Basically, Mike Moore may lose his Oscar for best Documentary
if this effort pans out...
This mess reminds me of the time that fucknut Michael Bellesiles
tried to cram a load of crap down our throats with his book "Arming
America"....but he didn't count on the way his book would be
picked to pieces and shot to hell, and his prizes revoked
Word to the wise: Don't piss off people who like guns. They are some
of the most fanatically rabid people in the world...and they have political
power, unlike the Christian Right
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Hehehe, serves him right. His so called documentary is on the edge of libel in some areas, and crosses the line in most. He twists words beyond reconition, and makes people look like they are saying what they are not by strategic placement of clips from interviews.
Yay! I wonder which of them was less accurate? I've heard more about Michael Bellesiles, and it sonded fairly bad, but Mike Moore might have been worse. Does anyone else know?
It will never happen. Hollywood is too enamored with Moore and his bullshit. It would be nice, though.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
The Bellisiles report was worse, but Moore got more press time and is much more visible to the public. But the gun control crowd fawned on Bellisiles and made him a centerpoint in their campaign for awhile, making his influence temporarily more pervasive and potentially more damaging. His undoing was particularly satisfying.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Guy who received a bunch of awards for writing a anti-gun screed based on lies.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Good. That he ever got it in the first place is a testament to how far Holly-weird will go to defend a lost, liberal cause. The peice was nothing but slander, innuendo and flat out lies. He should never have gotten the Oscar in the first place.
Guy who received a bunch of awards for writing a anti-gun screed based on lies.
The book was called "Arming America", I believe.
Anyway, I say Moore should keep his Oscar, even if the documentary he won it for wasn't all that true. It's not like anyone even heard of the other candidates for Best Documentary.
Whenever he gets criticism about his "documentary", he claims it's a comedy... Hmm...
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
Moore should never have gotten that award, and the brains of the judges should be recalled for servicing, something not grinding right,
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Wah wah wah, all I see is pointless bitching and moaning. Didn't Wong have a thread on this in this very forum? You know the one that asked what exactly was horrifically wrong with Moore's argument yet no one could post anything other than as Wong put it, "evasive bullshit"?
Who gives a shit? No one here is addressing Michael Moore's argument, we're addressing the methods by which he presented it. Those being fabrication, lies, and misleading innuendoes.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Strafe wrote:Wah wah wah, all I see is pointless bitching and moaning. Didn't Wong have a thread on this in this very forum? You know the one that asked what exactly was horrifically wrong with Moore's argument yet no one could post anything other than as Wong put it, "evasive bullshit"?
Have you even read the topic? It is quite obvious to anyone who doesn't blindly follow his propoganda like the sheep that conservatives are all to often accused of being that it is full of lies and mistruths.
Or have you been following Moore's accusations and presentations without backing it up, like a sheep?
Nathan F wrote:Have you even read the topic? It is quite obvious to anyone who doesn't blindly follow his propoganda like the sheep that conservatives are all to often accused of being that it is full of lies and mistruths.
Have YOU even read the topic? When I asked people to provide examples of outright lies in the documentary, they were UNABLE TO DO SO. All they could do was point to "misleading innuendo" and bullshit like that, pointing at incidents like the bank paying interest in the form of a gun (which happened and was accurately portrayed, but people felt he should have spent more time showing the process of getting his background check ) or the fact that Charlton Heston was shown giving a speech after the part of the film where the Columbine shooting was described (even though the documentary makes no claim that the speech was actually given in response to the shooting, and one could quite easily interpret it as a standard comparison of fact to pre-existing attitude).
But whenever someone isn't challenging them to LIST ACTUAL LIES, the "We Hate Michael Moore" club reverts right back to their "it's full of lies" dogma.
Or have you been following Moore's accusations and presentations without backing it up, like a sheep?
Speaking of sheep ...
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:
Have YOU even read the topic? When I asked people to provide examples of outright lies in the documentary, they were UNABLE TO DO SO. All they could do was point to "misleading innuendo" and bullshit like that, pointing at incidents like the bank paying interest in the form of a gun (which happened and was accurately portrayed, but people felt he should have spent more time showing the process of getting his background check ) or the fact that Charlton Heston was shown giving a speech after the part of the film where the Columbine shooting was described (even though the documentary makes no claim that the speech was actually given in response to the shooting, and one could quite easily interpret it as a standard comparison of fact to pre-existing attitude).
But whenever someone isn't challenging them to LIST ACTUAL LIES, the "We Hate Michael Moore" club reverts right back to their "it's full of lies" dogma.
Maybe I went a bit far with the outright lies part, but that does not excuse his continuous bending of the truth and using misquotes and heavy innuendo, that, as previously said, steps over the line of libel agains numerous people.
Shinova wrote:People have analyzed "Bowling for Columbine".
Parts of it were cut, edited, and respliced to change things like sequence of events, or to put things in the wrong contexts.
Well whoop-de-fucking-doo. How many discovery channel documentaries accurately portray the life of the three-toed sloth in perfect pristine un-edited sequence without the "editorialising" of the narrator?
So they edited the fucking film and gave it a bit of a voice over... What a fucking crime. At no point do they outright lie about anything contained within it.
But, when you allow the innuendo and distortion into a documentary, does the documentary not become simply a piece of propaganda then? Where do you draw the line?
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
