"Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos..."

[Galvatron]

How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"

So who's telling the truth and who's lying?

[MKSheppard]

Moore. You call Spinsanity a biased source?

[Crown]

Long, long overdue.

Although he backpedaled on the Lockheed plant (come on satellites?), but loved it!

[Stuart Mackey]

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible.The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them

And he is right..if he was factually wog on anything..he would have been sued into the ground in any democratic nation.

[Crown]

And he is right..if he was factually wog on anything..he would have been sued into the ground in any democratic nation.

What do you have agians Greeks/Itallians Sutart? ...

[Darth Wong]

The people accusing him of being a liar have always been nitpicky about it. BFC's biggest error is its muddled focus and mixed messages. I saw the original Heston speech and the "edited" version that people are screaming about, and it's common practice to edit speeches down rather than showing them in their entirety for the purpose of a documentary. The basic meaning of the speech was unchanged, but I expect angry NRA-types will jump in screeching that it's wrong to take someone completely out of context and totally change the meaning of what he said ... even though I just pointed out that this did not happen in this case.

[Crown]

The people accusing him of being a liar have always been nitpicky about it. BFC's biggest error is its muddled focus and mixed messages. I saw the original Heston speech and the "edited" version that people are screaming about, and it's common practice to edit speeches down rather than showing them in their entirety for the purpose of a documentary. The basic meaning of the speech was unchanged, but I expect angry NRA-types will jump in screeching that it's wrong to take someone completely out of context and totally change the meaning of what he said ... even though I just pointed out that this did not happen in this case.

Actually (what was rather humourous), I dug up the old thread you started after finally watching the film (and the flame fest between you, Shep and for some reason Nathan), and you and Moore both came to the same conclusion (even the same phrasing); if I [Moore] was lying, then why haven't [didn't] the NRA sue my [his] ass already?

[Vympel]

In terms of Fahrenheit 9/11, its apparently gotten favorable comparisons to BFC- i.e. that its actually superior. And this is from the *Fox News* review.

[Master of Ossus]

See... why does Michael Moore think that BFC harmed the NRA? It came to the exact same conclusions that the NRA did (ie. guns don't kill people, people kill people!). I just don't get it. I watched the film, and I thought it supported the NRA's position but not its members. There's nothing harmful for an organization in doing that.

[StimNeuro]

See... why does Michael Moore think that BFC harmed the NRA? It came to the exact same conclusions that the NRA did (ie. guns don't kill people, people kill people!). I just don't get it. I watched the film, and I thought it supported the NRA's position but not its members. There's nothing harmful for an organization in doing that.

I guess you missed the little 'The NRA likes to burn crosses!' segment of the cartoon...

[Master of Ossus]

I guess you missed the little 'The NRA likes to burn crosses!' segment of the cartoon...

All of his attacks on the NRA are directed at the personalities within it, but he does nothing--I'll repeat, NOTHING--to attack their agenda. He wholeheartedy endorses it!

[Durandal]

I guess you missed the little 'The NRA likes to burn crosses!' segment of the cartoon...

All of his attacks on the NRA are directed at the personalities within it, but he does nothing--I'll repeat, NOTHING--to attack their agenda. He wholeheartedy endorses it!

Of course. He's a lifetime member of the NRA!

[Glocksman]

His 'team of lawyers' made sure it didn't cross the line into the legal definitions of libel or slander. He's just this side of the libel laws.

The cartoon is a perfect example of that.
While it doesn't come out and call the NRA the successor organization to the KKK, the visuals and narrative would certainly leave that impression in the mind of the average viewer who didn't know the facts.

[Glocksman]

I guess you missed the little 'The NRA likes to burn crosses!' segment of the cartoon...

All of his attacks on the NRA are directed at the personalities within it, but he does nothing--I'll repeat, NOTHING--to attack their agenda. He wholeheartedy endorses it!

Of course. He's a lifetime member of the NRA!

So was George Bush the First when he implemented the import 'Assault Weapons Ban' back in 1989.

Anyone can join the NRA, even Sarah Brady could if she wanted to.

As far as not attacking the NRA's agenda, why then is he attacking Wal Mart's selling of ammo? Last I heard the NRA wasn't advocating removing ammo from either Wal Mart or K-Mart?

Why isn't he speaking out against the attempts to renew the Assault Weapons Ban if he wholeheartedly endorses the NRA's agenda?

Why is he backing this cause if he shares the NRA"s agenda to restrict such lawsuits?

Moore may be a member, but he doesn't share the agenda.

As an aside, the Bryco pistol mentioned shares the same 'defect' with such guns as the Colt 1911 that was so defective it was issued by the US Army for 70 years and the Browning High Power that was at one time the most popular 9mm pistol with the world's militaries and is still both in production and in wide use today.

[Master of Ossus]

Of course. He's a lifetime member of the NRA!

Wow. He walked up to an NRA office and paid dues to get his form processed. You'll forgive me for being unimpressed.

[MKSheppard]

In other news.....

Farenheit 9/11 has gotten an R rating from the MPAA for "violent
and disturbing images" and strong language.

The film's distributor, Lions Gate Films, responded by filing an
emergency appeal to have the rating reviewed.

And of course....

Michael Moore originally boasted that his distributors had
secured committments to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" in over
1,000 theaters.

Then he said about 1,000 theaters would show the film.

Then he was down to 'at least' 700 theaters would show the film.

Next it was 'at least' 500 theaters would show it.

Now it's 417, as of 6/16/2004.

And I looked up the filming costs, $6 million, up from $4 million
for BFC. You know, considering most of this film is archival footage
and is shot with just Moore and an aide with a Steadicam, where's
the money going? All night coke orgies in Moore's So Ho apartment?

[Elfdart]

In other news.....

Farenheit 9/11 has gotten an R rating from the MPAA for "violent
and disturbing images" and strong language.

The film's distributor, Lions Gate Films, responded by filing an
emergency appeal to have the rating reviewed.

And of course....

Michael Moore originally boasted that his distributors had
secured committments to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" in over
1,000 theaters.

Then he said about 1,000 theaters would show the film.

Then he was down to 'at least' 700 theaters would show the film.

Next it was 'at least' 500 theaters would show it.

Now it's 417, as of 6/16/2004.

And I looked up the filming costs, $6 million, up from $4 million
for BFC. You know, considering most of this film is archival footage
and is shot with just Moore and an aide with a Steadicam, where's
the money going? All night coke orgies in Moore's So Ho apartment?

Like most low-budget movies, Moore's film is "going on tour" and will be in different cities at different times. Securing rights to archival footage costs money. So does travel. The fact that he's using film instead of video tape for much of his footage costs quite a lot, too. A typical two-hour movie costs $250,000 for the film alone. Transfer from videotape to film is also costly.

Coke orgies? If Moore is going to get money for a coke habit, it won't be from the movie's expenses. There simply isn't enough left over for that. Out of the profits, maybe -but Michael Moore is no Robert Evans.

[Darth Wong]

Judging by his enormous girth, you should also remember that they probably spent at least $500,000 to feed Mr. Moore during film production.

[MKSheppard]

Out of the profits, maybe -but Michael Moore is no Robert Evans.

Then where does he get the money to live in So Ho and send his
daughter to an upscale private school from? It's certainly not from
his rugged charming looks.....for god's sake Michael, learn to use
a razor.

[Elfdart]

Out of the profits, maybe -but Michael Moore is no Robert Evans.

Then where does he get the money to live in So Ho and send his
daughter to an upscale private school from? It's certainly not from
his rugged charming looks.....for god's sake Michael, learn to use
a razor.

His personal fortune is probably from film profits -not expenses- and whatever money he gets from the sales of his books, AND speaking fees, which give the famous a license to print money.

[Durandal]

Of course. He's a lifetime member of the NRA!

Wow. He walked up to an NRA office and paid dues to get his form processed. You'll forgive me for being unimpressed.

Oh come on, Ossus, get your head out of your ass for just a second. Moore may not like the people heading up the NRA (Charleton Heston in particular), but he does believe in the right to bear arms. He grew up in rural Michigan and hunted there as a youth. He mainly opposes handguns, because he believes that handguns are specifically designed to kill people. This is a sentiment that my aunt's grandfather, who lived on a farm in Michigan, held as well.

[MKSheppard]

He mainly opposes handguns, because he believes that handguns are specifically designed to kill people.

Then he's a goddamned idiot. Many states have handgun
hunting seasons.

[Durandal]

He mainly opposes handguns, because he believes that handguns are specifically designed to kill people.

Then he's a goddamned idiot. Many states have handgun hunting seasons.

Whether or not he's an idiot isn't a point of contention, here. The point is that he is a lifetime member of the NRA, grew up around guns and does believe in the right to bear arms. So it's not like he just bought a membership for the sake of saying that he has, which is what Ossus was implying.

[Elfdart]

He mainly opposes handguns, because he believes that handguns are specifically designed to kill people.

Then he's a goddamned idiot. Many states have handgun
hunting seasons.

I blasted a collared peccary with a .45, but that wasn't hunting season, the little motherfucker attacked the tires of my uncle's truck. Besides, real men use baseball bats to hunt rabbits. Anything else is for pussies.

[Plekhanov]

Then he's a goddamned idiot. Many states have handgun hunting seasons.

What do people hunt with handguns and why don’t they use rifles or shotguns?

Have these handgun hunting seasons always been around or are they a more resent development introduced principally so those against gun control can point to a none killing people use of handguns?