Fahrenheit 9/11

[Wildcard Ky]

I don't think you're close-minded. That's why I posted Moore's rebuttal. What did you think?

I had read Moores rebuttals before, and honestly I think he's a good a tap dancer as he is at spinning.

In the part that you pasted, he only mentions three examples from BFC that he says he has been wrongly portrayed by the opposition on. The Bank, Lockheed and the bowling. Actually I believe him on the bank part. By his accounting of the bank, no one did anything illegal. The bank had a current FFL, did all the required paperwork and background checks on him and presented him with a fine hunting rifle due to the fact that he was legal to be a gun owner in the U.S.

He acts as if this was some grave injustice. He was presented with a Weatherby MKV bolt action hunting rifle. A deer gun. There has NEVER been any type of legislation even introduced to outlaw those types of weapons. They are large weapons capable of holding 4 rounds of ammunition and the bolt must be cycled manually each time to get off another shot. Bill Clinton defended this type of weapon when he supported the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. Clinton went out of his way to support hunting weapons like this one.

He then mentions Lockheed as a manufacturer of WMD's. He spins a pretty picture. But in doing so, he basically admits that they don't actually MAKE WMD's, they only make components that are used somewhere in the process of delivering a WMD. He references the satellites taken aloft by the rockets to aid in delivering WMD's. He neglects to say that he's talking about GPS satellites. The same satellites that feed every civilian owned, hand held GPS unit in the world. Calling the GPS satellites an instrument of WMD is akin to blaming the farmer that grew the barley, that was turned into beer that led to a drunk driver killing someone. Yeah, the connection is there, but it's an awful big stretch to connect the two.

In what you pasted, it seemed that Moore was most proud of the fact that he wasn't sued over the film. The only reason he wasn't sued is because of the team of people that he had go over the film with him. Moore was very careful in how he presented things in BFC. In order to be sued for something, he would have had to have named names. He took many many shots (no pun intended) at the "gun industry". When being critical, he was careful to not name specific gun companies. Had he done so, he would have been in court in a New York minute. Slander can only happen when you name someone.

As I said, Moore answered three "charges" made against him in BFT. Go to bowlingfortruth.com and see how many charges there are against him that he didn't answer for.

Lastly, I get upset because he labels everyone that likes or supports guns as Nutcases, lunatics, or gun nuts. Talk about stereotyping and painting with a broad brush. If someone owns or likes guns they must be a gun nut. Stark raving mad lunatics. I am a gun owner, and I work in R&D for a major gun manufacturer. I would say that I have a pretty keen insight into how the "gun industry" works. I don't recognize the fanatical lunatic group that Moore is referring to when he talks about the "gun industry".

In case you're curious, yes I am a member of the NRA. I don't like everything about the NRA, but they are protecting me and my job from people like Moore. I believe in the right of every LAW ABIDING citizen to own guns. Also, I am 100% in favor of background checks for every gun purchase. I am 100% in favor of closing the gun show loop hole. I favor both of these things because they can help prevent a convicted criminal from buying a gun. I wanted to include my views on that just to show that I'm not some "lunatic nut case" that opposes anything that resembles gun control.

 

[shereads]

Honey, if he "admits" something then he's not lying about it. Lockheed is a weapons manufacturer, whether they are making components or assembling them. If they were making aluminum foil that got turned into weapons without their knowledge and cooperation, that would be different.

The irony of a bank giving away guns speaks for itself, and if you don't like the fact that he showed it happening, then you're not the audience for his movie.

Have you seen any of his films?

You could assume that everything you've read about him is true because he didn't write a thesis disputing every single rumour or mistatement, or you can accept that the man makes films of people doing what they do, and edits them in a way that puts his spin on things - He doesn't put words in their mouths. The most deceptive thing on TV right now are the Bush commercials about Kerry being anti-military. Kerry has voted for 16 out of 19 military budgets, and voted against the Iraq spending bill only because he wanted the alternative that would have required some of the money to come from Iraq oil sales instead of from U.S. taxpayers exclusively....The weapons he's voted against are mostly the ones that Dick Cheney opposed when he was working for GWB's dad. Do you see the Bush commercial makers explaining all of that? Are they obligated to explain all sides?

How is that different?

 

[Guest]

Kentucky, perhaps I read you wrong the first time, though I've reread your initial post. The tone of it still irks a bit, but I apologize to you. I can't really say yet, perhaps I'll judge the film as crap.

best, Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Just a simple note, it is unlikely anyone who plans on voting for Bush will see this film. Personally, I am not voting for Bush this time around, but I wouldn't support this man with the cost of a ticket if the showing was free.

-Colly

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Honey, if he "admits" something then he's not lying about it. Lockheed is a weapons manufacturer, whether they are making components or assembling them. If they were making aluminum foil that got turned into weapons without their knowledge and cooperation, that would be different.

The irony of a bank giving away guns speaks for itself, and if you don't like the fact that he showed it happening, then you're not the audience for his movie.

Have you seen any of his films?

You could assume that everything you've read about him is true because he didn't write a thesis disputing every single rumour or mistatement, or you can accept that the man makes films of people doing what they do, and edits them in a way that puts his spin on things - He doesn't put words in their mouths. The most deceptive thing on TV right now are the Bush commercials about Kerry being anti-military. Kerry has voted for 16 out of 19 military budgets, and voted against the Iraq spending bill only because he wanted the alternative that would have required some of the money to come from Iraq oil sales instead of from U.S. taxpayers exclusively....The weapons he's voted against are mostly the ones that Dick Cheney opposed when he was working for GWB's dad. Do you see the Bush commercial makers explaining all of that? Are they obligated to explain all sides?

How is that different?

You misunderstand me on the bank. I said I don't think he lied, and I don't think anything was wrong with it either. No one did anything illegal on either side. I have no problems with a gun being given away provided that it is all done legally. The bank had the FFL, did the paperwork and the background check. Moore passed the background check and was legally able to own a gun in the U.S. No problems with any of that for me. I really don't care that he showed it. The bank was giving away a fine hunting rifle to customers that qualified.

Forgive me if this seems an offensive question to you: Do you know much about guns? The different makes, models, types, types of actions, etc? The last time a gun like this was used in a notorious crime was Nov 22, 1963. Oswald used a similar gun on Kennedy. Oswald got off three shots in 6 seconds. A feat so remarkable that conspiracy theories of a second gunman still rage today. For some one to get off three shots in 6 seconds with a gun like this is nothing short of astounding. That's one notorious crime in the last 41 years with this type of gun. My point is this type of rifle simply isn't used for crimes. It's too big, bulky, only holds 4 bullets and it would take the average person person at least 10 seconds to fire those 4 bullets. It's not like the bank was giving away street sweepers with 50 round clips.

I have seen some of Moores films, but not all. I've seen Roger and Me, and Bowling for Columbine.

I can't comment on the latest round of Bush commercials, I haven't seen any of them. To be honest, I don't watch much TV and when I do watch it's either news, Discovery Channel or History Channel. If the commercials aren't running there, chances are I won't see them. I don't pay much attention to political advertising anyway. To me it's all crooked. It's simply one side doing what they can to bash the other instead of talking up their own strengths. I don't subscribe to anything that is supposed to make me decide who to vote for in 30 seconds or less. I want the whole story from both sides before I decide.

or you can accept that the man makes films of people doing what they do, and edits them in a way that puts his spin on things - He doesn't put words in their mouths.

You're exactly right. He puts his spin on things, but tries to present it as a documentary of truth and fact. You're also right in the fact that he doesn't put words into peoples mouths, but he does leave their words out. See the link from the Star Tribune and Rep Kennedy about that one.

If Moore were to be honest about what he does, I probably wouldn't have such a beef with him. If Moore stood up and said "I hate republicans and guns. I've made this film to show my side of things.", it wouldn't bother me. At least he would be honest. Instead he calls his work documentaries that he tries to pass off as unedited, un spun fact. To me that's no better than someone like a sleazy talk show host trying to say that their product talks about serious issues in an attempt to better society. Then you look at their topic line up and it's about who's sleeping with whom every day. Jerry Springer is the first to admit that his show is trash. He has no problems saying the truth about his show. I have more respect for him than Michael Moore. At least Springer is honest about what his product is.

Perdita:
No problems. I'll be the first to admit that I have very strong feelings about Moore, and some of those feelings may have unintentionally oozed into the tone of my first post. It was never my intent to offend you in any way, and I apologize if I did.

 

[Guest]

Ky., we're (for now ). P.

 

[shereads]

Instead he calls his work documentaries that he tries to pass off as unedited, un spun fact.

No, he doesn't. Where and when did he say, "I don't edit my films"? Anyone can see that they're edited, and anyone who understands filmmaking knows that they are edited for effect. But it's a very different matter if he shows Heston being pro-gun and it turns out that in reality, Heston is anti-gun. Or if he shows a bank giving away guns, and in fact they did not. I still don't see what your beef is, except that he's a clever and popular proponent of some points of view that are opposite to your own.

The fact is, there aren't very many funny right-wing filmmakers or writers. I can only think of P.J. O'Roark, the Republican Party Reptile as he calls himself, and even he isn't that amusing.

You guys are just easier to satirize. Sorry.

 

[shereads]

Look, it would be great to say, "Michael Moore needs to be held to a higher standard of pure documentary film-making than the president needs to be held to a 100% factually unspun standard for his campaign commercials."

Unfortunately, there is a need for Michael Moore and Al Franken because the Republican Party outspends the Democratic Party by a vast margin. The only way other points of view are heard is likely to be when entertainers entertain. It's not going to happen in campaign advertising. GWB has raised an all-time-record $200 million for commercials. I have Today Show on in the background while I'm getting dressed in the morning, and I hear a GWB commercial with almost every single commercial break. Maybe three Kerry commercials each WEEK during the same time period. If people go see Michael Moore's new film because it won at Cannes, and if some of those people hear for the first time the bizarre string of lies and folly that are called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," then it's still just a quiet voice in the wilderness.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

You guys are just easier to satirize. Sorry.

LOL.

I've always admitted that I take his stance on guns personally. I own guns, and guns are my chosen career. He calls ME lunatic, fanatic, gun nut everytime he says anything to do with guns, gun owners, or the gun industry.

I can proudly say that I am none of those things, yet he continues to paint me and my peers with that same broad brush. He's a leader in the fight to take away my rights and my career. He does this based on half truths and spinning.

 

[Clare Quilty]

I can't wait to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm a huge Michael Moore fan. I took my kid out of school to see "Bowling For Columbine" when it first came out. America is in desperate need of more films like this one -- and "Super Size Me" -- to counterbalance the immoral acquiescence of the Bush media echo chamber.

 

[shereads]

LOL.

I've always admitted that I take his stance on guns personally. I own guns, and guns are my chosen career. He calls ME lunatic, fanatic, gun nut everytime he says anything to do with guns, gun owners, or the gun industry.

I can proudly say that I am none of those things, yet he continues to paint me and my peers with that same broad brush. He's a leader in the fight to take away my rights and my career. He does this based on half truths and spinning.

I know all gun owners aren't gun nuts. I think he took exception to the way Heston seemed to target Colorado for extra gun-fun after Columbine. I imagine you feel about Moore the way I feel about Ann Coulter. Speaking of which, I'm reading Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, (Al Franken) and he refutes almost every word that woman has ever written, with documention. It's bizarre to watch a battle of spiin-doctors on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and to see how each can make you absolutely certain that they have their facts straight. Until you Google the facts for yourself. It's funny, but also scary. Fortunately, Franken got his mission to write this book directly from God, kind of like Pat Robertson. If you can't trust God when He co-authors a book, who can you trust?



To Franken's credit, he starts right off by saying, "This is a shamefully partisan book about people I can't stand." Now THAT's honest.

 

[shereads]

I can't wait to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm a huge Michael Moore fan. I took my kid out of school to see "Bowling For Columbine" when it first came out. America is in desperate need of more films like this one -- and "Super Size Me" -- to counterbalance the immoral acquiescence of the Bush media echo chamber.

Welcome to the dark side, Clare!



Me too. The best way to get me to the theater to stand in line for movie tickets is for somebody to either organize a boycott or refuse to distribute it because it's too controversial. Especially if the somebody is Disney. I'll see you at the box office.

 

[Clare Quilty]

The best way to get me to the theater to stand in line for movie tickets is for somebody to either organize a boycott or refuse to distribute it because it's too controversial. Especially if the somebody is Disney.

Exactly! When the powers that be start throwing their weight around to keep me from seeing something, I become that much more determined to see it for myself. Unfortunately, their aren't many in the media who have to balls to openly challenge the big lies of the Bush administration. Michael Moore is one of the few major American artists who isn't afraid of getting Dixie-Chicked.

 

[Clare Quilty]

The last time a gun like this was used in a notorious crime was Nov 22, 1963. Oswald used a similar gun on Kennedy.

This is simply isn't true. People are murdered with hunting rifles all the time. Whether or not those rifles were 6.5 mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano's or not is immaterial. A proliferation of guns equals more gun deaths, period.

I own three guns but I'll admit that it would be in society's interest if guns and ammunition for them were banned.

 

[cantdog]

That'd leave just the cops. I ain't buyin that. I seen cops.

I think the reason we got away with protesting the war in 1969 was that we as Americans could own guns. If they just set up machine guns around the Ellipse they could have silenced that rally, but the next one would have been more two-sided. So they used bullhorns and barricades, tear gas and herding techniques. They had to be circumspect about how much force they could use against us.

In other countries the go right for the shoot the opposition solutions.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

This is simply isn't true. People are murdered with hunting rifles all the time. Whether or not those rifles were 6.5 mm bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano's or not is immaterial. A proliferation of guns equals more gun deaths, period.

I own three guns but I'll admit that it would be in society's interest if guns and ammunition for them were banned.

Name some then. You say it happens all the time, then back it up somehow. I'm not just talking about 6.5mm Manlicher Carcano's either. I'm talking about any bolt action hunting rifle.

I'll even help you out a bit. One other notorious crime with a Bolt action was the guy in the Tower at the U. of Texas. That was also about 40 years ago. The two kids in Jonesboro Arkansas WANTED to use one of their grandfathers bolt action 30.06's but it was locked up in a gun safe.

So there you go, I've given you a head start. Now see if you can find me other examples of murders (not hunting accidents) with people being shot or killed with a bolt action hunting rifle.

For every case of murder with a BA hunting rifle you may find, I promise to find at least 10 murder by stabbings for you.

Then after I find a minimum of 10-1 stabbings to bolt action rifle murders, are you going to lead the charge to outlaw knives?

 

[Guest]

Christonafuckingcrutch, this pissing contest is utterly ridiculous now.

Perdita

 

[shereads]

Christonafuckingcrutch, this pissing contest is utterly ridiculous now.

Perdita

Change of topic: Could I shoot Venus with a hunting rifle while it's between the earth and the sun? Or would looking through the riflescope burn my retinas to the texture of crisp toast?

What about a pistol?

 

[Clare Quilty]

Then after I find a minimum of 10-1 stabbings to bolt action rifle murders, are you going to lead the charge to outlaw knives?

This rather silly logic doesn't hold water. One can't kill you from 500 meters away with a knife. Nor can one accidentally blow your heart out of your back with a knife. You seem to want to limit subject of discourse to bolt action rifles used in what you term "notorious crimes" I don't stipulate to that arbitrarily narrow distinction. As I said previously, people are killed with hunting rifles all of the time. But a gun is a gun, and the United States leads the world in gun deaths and gun murders. In 2001 there were 29,573 gun deaths in the United States, 11,348 of them were classed as homicides. That is a figure 19 times higher than the combined rate of 35 other rich industrialized nations. Most of those guns, as you well know, were legitimately purchased firearms.

Given America's epidemic of gun violence, the last thing anyone needs to be giving away is another gun.


15-year-old boy was shot with a hunting rifle.

Toddler Shot



Gun Deaths John Hopkins

 

[Clare Quilty]

Change of topic: Could I shoot Venus with a hunting rifle while it's between the earth and the sun? Or would looking through the riflescope burn my retinas to the texture of crisp toast?

What about a pistol?

Certainly not! And if Venus is smart, it will continue its occasional transit across the disk of the sun without setting foot in the United States.

 

[Clare Quilty]

That'd leave just the cops. I ain't buyin that. I seen cops.

I think the reason we got away with protesting the war in 1969 was that we as Americans could own guns. If they just set up machine guns around the Ellipse they could have silenced that rally, but the next one would have been more two-sided. So they used bullhorns and barricades, tear gas and herding techniques. They had to be circumspect about how much force they could use against us.

In other countries the go right for the shoot the opposition solutions.

The cops are the main one who need to be stripped of their guns -- excepting special response units. Cowardly cops who'll shoot 41 times at anything that moves are a danger to us all.

As to the protesters in the late 1960s, I believe that cameras more than the possibility of gunplay held the hand of the powers that be. If there'd been any shots fired from civilians during an instance of civil unrest, that would give the cops the excuse they want to bring in tanks.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Catching up on what I missed, most has been covered, but I couldn’t let these comments remain unchallenged.

Moore is lucky to be living in such cowardly times. In the 70's, he would have remained anonymous, overshadowed by far greater anti-establishment writing and filmmaking talent in America.

I agree. What has Moore created that's more honest and powerful than Full Metal Jacket, the opening scene of Jacob's Ladder, or Good Morning Vietnam? Or what about All the President's Men or any other thousand pieces? Hollywood may be liberal but it's quiet as fuck as things like The Siege, Blackhawk Down, and Rules of Engagement rule the roost. Eh.

First of all Moore is a documentary filmmaker, which restricts him to a more rigorous relationship with the truth.

Another difference is that Michael Moore (in my father’s term) tells it like it is ... not as it was. He works in real time (or as close as possible) not in historic time periods.



Let’s take your examples:

Jacob's Ladder - set in the Vietnam War era, filmed and released in 1990.
BTW: What part of “Jacob's Ladder” to you consider factual?

Good Morning Vietnam - another flick set in the Vietnam War era, filmed and released in 1987.
Adrian Cronouer has gone on record that he would not have been able to get away with some of the things Robin is seen doing.

All the President's Men - beginning with the break-in on June 17, 1972 to Richard Nixon's resignation on August 8, 1974, taken from the Woodward & Bernstein book, filmed and released on April 7, 1976.

The screenplay was prepared synchronously with the book.

The Siege - this was a 1998 production of a film set in a contemporary time. The problem with this film is The Seige is not true.

No matter how much you think this looks like what DID happen, or what COULD happen, it DIDN’T. That’s why they call it FICTION!

Blackhawk Down - filmed and released in 2001 is based upon a factual account of events which occurred in Mogadishu in 1993.

Accuracy seems to have been important to the filmmakers. Their efforts are showcased in a TV documentary, “The True Story of Blackhawk Down” and “The Essence of Combat: Making 'Black Hawk Down' included in the “Special Edition” DVD.

Rules of Engagement, aka Tears of the Sun - is again ... er ... fictional. And not so hot a film, either. (Internet Movie Database rating 6.3, don’t just take my word for it.)

Since the Korean War, I am unaware of any American-made war film, which was released while that war was taking place.

The first movie that I am aware of, about the Vietnam War was Go Tell the Spartans, released in 1978. Possibly the best (anti) war movies made, set in the Vietnam War era - Apocalypse Now was released four years later, in 1979, Platoon in 1986, and Full Metal Jacket in 1987.


Their challenge was historical accuracy. Moore’s challenge is the kind of accuracy we SHOULD be getting from CNN, et al.

 

[Guest]

Thank you! Burley. BTW, I thought "Good Morn. Vietnam" a wanker of a flic (sappy, puerile). P.

 

[shereads]

That'd leave just the cops. I ain't buyin that. I seen cops.

I think the reason we got away with protesting the war in 1969 was that we as Americans could own guns. If they just set up machine guns around the Ellipse they could have silenced that rally, but the next one would have been more two-sided. So they used bullhorns and barricades, tear gas and herding techniques. They had to be circumspect about how much force they could use against us.

In other countries the go right for the shoot the opposition solutions.

How many people armed themselves to avenge Kent State?

I don't really think our government fears putting down opposition because we might shoot back. If that were the case, they'd just take us out with a bombing raid.

 

[shereads]

Thank you! Burley. BTW, I thought "Good Morn. Vietnam" a wanker of a flic (sappy, puerile). P.

I'll second that. I'm a Robin Williams fan, but I thought it was lame.

The Killing Fields was a powerful film about the aftermath of our little police action in Vietnam. I've heard the Khmer Rouge massacres used to argue that we should have remained in Vietnam until we "won." I'm still not sure what we expected to win, but that aside, I think Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia built support for the Khmer Rouge. We make it too easy for lunatics and tyrants to rally a crowd against us. I think our embargo of Castro is the only thing still propping him up. Tyrants can't sustain popular and military support if they don't have powerful enemies.