Michael Moore's rebuttal?
- Thread starter Valmorian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- michael moore
Valmorian said:
I think he must have a special keyboard for typing with those double extra-large-with-cheese fingers of his.
If I liked him, I would not make fun of him this way. Therefore, I have not lost any class at all in making this personal attack. I have lots of fat friends who I am nice to, because they are my friends. Michael Moore, in contrast, isn't a very good friend of mine.
Renfield
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,055
I've kind of been following Moore's critics, and haven't been too impressed. They have managed to score some points, such as with Moore's use of the Willie Horton ad, but for the most part they engage in more lying and fact twisting then they are accusing Moore of doing.
Spinsanity is one of the worst, when it comes to twisting things. One exampe - they attack Moore for pointing out that the US was doing business with Hussein during the imbargo. It was done under the oil for food program, they say, something a big liberal like Moore must approve of!
What they don't mention is that Moore was responding to attacks on the UN and France for trading for oil with Iraq. What Moore was saying is that the US was doing the same thing that these countries were being attacked for doing.
So they were taking a Moore statement out of context and twisting it around, in order to attack Moore for taking things out of context and twisting facts. Kind of SOP at Spinsanity.
Edited to add:
Here's some classic "Spinsanity".
"Nor is Moore above twisting facts to attack the Bush administration's tax cuts. Moore criticizes the 2003 Bush tax cut for reducing revenue to the states. As one example, he writes, "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were shut down early this year because they ran out of tax money." (page 160) While Moore makes it appear as though the 2003 Bush tax cut shut down Oregon's schools, Oregon actually passed a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax system from the federal government's, insuring that the 2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's budget. Moreover, as an article from the June 8 New York Times Magazine - one of Moore's own sources - notes, Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools and other spending."
Notice how they don't directly refute Moore's claim about federal funding being cut. They do mention that Oregon's tax rates were not affected too much, and that voters rejected raising taxes. Total misdirection. Notice none of this refutes Moore's statement about federal cuts in funding.
Spinsanity is one of the worst, when it comes to twisting things. One exampe - they attack Moore for pointing out that the US was doing business with Hussein during the imbargo. It was done under the oil for food program, they say, something a big liberal like Moore must approve of!
What they don't mention is that Moore was responding to attacks on the UN and France for trading for oil with Iraq. What Moore was saying is that the US was doing the same thing that these countries were being attacked for doing.
So they were taking a Moore statement out of context and twisting it around, in order to attack Moore for taking things out of context and twisting facts. Kind of SOP at Spinsanity.
Edited to add:
Here's some classic "Spinsanity".
"Nor is Moore above twisting facts to attack the Bush administration's tax cuts. Moore criticizes the 2003 Bush tax cut for reducing revenue to the states. As one example, he writes, "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were shut down early this year because they ran out of tax money." (page 160) While Moore makes it appear as though the 2003 Bush tax cut shut down Oregon's schools, Oregon actually passed a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax system from the federal government's, insuring that the 2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's budget. Moreover, as an article from the June 8 New York Times Magazine - one of Moore's own sources - notes, Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools and other spending."
Notice how they don't directly refute Moore's claim about federal funding being cut. They do mention that Oregon's tax rates were not affected too much, and that voters rejected raising taxes. Total misdirection. Notice none of this refutes Moore's statement about federal cuts in funding.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Oh boy, just what we need... another Moore thread.
I've seen his 'response' and found it to be, well, rather lacking. It looks like much of his reasoning involves attacking strawmen and avoiding addressing criticisms.
For example, on the issue of the bank giving away the guns, he says its ridiculous to assume that the scene was staged on a set with actors, etc. However, that's not what most critics are complaining about. They have no doubt that such a bank exists, or that he actually got the gun on the same day he walked into the bank. The complaint was that there were arrangements made before the scene took place to allow him to recieve the gun sooner than normal. (Perhaps Moore didn't know that he was treated as a special case; however, a phone call to the bank would clear things up.)
On the factory that builds missles, he suggests its ridiculous to assume he somehow painted the "U.S. Air Force" logo on the missles themselves. But again, that's not what most critics are complaining about. They aren't suggesting that the plant has nothing to do with the military. They are complaining that he misrepresented the activities that are currently going on at the plant.
In the case of Heston and the NRA, the complaint is that the speech was edited to splice sections together that weren't together before, and that certain information was left out. (Moore wrote "Heston took his NRA show to Denver", and he is accurate about that, but he neglected to mention that the NRA had canceled most of the activities; some of the stuff that they did do was legally mandated however.
Then there are other issues, such as the purchase of ammunition in Canada, etc. which were not covered at all in Moore's response.
You can see at least one set of responses to Moore's statements here:
http://www.hardylaw.net/replytomoore.html
Valmorian said:
I've seen his 'response' and found it to be, well, rather lacking. It looks like much of his reasoning involves attacking strawmen and avoiding addressing criticisms.
For example, on the issue of the bank giving away the guns, he says its ridiculous to assume that the scene was staged on a set with actors, etc. However, that's not what most critics are complaining about. They have no doubt that such a bank exists, or that he actually got the gun on the same day he walked into the bank. The complaint was that there were arrangements made before the scene took place to allow him to recieve the gun sooner than normal. (Perhaps Moore didn't know that he was treated as a special case; however, a phone call to the bank would clear things up.)
On the factory that builds missles, he suggests its ridiculous to assume he somehow painted the "U.S. Air Force" logo on the missles themselves. But again, that's not what most critics are complaining about. They aren't suggesting that the plant has nothing to do with the military. They are complaining that he misrepresented the activities that are currently going on at the plant.
In the case of Heston and the NRA, the complaint is that the speech was edited to splice sections together that weren't together before, and that certain information was left out. (Moore wrote "Heston took his NRA show to Denver", and he is accurate about that, but he neglected to mention that the NRA had canceled most of the activities; some of the stuff that they did do was legally mandated however.
Then there are other issues, such as the purchase of ammunition in Canada, etc. which were not covered at all in Moore's response.
You can see at least one set of responses to Moore's statements here:
http://www.hardylaw.net/replytomoore.html
Re: Re: Michael Moore's rebuttal?
I'm curious about this, how do we know that this was sooner than normal? I mean, I've heard people claim it, but I've never seen any real evidence to suggest this is the case.
Besides that fact, the real point here is that the guns WERE on the same site. Suppose he DID get special treatment and got the gun sooner than normal.. so what? Wasn't the point here that you could get a gun AT the bank? If someone had to come back and pick it up at a different time how does this change anything?
Segnosaur said:
I'm curious about this, how do we know that this was sooner than normal? I mean, I've heard people claim it, but I've never seen any real evidence to suggest this is the case.
Besides that fact, the real point here is that the guns WERE on the same site. Suppose he DID get special treatment and got the gun sooner than normal.. so what? Wasn't the point here that you could get a gun AT the bank? If someone had to come back and pick it up at a different time how does this change anything?
The rifle actually came from a gun store - the bank paid for the rifle when you open an account. The SOP, as I understand it, was that the customer got a document of some sort to take to the gun store to exchange for the firearm, after completing the proper paperwork.
What Moore did was open the account, go to the gun store, fill out the paperwork, then had the gunstore deliver the gun to him at the bank. Then he picked it up at the bank to make it look like he just opened an account & walked out with a rifle, no questions asked.
He just neglected to include the part about having to go in person to the gun store & fill out all the paperwork beforehand, making it look like he walked into the bank & out with a rifle. I'm sure it was just an oversight on his part since he has no political axe to grind.
The bank did not sell/give him the gun - they cannot do that. That is a strawman purchase, and is illegal. The gun was purchased from a licensed gun dealer by Michael Moore - all the bank did was provide payment, if the person opening the account met all the legal requirements for ownership, they could pick it up.
I can give you $500 to go to a gun store & buy a gun, no problem. Nothing illegal about giving someone $ to buy something for themselves. But you still have to go to the store, fill out the paperwork, show ID, etc. before it's yours. Then it's yours - not mine, even if I did front the cash.
What Moore did was open the account, go to the gun store, fill out the paperwork, then had the gunstore deliver the gun to him at the bank. Then he picked it up at the bank to make it look like he just opened an account & walked out with a rifle, no questions asked.
He just neglected to include the part about having to go in person to the gun store & fill out all the paperwork beforehand, making it look like he walked into the bank & out with a rifle. I'm sure it was just an oversight on his part since he has no political axe to grind.
The bank did not sell/give him the gun - they cannot do that. That is a strawman purchase, and is illegal. The gun was purchased from a licensed gun dealer by Michael Moore - all the bank did was provide payment, if the person opening the account met all the legal requirements for ownership, they could pick it up.
I can give you $500 to go to a gun store & buy a gun, no problem. Nothing illegal about giving someone $ to buy something for themselves. But you still have to go to the store, fill out the paperwork, show ID, etc. before it's yours. Then it's yours - not mine, even if I did front the cash.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore's rebuttal?
Its been discussed in other threads. For example: in http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41366&pagenumber=2
An example: from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/01/do0101.xml : the bank doesn't normally do anything of the sort. Customers have to wait six weeks for background checks.
- They keep some around for display/advertising purposes
- They brought one in specificially for Moore
Many people view guns as dangerous. Receiving a gun right away (especially when you may not know the person that well) might make people view the bank as reckless. (Although not really feasabile, he could have, for example, turned around and robbed the bank.) On the other hand, a lengthy waiting period (and the need to go to a different location to pick up the gun) woudl allow a 'cooling off' period.
Valmorian said:
Its been discussed in other threads. For example: in http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41366&pagenumber=2
An example: from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/01/do0101.xml : the bank doesn't normally do anything of the sort. Customers have to wait six weeks for background checks.
Yes, and there are several reasons why the bank may have had some guns on site:Valmorian said:
- They keep some around for display/advertising purposes
- They brought one in specificially for Moore
You're right, it shouldn't have mattered. Moore could have easily said in the movie "Oh and after a waiting period...". Or, even if he didn't know he was getting special treatment, he could have issued a statement later saying "Yeah, normally they wouldn't give anyone a gun that soon, but we cut out the waiting period for the movie", then he still could have made his point (America loves guns) without people wondering if this was deceptive.Valmorian said:
Valmorian said:
Many people view guns as dangerous. Receiving a gun right away (especially when you may not know the person that well) might make people view the bank as reckless. (Although not really feasabile, he could have, for example, turned around and robbed the bank.) On the other hand, a lengthy waiting period (and the need to go to a different location to pick up the gun) woudl allow a 'cooling off' period.
Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
Do you have a reliable source for this? This all, if true, would mean that the scene in the movie, including the outtakes Moore offers on his site, were staged. For example, where the teller tells Moore in the outtake that she'd have to check in the gun safe to see if a certain model was available that day. Just one example of course.Khonshu said:
I am skeptical about the bank saying there was a 6 week waiting period, how do they explain the quick approval in the documentary?
Why would them bending the rules for a documentary maker excuse them?
You have to be equally skeptical of both sides to be fair.
Why would them bending the rules for a documentary maker excuse them?
You have to be equally skeptical of both sides to be fair.
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore's rebuttal?
At another point she explains that for people who couldn't come into the bank, the gun would be shipped to a licenced dealer near the customer and they would need to go there and show ID to get the gun. But what you saw in the movie appears to be true - you could walk in, open an account, and after the background check get handed a gun. No special arrangements required.
If you go to Moore's rebuttal linked to, he has outtakes from the bank day on the site. In the outtakes, the bank clerk explains that there are a number of models to choose from, and that the amount of deposit required to get that gun depends on the retail value of the gun. Further, she showed him a listing of the various guns available, and told him that they had some at the bank, and others qould have to be ordered. He simply picked one that they had in stock.Segnosaur said:
At another point she explains that for people who couldn't come into the bank, the gun would be shipped to a licenced dealer near the customer and they would need to go there and show ID to get the gun. But what you saw in the movie appears to be true - you could walk in, open an account, and after the background check get handed a gun. No special arrangements required.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,862
Khonshu said:
If his presentation of the facts is inaccurate, he is doing more than "neglecting to include" something.. he is flat out lying. He specifically states that the bank is a licensed gun dealer itself and performed an instant background check on him. He even gives their ATF license number.
So you can't go there and just insinuate neglect--to challenge this you must accuse him of an out-and-out lie, and that will require serious evidence.
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore's rebuttal?
Well, it looks bad on the surface, but when you think about it, I don't see it as that big a deal. If you really wanted to rob a bank, would you go to that bank, show them a bunch of ID, fill out a bunch of forms, pass the federal bankground check, give them a cheque for a thousand bucks, then turn around and use the gun they give you to rob the bank after you have been sitting and talking to the teller for 15 minutes? That's the kind of behaviour that gets you a World's Dumbest Criminal award. Assuming that you can pass the check and all that, you use the thousand bucks to buy a gun at the gun store then go to the bank in a ski mask?tamiO said:
Sloe_Bohemian
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 350
Khonshu said:
Something about your comments didn't jibe with my memory, so I found a snippet of transcript from the conversation between the bank representative selected to help "the celebrity" and Michael.
See? According to the bank officials (whom I watched say the words... several times), they have the guns onsite... in their vault. And as the bank officials explained "..we are a licensed fire arm dealer." So we listened to the bank employee explain that they are themselves, the bank, a licensed firearm dealer and we watched them fill out the paperwork onsite and run the background check onsite and provide one of the 500 guns that they keep in their vault to MM who was at the bank... where we often find vaults... so that he could take it home with him, but admittedly, he did call ahead and get permission to bring a camera crew.
So, what source of information is so powerful that it contradicts the bank staff who were prepared ahead of time for an interview and repeatedly said that they have the guns in their vault and that they are licensed gun dealers in their own right and then proceeded to complete the paperwork and run the background check onsite while I watched (edited for time, I admit)?
I'm not being antagonistic... I'm serious. What source of information trumps that?
But more importantly, isn't the whole original "issue" a strawman?
What was the point of the piece? That businesses can perform functions from multiple industries to serve their customers (i.e. banking and gun dealership)?
And somehow if we can prove that Moore's attempts to make the "cross-function in industry" theory were not completely honest in the manner through which he chose to portray it, that we will become free of the burden to encourage social justice?
Is that the issue?
Or maybe the point of the piece is that the gun culture is so engrained into our society that something as unusual as a bank that gives away guns (in lieu of interest) isn't really all that unusual anymore? That guns are seen in such a positive light, that a local business that has nothing to do with guns can actually use gun offers as a tool to drive up business. Heck, it might show gun popularity to be so large that a business which traditionally suffers from the results of gun ownership (many robbers actually employ guns as tools against banks), can actually find it beneficial to get onboard with promoting gun ownership. And all this is a bit funny!
I think those are valid explanations of what the piece is about, or at least what people with common sense might get from it. And none of those things are at issue with how the bank gets the guns into people's hands. The original complaints against Moore are obviously Strawmen attacks. Moore is being overly indulgent in giving any reply to them... but then to bring up issues about there being an unseen gun dealer in the background to facilitate the trade... when I've watched the bank staff clearly say that isn't true... well, can you provide a source that's better than the bank staff? Can you? Cause I'd like to know.
Actually, I'd really like to hear a complaint that's on point... something about why you don't want to believe that guns are popular, or something about the piece that's relevant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore's rebuttal?
I see a lot of people claiming this is so, but then I already knew people claimed that it was staged. Going through the rebuttal and particularly the outtakes footage seems to suggest this is a lie, and that you can indeed walk out with a gun on the same day.
Ok, I see a paragraph that says that, but why should I put more stock in that as opposed to the footage in the film? (not to mention those outtakes)
You forgot one:
- They have guns on the site to give to the customers, just as stated in the film.
From what I gather, no real "waiting period" was required. What reason do you have to believe there was? Aside from simple claims by detractors. It certainly appears as though it wasn't required!
Segnosaur said:
I see a lot of people claiming this is so, but then I already knew people claimed that it was staged. Going through the rebuttal and particularly the outtakes footage seems to suggest this is a lie, and that you can indeed walk out with a gun on the same day.
Ok, I see a paragraph that says that, but why should I put more stock in that as opposed to the footage in the film? (not to mention those outtakes)
You forgot one:
- They have guns on the site to give to the customers, just as stated in the film.
From what I gather, no real "waiting period" was required. What reason do you have to believe there was? Aside from simple claims by detractors. It certainly appears as though it wasn't required!