Badmovies.org Forum

Has anyone gotten a chance to see Michael Moore's new documentry about violence in America, Bowling for Columbine? How was it.

I do not want to see it. I utterly loathe Michael Moore. This filthy sloth accosts the same type of lower-level employees he claims to defend with a camera and grills them on the percieved crimes of their bosses. And he rallies against the evils of capitalism and how everyone with money is evil in his bestselling books from which I'm sure he gets no profit. I want to see someone go after he and his film crew with their own film crew and grill him on why he's such a buttplug.

I've often wanted to see the tables turned on some of the news crews that the networks send out to cover stories. Just to see what would happen if they got the same treatment they give out. When you realise your only seeing 10 minutes of a two hour interview with some guy or gal, ya gotta wonder....what did they leave out, and why?
....After reading Bernie Goldburg's book, i can't take any news story without a grain of salt. And thats as it should be......

I'm looking forward to it. I agree that Michael Moore can be a bit of a jerk, but I still think he's a very funny guy, and I generally agree with his views (though not always to such extremes). I'm not sure whether I'll make the trek to a major city to see it, or just wait til it comes out on video.

I saw this movie last night, god bless college towns, and I really enjoyed it.  I cried a couple times during the movie, but I also laughed a few times.  This movie really got me thinking about why America is so gun-crazed and have so many killings due to guns every year (we have 11,000 some odd, and Canada has around 80) In Canada their are 7million guns in their 10 million households.  I know that not everyone likes Michael Moore, but he presents some interesting facts.  However, i did find myself wondering what he cut out from his interviews.  I think that is something valid for all people to question, no matter what sort of interview they are watching.  But everyone should go see this movie, even if you hate him.  At least it will provoke some discussion.

Deena

Deena wrote:
America is so gun-crazed and have so many killings due to guns every year (we have 11,000 some odd, and Canada has around 80

Because Canada has less than 1/10th our population. Actually, the way anti-gun groups track shootings is misleading. In the case of child deaths they consider children anyone nineteen or under. Eighteen year olds are legally adults. They also include suicides and gang shootings. When these factors are taken out of the equation the actual number is drastically less. I think the root cause of gun accidents is ignorance. In some European countries (and I normally abhor "In Europe" hippie nonsense) there is a gun in almost every house, to make up for lack of military, and children are taught at a young age firearm safety, and they have almost no problem with accidents.

I know that not everyone likes Michael Moore, but he presents some interesting facts. However, i did find myself wondering what he cut out from his interviews. I think that is something valid for all people to question, no matter what sort of interview they are watching.
*****  Well, you can bet that he'll never show footage of people who stump him, or answer coherently and factually (not easy in his usual ambush style approach).  He misrepresents for the sake of entertainment value and supporting his point.  That said, he has done some hilarious stuff - and some stuff that was on the mark.  My favorite is when he parked a car with a car alarm in front of the house of the guy who invented car alarms and kept setting it off.  We need more people who will do that to those in the annoyance industry (car alarms, telemarketers, junk mail, etc).

Michael Moore was summoned into being to neutralize Rush Limbaugh in the cosmic balance

My favorite is when he parked a car with a car alarm in front of the house of the guy who invented car alarms and kept setting it off.

That's idiotic.  That's like calling Alexander Graham Bell a dozen times a night to ask him if he wants to switch long distance carries, just because he invented the telephone.

I loved when he hoped into the Sodomobile (a large PINK motorhome) with a groupd of homosexuals and trotted off to Kansas to harass the closet Satanist that is the "Baptist Reverend" Phelps, he of 'God Hates F*gs' fame.  They were merciless and it was funny as heck.

I quite like Michael Moore, really found his book 'Stupid White Men' really interesting and at times really funny.

There's a British guy called Mark Thomas who does the same kinda politicomedy and is really good at it. He's doing some shows around Britain next year if anyone's interested.

Pete

Funk, E. wrote:
>
> Michael Moore was summoned into being to neutralize Rush
> Limbaugh in the cosmic balance


Haha I think you're absolutely right.  And J.R. for the record, yeah I'm sure that anti-gun activists may do things you question to prove their point.  I'm sure that NRA and other gun nuts never do anything questionable.  (Last line is to be read with sarcasm).  But seriously, We should agree to disagree.

Deena

I'm not arguing for either side, I'm just saying that Michael Moore tends to use even the most untrue or misleading "facts" to support his opinions and many of the points he makes are just idiotic. And using Canada-America comparisons to prove a point is obtuse and just plain sad.

Err... J.R.... With all respect have you listened to Rush? Facts are irrelevant and if a liberally oriented person with a brain manages to fake out his screeners and get on the air he cut them off verbally then drops the line entirely so they can't defend themselves and then insults them until the commercial break. The man has all the rhetorical savvy of an epileptic on crack. Now William F. Buckley Jr. is an intelligent, articulate advocate for conservatism. Rush is a moronic git who resorts to the cheapest of media tricks to keep from being exposed as the fool that he is... and frankly he still fails even at that!

Facts are irrelevant and if a liberally oriented person with a brain manages to fake out his screeners and get on the air he cut them off verbally then drops the line entirely so they can't defend themselves and then insults them until the commercial break. The man has all the rhetorical savvy of an epileptic on crack.
*****  I've never heard Limbaugh except as a guest on other shows, but I'll believe that.  So tell me, how is that different from the selective editing and one-sided presentation of facts Moore indulges in?  Keep in mind, I like some of what I have seen Moore do, but it's all a lot of smoke and mirrors, and it can get just as vicious as you say Limbaugh is.

Remember I compared Moore to Limbaugh... I think they're the same on opposite sides of the scale. That's why they cancell each other out. I'm not defending Moore. Your right he couldn't win a stand up debate if he was forced into one. I'm just saying both of them resort to the same tactics in their own way.

Oh - ok.  I misread the thread.  Sorry Funk E.

It's all good. When in doubt just assume my posts are for humor value. I'm not into challenging political views on a b-movie site. It's about the beasts, the blood and the BOOBIES!
;-)

My personal favorite was his "Ficus: 2000" campaign, where he ran a ficus tree against all unopposed congressmen. My favorite moment, when he's parading the tree around the Capitol:

Congressman: (Laughs) Is that your friend there?
Moore: (Laughs) No, he's running against you!

Moore did one joke I really liked. To prove that politicians will take campaign contributions from anyone he sent $100 checks in the names of fake special interest groups to several presidential candidates. I believe Pat Buchanan cashed  and sent a thank-you letter for a check from "Abortionists of America" or something, and Ross Perot did the same with a contribution from a pedophile organization.

I liked when he took a copy of the 'Contract with America' to Washington DC sites and tried to get some of the free perks that congress gets.

---
J.R. wrote:
In some European countries (and I normally abhor "In Europe" hippie nonsense) there is a gun in almost every house, to make up for lack of military, and children are taught at a young age firearm safety, and they have almost no problem with accidents.
---

Oh, I've never heard of that before. What countries are those?

Yeah... Having lived in Europe I'd HAVE to disagree. In Germany guns are very heavily regulated as well as the UK. Most Italians that I lived with in and around did not possess a firearm. Only Finnland and Switzerland have a heavy personal armorment policy. Switzerland because it's "neutral" and so small and Finnland because of boarder conflicts with the former Soviet Union. Otherwise I think most of them are pretty restrictive on the gun front

To prove that politicians will take campaign contributions from anyone...

No kidding.  Does he really think that Pat Buchanan personally opens every letter and considers the source before cashing the check.  That stuff is handled by services and to be honest, the people opening the letters probably don't even know the political opinions of whom they are working for.  $100 is chickenfeed, ten times that isn't even on the radar.  Give $100K and you might show up enough for your views to be considered.  But at that level it's just a cheap stunt to look clever without really meaning anything.  Ross Perot would probably just say "a fool and his money are soon parted and I'm just doing my part"

> America is so gun-crazed and have so many killings due to
> guns every year (we have 11,000 some odd, and Canada has
> around 80
>
> Because Canada has less than 1/10th our population.

Well, if you multiply the Canadian figure by 10, you get 800 deaths, still quite lower than the U.S. number.

Greywizard wrote:
---
Well, if you multiply the Canadian figure by 10, you get 800 deaths, still quite lower than the U.S. number.
---

I believe that's because the US is more densely populated. i don't have any figures, but I think that more densely populated countries usually have higher crime rates (per capita) than sparse countries. At least that's the case if you compare big cities with rural areas. (Personally I think that the world would probably be a better place if there were no cities larger than, say, 50k citizens. Larger than that and people start feeling too invisible. But this is getting *way* off topic...)

Well, if you multiply the Canadian figure by 10, you get 800 deaths, still quite lower than the U.S. number.

Hey, did you figure out what "Goodbye,Pork Pie" means?

Anyway, I think part of the problem in the U.S. is that gun deaths are heavily related to other social/lifestyle problems.  I'd wager that a lot of the gun deaths are related to other crimes in some way, where the easy availibility of guns helps to contribute to an 'easy out' in those situations, but if the underlying problems weren't there, then the gun death wouldn't result.

>Well, if you multiply the Canadian figure by 10, you get 800 deaths, still quite
>lower than the U.S. number.

 And the total number of deaths by traffic accidents each year far outstrips gun deaths, yet strangely, nobody is ever in favor of banning cars...

yeah, but that doesn't mean that they don't have violent crime....when i was staying in britain (only month), there were countless stories of people getting stabbed or beaten to death.  one guy was set on fire, one guy had a screwdriver driven through his skull....the rape rate is huge for such a little country, and the amount of people (young girls in particular) who are abducted is astronomical....no guns does not necessarilly mean no violence....I know no one said that, but i just wanted to make the point.

And the total number of deaths by traffic accidents each year far outstrips gun deaths, yet strangely, nobody is ever in favor of banning cars...
*****  I am not in favor of banning guns or cars, but I think a strict gun control advocate (I use the word strict, because I think there can and should be a fair amount of control) would make the argument that cars have become essential to the US economy, and they have democratized the ability to travel (physical mobility across the large area of this country has a long association with the freedoms Americans enjoy -- possibly one of the reasons we don't tax gas as hard as they do in Europe), thereby justifying the danger cars pose.  Guns on the other hand - a strict gun control advocate would argue - are unnecessary except for cops (maybe) and the army.  They tend to write off some people's need/desire for a gun as a stupid or deranged hobby.

A better argument would be, if you have to pass a test to drive a car (which can kill innocent people if misused), then why not pass a test to own a gun (which can do the same)?

A better argument would be, if you have to pass a test to drive a car (which can kill innocent people if misused), then why not pass a test to own a gun (which can do the same)?
*****  To elaborate on this idea, I know a person who isn't allowed to drive because she is epileptic.  This sucks for her, but it would suck worse for her - and possibly others - if she had a seizure while doing 65 on the interstate.  So if they limit driving based on a record of physical health, why not also limit gun (and car) use based on a record of mental health.  In other words, no guns for the guy with a history of psychotic episodes.  Remember: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Remember also it was a self armed militia of non-professional military citizens that Washington mustered to fight the British until the French sent us professional troops. So yes, actually, there is an economic precedent that says guns are essential to the American economy.

I would not be surprised if one of the tacit understandings of a would be invader is that the amount of internal resistence they would encounter would be astronomical. A well armed public is apart of the American Way.

Furthermore a well armed public also keeps a certain honesty in the government. If they REALLY go around the bend on this terrorist emergency war acts and cut into our civil liberties too much we'll stop voting with ballots. I think that keeps us in the loop more than if we were not armed.

Remember also it was a self armed militia of non-professional military citizens that Washington mustered to fight the British until the French sent us professional troops. So yes, actually, there is an economic precedent that says guns are essential to the American economy.
*****  By that logic so are blacksmiths and saddle makers.  If guns were banned tomorrow - and again I don't think they should be - the effect on our economy would be negligible.  Not so if cars were banned.

I would not be surprised if one of the tacit understandings of a would be invader is that the amount of internal resistence they would encounter would be astronomical. A well armed public is apart of the American Way.
*****  An armed citizenry can deter invaders, but we have other advantages that kind of help (two oceans and the best navy the world has ever seen).  But I agree that gun ownership is a part of our heritage.  I wasn't making an argument for banning guns - just explaining what someone making that argument would say to the automobile analogy.

Furthermore a well armed public also keeps a certain honesty in the government. If they REALLY go around the bend on this terrorist emergency war acts and cut into our civil liberties too much we'll stop voting with ballots. I think that keeps us in the loop more than if we were not armed.
*****  God I hope it never comes to that, but yeah that's true.  I think our best hole card in the event of a totalitarian takeover is a military full of citizens who are educated about the principles our country is based on, and who swear their oath to the Constitution and not a political leader.
*****  I think I will see Bowling for Columbine when I get the chance.  I'm sure it will be far more interesting than the inevitable made-for-TV Columbine movie starring Brad Renfro and the kid from Malcolm in the Middle, with Craig T. Nelson as the Principle.

Yeah... your right, Dano. I guess I was more trying to illustrate that there are ways in which gun ownership has a subtler impact on our economy than perhaps the car, but in none-the-less an indispensible part of it.

>A better argument would be, if you have to pass a test to drive a car (which can
>kill innocent people if misused), then why not pass a test to own a gun (which can
>do the same)?

I'd support that *IF* passing a gun test gave you pretty much the same rights as a registered driver. In other words, if you have a permit to carry a gun, then you should be able to take it with when you travel to other states. There was a survey a few years ago that said that in tourist spots, criminals often target tourists because they know that they can't legally bring a gun with them from another state. Also, gun owners shouldn't be treated like criminals by the police. I know being a cop is a dangerous job and I think they're right to be cautious, but as it stands today, even after you've shown a cop your permit to carry a gun, they're ready to shoot you if you so much as touch it in their presense.

True story: My father used to manage a Texaco station. One day he was talking on the phone in the garage when a couple cop cars pulled up, the cops jumped out with their guns drawn and started yelling for him to drop the phone and put his hands up. He did, they slammed him against the wall, frisked him, throw his gun on the counter and demanded to know who he was.Seems some idiot had driven by, saw the station was open and called the cops saying they thought it was closed, but now there was some guy there. After he showed them his ID, proved that he was the manager, showed them his permit to carry a gun, they said ok and started leaving. He went to pick up his gun and they all acted like he was psycho. They told him he couldn't touch it until they left.

What the hell is the miles of red tape your have to go through to get a permit for, if the cops still consider you a criminal just waiting to commit a crime?

Wheresthecarrot is right. When i was in England last October, the crimes listed in the papers made me sorry for the poor fools who think disarming the law abideing people is a good idea.
One story...a young man was found stabbed to death in Manchester. Never heard how the case turned out....still dead, though. If some one wants to hurt you they will. Makeing them not want to hurt others....THATS the challange.
Compassion in a learned thing, i fear. Some people just don't get with the program.