has no links with future events. That means that the 09/11 attack has no links with US foreign policy. That's precisely what millions of people don't believe.
Hamfist: NO IT WAS NOT THE BEST THING TO DO, AND FACTS PROVED IT. WHEN WILL YOU LEARN ?
Hamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
Sebolino,
If I wanted the "French" point of view, I would find a picture of the inner wall of your colon. You've got a lot of nerve to accuse the Americans of "justifying things" when the leadership of your own country is willing to tolerate Saddam's brutal regime just so long as France and Russia get first dibs on the Iraqi oil contracts.
By the way...specifically where did I say that events of the 80's have no "links" to today? And could you possibly describe for me the "facts" that prove it was not the right thing to do?
Hamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2540 times:
Dash8,
I didn't "dismiss" his comments. If you actually read my post, you would see that I simply expressed my opinion of the French point of view. Then I asked Sebolino to clarify the "links" that I never mentioned and to elaborate on the "facts" that he referenced!
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3952 posts, RR: 36 Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2529 times:
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6195 posts, RR: 13 Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2502 times:
Where is the movie still playing? I want to see it.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
Jsmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2494 times:
Regarding this comment from Mr O'Malley
"When he got a shotgun for opening a bank account. The film makes it look like he just went in, gave them the cash, and got a gun. In reality, it took nearly two weeks for the background checks and approval to be made, THEN he gave them the money and they gave him a shotgun."
You have missed the point completely. Irrespective of how long it takes, feel free to name one other country where a gun is offered as an incentive to open a bank account?
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2480 times:
Add to that bank thing.
The normal customer has to go to the local gun dealer and go through his ffl license.
Moore had to make special arrangements to pick his weapon up at the bank, and those efforts took about a month.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Boacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 513 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
I thought it was a fantastic film. Many comments about factual errors, bias twisted, distorted, etc. without any specifics. I suppose this line of thinking helps to dismiss his message entirely and pretend everything's OK?
And again, the real message about the bank scene isn't about waiting periods, it's, SHOULD BANKS BE GIVING AWAY GUNS?
KLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2458 times:
That's probably a good example to understand the American point of view: no matter what mistakes were made, it's always possible to justify and it has no links with future events. That means that the 09/11 attack has no links with US foreign policy. That's precisely what millions of people don't believe.
You are the bufoon here buddy! What does CIA training given to Ben Laden for fighting Russians have ANYTHING to do with 9/11/01. Do you think the CIA gave him a map of manhattan and plans saying "Here, this is how you can hijack a plane and use it to destroy the WTC." It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Ben Laden divised the 9/11 attacks with his own ideas, ideas that NO ONE had ever thought of before. If anything you think he would be gratefull to us Americans for helping him fight the Russians!!
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
"right-wingers who didn't serve in any war (Limbaugh and Gingrich) who blast the "liberal democrats".."
As opposed to ultra Slacker and liberal Billy who ran off to Oxford to "evade" his service???
"That's probably a good example to understand the American point of view: no matter what mistakes were made, it's always possible to justify and it has no links with future events"
That's probably a good example to understand the French, Russian and German points of view: no matter what mistakes were made, it's always possible to justify and it has no links with future events...
Kind of like the French, German and Russian armamanets, chemicals, technology etc found in Iraq, huh??? It appears that the Europeans have about as morality as the US...they just spin it better...
Us330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3742 posts, RR: 15 Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2458 times:
The best part of the film was when he interviewed Marilyn Manson because you got to see a whole different side of Manson that is never mentioned in the common stereotype of him. His interview singlehandedly debunked all myths and stereotypes I had heard about him.
25 Goingboeing: 747-451 - Didn't day I was a big fan of Clinton's either...just doesn't sit well with me that two "gentlemen" who are rabidly pro war both found a way
26 Illini_152: Mr. Jsmith, Name one other country where the people's right to bare arms is a right recognised by their government. I said recognised, because the US
27 Illini_152: Oh, and as for "should banks be giving away firearms" One, as has already been stated, they're not giving shotguns to anyone who comes in and plops do
28 747-451: 747-451 - Didn't day I was a big fan of Clinton's either...just doesn't sit well with me that two "gentlemen" who are rabidly pro war both found a way
29 Goingboeing: I don't believe it's moot. Limbaugh dodged the draft because of a boil on his ass - but he is gung ho for sending men and women (they volunteered afte
30 747-451: Clinton doesn't have a national audience to spout this vitriol against those opposing the war. Limbaugh does... Actually Clinton does as well...all th
31 Goingboeing: Please cite me one example where Clinton the draft dodger has uttered anything portraying those who oppose the war as "unpatriotic". Then just turn on
32 747-451: I wasn't tlaking about what either was saying, I was saying that both of them have easy acess to the public. Limpballs can blather from AM radio and C
33 EA CO AS: If you see a gun not as something evil, but as a tool, how is it differant than giving away a set of knives? They could be used to kill someone too,
34 DeanBNE: I just recently saw the doco. There were a few part in it which I thought were great (the assualt on KMart) but overall it only tended to confirm my o
35 Jsmith: Mr O'Malley, I think we are all well aware of the US constitution containing a right to bare arms. It gets raised each and every time someone needs to
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Argentina, joined Sep 2001, 50 posts, 
From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2001, 2742 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
