Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 is official Cannes Selection

And, of course, to advance-order the rifle desired.




Does put a slightly different take on Moore's purpose, which is to show how easy it is to get a firearm. Go to a licensed dealer, take out a twenty-year CD, get an FBI background check and clearance. . . .
 
I'd have to have a problem with a lot of people if it was about being rich and famous. It's not.

As for presenting true criticism... I've done that, with a little help, and it's been backed up with varius sources. Would you like me to give you more links to sites that list his errors and lies? Sites that have been accused of being left wing by the people on the right they've targeted, and right wing by Michael Moore and his fans when they've gone after him. Is there a point though?




Take a long look in the mirror mate.




:rolleyes: you're impenetrable. And worryingly ignorant.


Another example of his sloppiness? Moore has asserted that "the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in part to give money to the poppy growers for the money they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore. Bowling For Columbine continued the canard, asserting that the US gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. In "Dude, Where's My..." Moore finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be distributed by international organizations".

The aid actually consisted not of cash, but $28 million in surplus wheat, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security," and was distributed through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations instead of the Taliban itself.
 
Turn that around - are you saying that every soldier is evil because some are.

Facts not suppositions, half-truths and misleading camera shots are the stuff of documentaries.

Is every Lockheed Martin employee responsible for weapons of mass destruction production even if he helps launche TV communications satellites.

Specifically is the Lockheed Martin factory which is near Collumbine and therefore of interest to Moore in his documentary responsible for the weapons programs in other factories.

No

Why did Moore film in a Lockheed Martin factory - because it was near Collumbine and becuase he could label it as part of the military. Even if it isn't.

PS - my politics are defintiely left of centre. I just hate liars.
 
True, but an interview with LePierre would have been more informative. But Moore didn't want that, he wanted to make an old man look like a fool, and possibly a racist.
 
Well, yes, someone willing to check your source could have discovered that the context of the quote was an unusual one, and the quote's meaning wasn't quite as appeared in your post. Of course, by definition, nothing in the examples of Moore's purported "lies" is any different: he provides enough information for anyone interested in check his sources. Problem is: you're unhappy that your interpretations of his work differ from your interpretations of the issues his films addresses. Seems to me to be fair analogy, and a classic example of a pot calling a kettle black.
 
Again, arguments about Moore's "purpose" are highly subjective. "Lies" implies a type of objectivity about your dislike of his films. The two types of criticisms are utterly different.
 
As I have said before, I have worked with Michael Moore and find him personally very unlikeable. But I do ascribe to the broader points he makes in Bowling and find those hard to disagree with.
 
Have to say, I'm a woolly liberal, and although I love Michael Moore, I do think some of his arguments are quite simplistic, bordering on the childlike. I watched his Roger & Me the other week and felt rather manipulated by it all.

Still, he's a man of staggering intellect compared to that Bush goon. How on earth did we end up with someone as inarticulate and uncultured as him leading the Free world? Maybe Americans don't like to feel they are being run by someone 'better' than them. Truly he must be a man of the people.... :rolleyes:
 
Thanks for your link. I must say it was full of irrelevant bs.
Again and again and again, some people will clutch at straws to try to avoid the real issues that are adressed.

Are you also trying to make me believe that a well driven company like Lockheed Martin produces all parts for a specific weapon on only one plant? Now why would they throw tax-payers money out of the window like that ?? And yes, they do live mostly from the pockets of tax-payers.

Get serious.
 
I don't know if Sarah meant what she said - you'd have to ask her that. I simply quoted a part of the article, which was right there for people to read.

Hardly on the same level as omitting that the boy who shot Kayla Rolland had already been suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. And that since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.

"No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl"

One would guess that being brought up in a crack house didn't help.
 
I just can't believe you've stooped to using the "it might be wrong but its not as wrong as him" argument.

Lies are lies, whether they come from Bush, Blair or Moore.

Extremism from the left provokes extremism from the right and neither tend to promote the truth.

Just what is Moore doing if not "conventional journalism"?
 
He understanRAB that shouting and labelling people things usually wins a debate. I wouldn't say he was a man of staggering intellect though, even when compared with Bush.

There's a spoof news report that describes a study done by "The Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where Bill Clinton is said to have an IQ of about 180, and George W. about 90. In truth there's no confirmation anywhere on what Bush's IQ actually is, but that same "study" said that Kennedy had an IQ of 176, when infact it was closer to 120. The whole report was a joke taken far too seriously, most notably in this country by The Guardian, which later posted a retraction.

George W. Bush did apparently get an SAT score of 1206. That put Bush in the top 16 percent of prospective college students. Al Gore got 1355.

The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

It doesn't really mean much, but Michael Moore only briefly attended the University of Michigan at Flint before leaving school.



He's ignorant, and certainly not a great speaker, but I think some people underestimate him ever so slightly. Never underestimate your enemy remember. Especially when he's surrounded by people who are clearly highly intelligent.
 
If the run-up to the November election is even half as heated as this thread has been, then we are all in for an interesting end of the year. It's amazing to me how polarized this country has become.

I know that Michael Moore's alleged "deceit" has nothing to do with the election, but politics are shining through in this debate. God help us all.
 
Back
Top