Michael Moore deserves public humiliation

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Central Scrutinizer:

from the Random House Webster's Unabridged:

Documentary
2. Motion Pictures, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi.

If the movie is so well presented Moore can be forgiven factual inaccuracies then it is an entertaining movie and not a documentary.

And those factual inaccuracies would be......????

 

[Renfield]

no one is questioning his "documentary" in the press. It's really sad that people can make political films like this, call it a "documentary", stage most of what is put together, and is awarded with an oscar nomination.

anti-war protesting is highfashion and fat ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ moore wins everyone's hearts by talking about how stupid and scared white men are.

Amazing and truly worthy of praise.

if anyone is interested in reading what Michael Moore DOESNT want you to.....go check out this site :

http://www.moorewatch.com


argue to your hearts content and maybe even throw tomatoes at him when its possible.

Aww, your just mad because he's done such a damn fine job publicly humiliating right wingers.

 

[Douglas]

Here's an essay on Mr. Moore


http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/moore.html

 

[Guest]

randi.org mention on http://www.moorewatch.com/ :

"A word about this site and it's mission
Author: JimK
I was recently pointed to this message board ( http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/newreply.php?action=newreply&threadid=14288 ), where our little corner of the blogosphere was being discussed. I'm sure discussions like this take place daily in the online world of Moore, and I'm sure we get the short end of the stick from those who believe Moore is doing, for lack of a better term, "God's work."

Allow me to clear up a few things.

- The ad-hominem attacks on Moore's weight are calculated. The man wrote a book calld "Stupid White Men." He's attacked people all over the world for their looks, their intellect, their politics and their sense of self. He makes his living with biting sarcastic insults disguised as social commentary. If you think this means he's off limits to these types of attacks himself, then you are clearly depriving a villiage somewhere of a perfectly servicable idiot. Get thee hence to your post and begin idioting.

- This site has no facts. Just look around...we're constantly digging up facts that refute the nonsense Moore opffers up as the truth. If you don't see it, then I say *you* have an agenda and you're simply being belligerent because we don't agree. It's your right to look like a jackass, so I'll leave you to it.

- The questions that need to be asked: EVERYTHING! Moore makes things up, takes creative license, stages vignettes for a "documentary," and no one thinks these things should be questioned? The larger issue, of course, is if he lies about even ONE thing in his "documentary," what else is he lying about? He's putting himself out there as the harbinger of truth, and he's not. He's putting himself out there as a guy you should trust, and he's not. Am I saying you shoudl trust us? No...do your own research. We're just pointing these things out because no one else is doing it.

- The gun in the bank issue needs addressing. Neither I nor anyone else writing for this site ever said the bank did not give out guns. They did. It is in fact a program they ran, and may still be running, whereupon when you open an account that meets certain criteria, you get a firearm.

What *I* said, and I know this requires reading comprehension, so I'll take it slow, is that the gun was NEVER handed to Moore in the bank the day of the transaction, the way it was presented in the movie. STOP. I know your next objction: "But they never *said* it was the same day!" I know, but they damn sure implied it. He even asked the teller if it was a good idea to give out guns in a bank...and cut the footage.

We never heard the answer.

Truth is, there was a waiting period and a background check, and an FFL had to transfer that firearm to it's rightful owner. We're never told who actually filled out the ATF form, or for that matter who really opened the account. We don't even knwo if one was opened. Getting a firearm usually requires following local laws, and nowhere in the film did they outline what laws were followed...we just saw a cute little staged vignette, designed to leave you with the impression that you can walk into a North Country Bank office, open a savings account with ten bucks and walk out with a deadly weapon.

That's not true. Nothing about the incident, except the barest facts, was true. And THAT is the allegation this site has made about the North Country Bank incident.

Someone asked why they keep 500 guns in a vault at the bank. Simple: THEY OWN THEM. That's what you have to do in order to be legal in this country. The owner is required by FEDERAL LAW to retain posession of the guns until such time as they are transferred to the new owner. That also means that if they stored them with a gun dealer, they would have to pay a fee, likely per gun, to transfer them to the dealer, then transfer them to the customer. The dealer would charge storage, insurance...you'd be an idiot to keep them anywhere else BUT a bank vault under these circumstances.

But I suppose nothing we say matters...we're just attacking Moore's weight around here. Facts be damned, full speed ahead with the spin doctoring!

http://www.moorewatch.com/comments.php?id=157_0_1_0_C "

Getting upset about Michael Moore really does help to make his point. The wonderfull thing about BFC was that Moores own opinions were irrelevant. He just asked questions and pointed the camera. The right wing dumbass Americans that responded hung themselves with their own rope. The saddest thing about that film was that the participants had no comprehension of how retarded they would appear to everyone else - which epitomises Americas failure to reconcile its self-image with the image every-one else has of it. How is that spin doctoring?

 

[Scorpy]

Getting upset about Michael Moore really does help to make his point. The wonderfull thing about BFC was that Moores own opinions were irrelevant. He just asked questions and pointed the camera. The right wing dumbass Americans that responded hung themselves with their own rope. The saddest thing about that film was that the participants had no comprehension of how retarded they would appear to everyone else - which epitomises Americas failure to reconcile its self-image with the image every-one else has of it. How is that spin doctoring?

In order to make the movie Moore had to first decide what the movie's subject matter was going to be, what angle he would use to approach it, who he was going to interview, and finally whose interview would make it into the final cut. His opinions were far from irrelevent.

 

[gnome]

Even as a liberal who enjoys Michael Moore's work, I must admit to doubting his facts from time to time. I have heard enough from organizations that have no particular bone to pick with liberals, such as Spinsanity.

There's a lot of good stuff mixed in with the questionable stuff, though, IMHO.

Will those of you on the right admit that some of your favorite commentators are occasionally full of ◊◊◊◊?

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Sure I can admit faults in all of my favorite commentators, but I dont see them being nominated for Oscars, Grammys, and paraded around as if they're a new model for the rest of humanity that no one should question or find legitimate fault in.

there were also kids in high school that I had respect for and the more popular and loudmouthed kids beat the ◊◊◊◊ out of them or refused to let them be heard, noticed or accepted.

its the same thing........stay popular, win a nobel peace prize.

 

[Akots]

Would Moore be doing this for free?

Seriously... would he be doing this if there was no profit in it for him? There's a lot of things people DO believe in, but avoid, because it would cause them either harm or loss of comfort.

 

[reprise]

Oddly enough, yesterday's episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show was about Bowling for Columbine and included an extensive interview with Moore.

While Oprah's endorsement of the movie guarantees it a large audience whether it deserves such an audience or not, I found Moore's comments regarding the creation of a climate of fear very interesting. If - as he stated in the interview - his purpose in making Bowling for Columbine was to get Americans to look at the manner in which they perceive themselves (and by extension are perceived by the rest of the world) and how they have come to internalise certain beliefs (especially those relating to crime and violence), then I think he has achieved that purpose.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sure I can admit faults in all of my favorite commentators, but I dont see them being nominated for Oscars, Grammys, and paraded around as if they're a new model for the rest of humanity that no one should question or find legitimate fault in.

there were also kids in high school that I had respect for and the more popular and loudmouthed kids beat the ◊◊◊◊ out of them or refused to let them be heard, noticed or accepted.

its the same thing........stay popular, win a nobel peace prize.

As you continue to refuse to point out the film's "inaccuracies"........

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Would Moore be doing this for free?

Seriously... would he be doing this if there was no profit in it for him? There's a lot of things people DO believe in, but avoid, because it would cause them either harm or loss of comfort.

No. Would you do your job for no pay??? I'm missing your point, I think.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

no

actually CS.....to be honest I'm simply ignoring you because you're a pretentious troll.

that's about it.

maybe you could take the time to read the articles and links posted and later I'll post a list of inaccuracies and distortions if I feel like doing it.

Im not here to bottle feed you.

it takes almost no effort to click your lil mouse, but reading on the other hand....shwew...biggy there.................and comprehension ? shwew.............seems like a toughy for you.....

just give it a try though...... http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

no

actually CS.....to be honest I'm simply ignoring you because you're a pretentious troll.

that's about it.

maybe you could take the time to read the articles and links posted and later I'll post a list of inaccuracies and distortions if I feel like doing it.

Im not here to bottle feed you.

it takes almost no effort to click your lil mouse, but reading on the other hand....shwew...biggy there.................and comprehension ? shwew.............seems like a toughy for you.....

just give it a try though...... http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore

And those inaccuracies would be.....????

(Pretend I'm not asking. I'm sure everyone else would like to hear just one)

 

[Supercharts]

Little known fact: Many banks are used to store guns. This is mainly due to the fact that if the guns are kept at home and are stolen the gun/home owner faces a large liability. Everyone I know who has a machine gun keeps them in a bank. Usually the gun is stripped down so it can be stored in the largest box the bank has available.

 

[Diezel]

It is interesting that there are those that see this film and the people in at some sort of truth of how Americans really are and how they think...

Yes, and Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" interviews are also proof of the intellectual level of the American public.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

And those inaccuracies would be.....????

(Pretend I'm not asking. I'm sure everyone else would like to hear just one)

exhibit a :

"This is similar to Moore's continued repetition of the lie that the U.S. gave millions of dollars in aid ($43 million last year and $245 million in total) to the Taliban government of Afghanistan when, in fact, that aid consisted of food aid and food security programs administered by the U.N. and non-governmental agencies to relieve a famine. Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer did assert that the money was given directly to the Taliban, but his claims directly contradict this statement (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/text2001/17may01.html ) by Secretary of State Colin Powell and have been debunked by numerous articles (including our own)."

 

[Occasional Chemist]

Yes, and Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" interviews are also proof of the intellectual level of the American public.

As an educator, I could give you some examples of intellect that make Leno's (and that show "Street Smarts") interviewees look like Einsteins.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

So damn interesting isnt it all ?

http://www.moorewatch.com/

Michael Moore and the French are even closer still to creating a very rude, very hairy love child: Bowling For Columbine is required viewing in French schools:


Ever vigilant to go the extra mile to keep the world free from bloody tyrants, the French last week banned a party of French school children from visiting Britain because of Tony Blair's backing of the war against Iraq. Better that the kids stay home in their French classrooms and develop their view of the world by watching Michael Moore's America-bashing "Bowling for Columbine."

Moore's film became a certified part of the French national curriculum after winning the "Cannes Prix Educational National" award, voted on by hundreds of French teachers and students. The film also made French history by being the first documentary chosen in nearly 50 years to be part of the official Cannes Film Festival competition. Hands down, "Bowling for Columbine" won the festival's 55th Anniversary Special Prize. "It was the only prize awarded," explains Moore, "that received a unanimous decision from the festival jury."


Entertaining, to be sure. But we all know what it's really about, don't we? It's a lesson in loathing, taught by its bearded master.


What the jurors unanimously liked was the picture Moore painted of America, a wild-eyed nation of militia crazies, gun nuts, military bravado, imperialistic warmongers and dull-witted suburban fathers who shuffle off to their jobs at Lockheed Martin each morning to make weapons of mass destruction while their trigger-happy kids are over at Columbine High, first going to bowling class in the morning and then blasting their classmates to smithereens.

In fact, the shooters at Columbine didn't go bowling on the morning of the day of the killings and the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites. More importantly, there's nothing in the film to remind French students that they might well be watching Moore's movie with German subtitles if it were not for American defense contractors and American bravado.

 

[John Bryce]

And those inaccuracies would be.....????

I have not seen the Moore movie, and quite frankly I have no interest in seeing it. I also have no interest in debating the Moore movie.

However, since you are not getting an answer to your question, I will provide you this. It is a commentary on the inaccuracies of the Movie.

Bowling For Columbine:Commentary and Statistics

The commentary is a PDF file, so I am just going to link to the main site. You'll see the commentary link if you scroll down a little bit.

Here is a quote:

------
It is heavily edited and this distorts reality. Remember when he got the rifle by making a bank deposit? He didn’t show it, but to do so, he had to pass a police check, and comply with both federal and state laws.

Remember when he bought ammunition in Canada? He must have done so illegally. According to Canadian law, you need a firearms permit. Moore is not a Canadian resident so he doesn’t qualify.
------

[Edited to make additions after reading Questioninggeller's post.]

 

[Questioninggeller]

And those factual inaccuracies would be......????

I agree, would like to know the inaccuracies too.

No one has posted any info. other than the man is overweight.

Okay let's say that some of the things are wrong, let's dicuss the big picture. Moore makes asses [shows people for what they are] out of the heads of hearltess, greedy corporate CEO's. He attacks violence with his own style. He makes a commical show about the hipocritial nature of this country.

If anyone needs humiliation, let's start with Bush then move on to the CEO's who fire employees to move the manufacuring sector out of the country, then the people who pollute, and then if there if infinite time, let's more to the senate then congress, ect.