Can U.S. schools survive liberalism?

i am glad you are ready to call it quits Legion, i have been growing tired of the discussion as well. however, i do want to post one last thing. i was seaching google images for something entirely unrelated and stumbled across a pic of Moore, i clicked on the link to find this quote from him which you might find interesting:

 

asshats

Legion, your such a moron its just sad

 

Uh, Moore escapes law suites because its within his right as satire to say just about whatever he wants.

But it doesn't make it true, simply because he hasn't been sued.

 

it more than likely wouldn't be cost affective. He'd just say his movies are for "entertainment value only" and demonstrate how they aren't factual and be done with it while all Moore-ons would continue to parrot his mantra.

 

Saying nothing so often bothers you i take it.

Maybe you should have posted things of substance before. You never addressed my points. You merely ridiculed them. You haven't take part in a debate you have just attempted character assisination.

I do find it funny. He admits to starting with his conclusion then selects and then goes about proving his logic in a circular fashion. He is a true moron.

 

Re: asshats

despite the fact it was just proven not to be true by FBI, records, historical accounts, etc? Try harder next time.

 

I tried to watch Moore's BfC piece of trash fiction. I'm not a gun nut. I don't own any guns. I don't have a hard on for extreme conservatives, and would really like to see gun control measures strengthened.

But I got sick to my stomach watching that film. Knowing that ignorant Americans would fall for his lies. Knowing that liars like Moore are one of the biggest problems in our country, and on this planet. People like that who manipulate other people's emotions lead to murders, suicide bombings, and wars.

It is disgusting. And anyone that can defend Moore and his fictional creation is beyond disgust.

 

omg now hes not just a liar but he insites suicide bombings!

 

I tend to think of myself as a rather liberal person. I voted green last election, I tend not to vote along party lines. I dislike Bush, and dislike many of the things that the Republican party have done and are continuing to do in our country. Having said this, I agree with a number of people here in that Moore is dishonest with Bowling for Columbine. He intentionally is distorting history to institute an emotional response in his readers so as to align them with his own political agenda. The most commonly used technique by Moore seems to be by splicing different pieces of information together to create new information. Examples of this include:

- The speech supposedly given by Charlton Heston, though no actual speech was given as presented. Fragments of different speeches were used to create the new one.

- The commercial attributed to the Bush campaign as was presented by Moore never existed, it was a combination of commercials from different sources.

It's like programming. You can take fragments of a program or multiple programs and assemble them together, but what you've created by doing so is something that is completely independent of the original program. Any malady caused by this new program can not be attributed to the original program's author unless it exists in the original as well.

Moore is in effect, creating new information with his video by taking pieces of original works and assembling them into something new. He is then trying to attribute information created by the new assembly back to the original authors. This new information though, only exists due to the way in which Moore has manipulated the original presentation. Any such information derived due to the assembly created by Moore which is not in the original is his own, and thus is a fabrication. This information then at the best can be considered propaganda, but more than likely is deceit.

In addition to the above, there appears to be several cases in which Moore is incorrect about specific topics. Lockheed Martin certainly does produce weapons for the military, but Moore's specific facts about where and when are inaccurate. Though this by no means implies an intent to misrepresent the truth on the part of Moore, it certainly favors his argument while spreading disinformation about the topic.

In the end, we are left with a fairly large amount of information in the movie fabricated by Moore either through intent, or simply due to carelessness. For this reason, the movie can not be looked at as a critique of reality, but only as a critique of a reality in part conjectured by Moore. While this may be interesting and emotionally charged, it is not an accurate basis on which to make judgments about the real world, and certainly not an accurate basis on which to make judgments about people and organizations in the real world.

Thanks,
Nite_Hawk

 

Learn how to read, or if you recently mastered that skill then try to refrain from immitating Moore by substituting your own warped view of reality for what people actually said.

Jesus.

I said "people like that." I didn't say Moore was responsible for inciting suicide bombings. My assertion is that people who direct terrorist activity use lies, deceit, and above all emotional manipulation to invoke a desired response in their audience. Moore does the same. Terrorist organizers are dangerous people. Moore is a dangerous person. I can say that without declaring that Moore is a terrorist organizer.

But then again, anyone who believes one single word Moore has uttered is used to ignoring reality to prevent their own fragile delusions from crumbling.




Nite Hawk - well said.

 

Bigus Dickus, i was just giving you crap because i found it funny that you would compare Moore's attempt to sway our country from violence with people who do incite violence.

also Nite_Hawk, watch Heston's speech in the movie next to the transcript and not that it is not "fragments of different speeches" at all, everything shown was said at the speech in question. then watch the part were there is a clip from a the bush campaign and see that it is not presented to look like other clips were part of the same commercial. you have clearly been mislead, but not by Moore.

 

hrm, after weighing the pros and cons of each sides point of view I have come to the conclusion that Americans are nutty. Thank you.

 

Moore is as much a product of a population who need political expression than one to create it all by himself. He gets an audience not with manipulation (a simplistic argument that can be made at any one who expresses himself) but mostly with some colorful, some true, some exaggerated and some wrong facts about american society. He's popular not with emotional manipulation. He's popular because millions of americans see him as hitting some good and hard hitting notes with his movies and books. They arent the best on the genre. And the best are rarely the most popular. But a lot of what he says has been said before by very reputable authors. Only not as stylishly.

Do you guys really expect to be taken seriously by saying that Moore has told nothing but lies? Ive checked on enough outrageous facts to know he's not all bs... I really hate the entire heston interview and the kmart bit and the little bit on the real origins of the NRA and KKK in 1871 (odd coincidence tho) but right wingers who list that error in their web pages dont say if the NRA fought for black rights to own guns as much as they fought for white people if at all...

How about showcasing a few entire Heston NRA speeches to compare with Moore's collage? I dont see a single link that shows this here. I did read one last year and the speeches are as blusterous as what Moore portrayed. No real diffs in content or style. Not that that makes any diff to the point BFC makes. Which admittedly is a very subjective one tho I find it at least worthy of investigation by sociologists. And I firmly believe in an individuals right to own even automatic weapons. Of course after good and regular background checks with clear standards of mental competence. Not that that would exclude many I dont think.

I think we can lighten up here. The neo cons can make their own movies and they have no lack of $ or excuse to do it. If they choose to make one that will denounce Moore himself Ill be sure to see it. Id rather they spend their energies on the next campaign tho. Might be a better idea to make a flick on the democratic nominee especially if general Clark wins seeing as Moore is making one on Bush... Ive got q's on Wesley Clark as to what kind of guy he is and if hes really deserving of the responsibility of president.

I find it amusing that other than a few web pages there have no real efforts to take on Moore in the media in the last 10 years. Moore says a lot of true things that hurt the right and they know bringing it back to the front burner in movies and on tv will only get that knowledge more coverage. Especially to the millions of fans he's made.

How could anyone be this much in the public eye and only tell lies?... cmon guys...

 

I appreciate your objectivity

WHich is to say that Moore was deliberately misrepresenting Heston with information he poses to be true which in reality is false.

See definition of lie

I have yet to see him turn up a shread of information on laser weapons being produced in the littleton plant. Where is the finished product? There is no doubt Lockheed produces weapons. There dispute is over the littleton plant.

who won and award for his efforts...

I definately agree with you.

 

Pax are you struggling to find something he said worth believing in? None of us have stated Moore has lied without posting evidence of such behavior. He does it often enough that that anyone should doubt his credibility.

 

Have you read the links i have posted Pax? Pax what has he presented that you would say is fact and then explain how his fact supports his thesis. Did you read the NRA historical portion? Whether they helped blacks or not (which they did as there were black NRA groups in the south) has nothing to do with them being the intellectual offspring of the KKK. That is just absurd. How on earth can you expect anyone to take your argument seriously when you suggest such ridiculous things.

What exactly are you asking for? My links according to the topic present factualy evidence that Moore doctored those speaches. To put it simply Moore sought to misrepresent Heston.

Why are you so bound and determined to find even the slightest thing positive about Moore's work of fiction? I can't imagine you still consider him a viable source of information when he deliberately sought to misrepresent facts. Is it because Moore is the only person that confirms your equally ridiculous "observations" of americans?

How on earth does this give Moore liscence to lie? What on earth does your perception of the speach have to do with anything?

Now i question your reasoning. THe NRA speaches are to rally the support of NRA members. Moore lies to convey a message to the public. Two completely different tactics.

Why do i get the feeling that you have found an enemy in the NRA pax? Did not Moore himself substantiate guns are not the cause of violence?

Moore calls them all racists.

This is idiotic and irrelevant.

Alright. DO you support these gun owners right to organize?

I think its about time you stopped being so damned myopic and examine the whole picture Pax. Moore is not an honest person. The only reason you choose to support Moore is that you share his belief that america lives in a culture of fear. Talk about relative and subjective . In my mind this invalidates all of your points in favor of Moore. You are willing to over the countless times he manipulates and mispresents facts. Does that not tell you something about your agenda? You are having to defend a known liar simply to have some one to share an opinion with. I don't know why you are going so far. His "facts" never supported his thesis to begin with. BFC is just an inconsistant collage of imagery, psuedofacts and lies. None ever point back to the thesis as their cause.

Why do you keep repeating this statement? Because Moore has misrepresented the neo cons should to? How does this excuse his actions? Pax this is flemsy piece of apologetics.

I believe Larry Elder is doing a docu on Moore.

Which will make Clark's loss all the more satisfying.

Same thing is true for Ann Coultar.

Can you name all those "true" things pax? What has he said that hurts the right that is based on real facts?

Pax point out to me which parts of what he says is true? Since when does being in the public eye have anything to do with being sincere? You say he has millions of fans and I say there are millions more who are not. You speak of all the fans he has made and i shall speak of all those he has lost.

Pax are you trying to substantiate your beliefs by how many people buy BFC? Please do not speak down to us. We have provide plenty of evidence Moore is a liar. You have yet to show us a single reason as to agree with Moore's premise in light of the facts: A. Nothing Moore presents supports his thesis on fear and violence, B. He lies to try and make his point, C. using emotion rather than logic to come to his conclusions. Pax will you for a second as yourself why, if there is so much truth in what Moore is saying that he has to turn to deception to convey a point? If what he is saying is so true why can't he provide real facts? Why would he go to such great lengths to present his argument if not for any other reason then he had to?

 

Kyleb the clip that is shown on the webpage and the message that you seem to have acquired from it are infact incorrect. Watch BFC. That is not the full scene. Apparently you didn't watch the clips yourself for if you did you would have realized Moore's clip doesn't complete the transcript.

the transcript

The clip from moore's webpage

Here is what you hear in the clip

-watch the clip carefully! Moore edits out a number of things he had in the movie.

The very first thing Moore has Heston saying is

You won't hear this in the clip and here is why: 'Cold dead hands" is nowhere in speech. It is actually from a speech given by Heston in Charlotte, N.C., a year later." Moore censored it from the clip he shows on his webpage.

Moore himself is suggesting all that you see and hear in this clip are represented of the speach as it was actually given. Taking Moore at his word why does Heston's tie change from grey to red a few seconds into the clip ?

-by Heston's admittion the meeting had all its activities cancelled dispite moore's accussations of a "big progun rally" being held. They couldn't avoid having some kind of a meeting as this annual get event is required by law

Kylab you continue to deny Moore's wrong doing though all the evidence seems to substantiate what the refutations have already stated: Moore spliced the film to misrepresent Heston

you haven't seen the movie have you?

 

When were blacks allowed to have guns? All hell is gona break loose now.