Heh, Michael Moore's Call to Arms

[Legion]

He's not a reporter. He himself said that he editorializes in his films. What seems to be the problem?

Nonsense. He creates documentaries. Documentaries, by their nature, ought to be about something which pretains to fact. While in the process of documenting and presenting he is a reporter. Furthermore he never should have received the oscar (an award giving to people for which their are standards involved in awarding) for presenting fiction as nonfiction.

If you can not see the problem in lying who will help you?

 

[Legion]

Moore likes to center on american corporate "corruption" (never forget Lockheed Martin makes nukes ) but will never address major european corruption in France and Germany (ie ELF and deficit ceiling misrepresentations). He is one sided; choosing to ridicule those whom don't support him with spuriouss claims.

When will we hear about Davis and his representation of Californian deficit followed by a sudden realization concerning it as a crises and the need for a raise in public taxation?

 

[pax]

Well Im sure Moore cant address every corporate issue. And hes american so its normal he'll deal with whats going on this side of the pond. I dont agree with everyhting moorre says but Hes hit the nail on several issue with his docus and shows.

His stuff is not plain docus. He bends the genre and he admits it so I dont know what in this interview and in his work is overwhelmingly deceptive. Many corps are good citizens. Many arent. Moore attacks those who arent and Im fine with that and get a good laugh out of it...

I do think the conservatives who hate him (ive read a couple pages that attacked the columbine movie and found them to be far more disingenous than moore's partially true flicks) are more afraid of the truths hes told than the lies which we have seen plenty of in adverts from the right and Im sure soon to be seen conservative copycat flicks that will try to attack the 'left' side of the spectrum... And I look forward to buying movie tickets to see those too.

I dont let style or even modest lies keep me from seeing some of the pretty painful truths hes been able to throw on the screen.

 

[Slides]

Nonsense. He creates documentaries. Documentaries, by their nature, ought to be about something which pretains to fact. While in the process of documenting and presenting he is a reporter. Furthermore he never should have received the oscar (an award giving to people for which their are standards involved in awarding) for presenting fiction as nonfiction.

If you can not see the problem in lying who will help you?

That was not fiction, he may have spun it to his political agenda, but he did not just invent the events in his movie. I have seen many documentaries that are biased in favor of one view. And making a documentary with a political agenda is very different then being an investigative reporter. Conservatives should come up with their own documentaries.

 

[Legion]

Well Im sure Moore cant address every corporate issue.

but he does. Ever see Roger and me?

And hes american so its normal he'll deal with whats going on this side of the pond.

And he is liberal so its normal that he would lie about it.

I dont agree with everyhting moorre says but Hes hit the nail on several issue with his docus and shows.

Such as?

His stuff is not plain docus. He bends the genre and he admits it so I dont know what in this interview and in his work is overwhelmingly deceptive.

Yet you say he hits the nail?

Many corps are good citizens. Many arent.

Many aren't American. Many aren't conservative supportors. We never hear from him about them.

Moore attacks those who arent and Im fine with that and get a good laugh out of it...

LOL like claiming Lockheed Martin makes nuclear missles? Lockheed is corrupt. I think you look at him through rose colored specticles.

I do think the conservatives who hate him (ive read a couple pages that attacked the columbine movie and found them to be far more disingenous than moore's partially true flicks)

Partially true? OMG have you even bothered to research his claims in "Stupid white men" and "Roger and Me"? THey are completely ridiculous. Moore himself never proposes solutions to the problems. He always ridicules what his opposition says but can not substantiate his own side's stance. This is obvious in stupid white men.

are more afraid of the truths hes told than the lies which we have seen plenty of in adverts from the right and Im sure soon to be seen conservative copycat flicks that will try to attack the 'left' side of the spectrum... And I look forward to buying movie tickets to see those too.

LOL which truths Pax? Which is truth and which isn't. Had no one exposed him as a fraud people like yourself would have chosen to believe every word he has said. It is only after the fact you have to admit this. Yet you continue to suppose some of what he says is true. On what grounds? He is an open liar. In so many words he admits it. You only choose to believe any of what he says because you are sympathetic to his mantra.

I dont let style or even modest lies keep me from seeing some of the pretty painful truths hes been able to throw on the screen.

Again which part are truths and which part aren't? Plenty papers by independant researchers has exposed his claims as fraudulant, dishonest, and himself to be completely without solution to the problem. You only call his words truth becaues you share his point of view.

 

[Legion]

That was not fiction,

Indeed Bowling for Columbine was fiction for many of the aforementioned issues i have discussed. His claims are false. Ergo his position is not fact.

he may have spun it to his political agenda, but he did not just invent the events in his movie.

Michael moore DID invent the scenes in his movies. Would you like for me to show you peace by peace exactly my point? He invented the Heston speach (it was infact numerous speaches not even having a thing to do with columbine), he hoaxed the interview with Heston (essentially cut and pasted a conversation with him while leaving out over 45 minutes of heston's explinations).

http://www.moorewatch.com/
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I have seen many documentaries that are biased in favor of one view. And making a documentary with a political agenda is very different then being an investigative reporter. Conservatives should come up with their own documentaries.

No one should lie in a documentary. This isn't about bias this is about deliberately misrepresenting facts.

 

[MfA]

It is no use attacking Moore, he is just a symptom. People like Moore and Coulter only get to publish their shit because there is a market for it ...

 

[pax]

I already mentionned what I disagreed with moore in bowling. He hit the nail when he clearly showed it was not guns or access to guns that was the problem but the level of fear americans live with and the culture of fear that is in general higher than elsewhere that is one of the major reasons why gun deaths are per capita so much higher.

If you think you can mount an argument that shows that everything moore says is lies then you've got your job cut out for ya. Why do you guys always have to go this far? Isnt it possible to disagree with SOME of moores politics and SOME of his shows without insanely trying to showcase ALL of what moore has showed on his shows as lies?

As much as I hated the heston interview it was a bad idea and bad form for heston to goto columbine after the massacre for the NRA. I dont care how stylish moore was in painting this part of the docu. Ive seen whole speeches of Heston at nra meets and they arent that much diff from moores collage of bits of speeches.

Lots of bluster all around...

Personally I hated the kmart bit even more... I mean wtf didnt moore goto wal mart after? Excise tthose 2 bits and you have a pretty damn good docu.

As for rejecting what Moore presents on his shows the guys he interviews (like the NIKE ceo) had plenty of chances to prove him wrong. "Americans dont like to make shoes" my ass, we do jobs here that are far worse than that for less pay...

Roger and me was pretty damn good. Roger had plenty of chances to respond but chose not to. He also had plenty of $ to make up his own docus but again chose not to. He didnt dare as he knew with modernisation alone he could keep GM profitable, competitive and in the US. You simply cant argue with more profits in Mexico. But it makes for a lousy docu.

How did he address ALL corporations in Rpoger and me?


"And he is liberal so its normal that he would lie about it."

Heres one of my own. Bush is conservative so he obviously lied about Iraq...

How can we move from this kind of posturing in an argument?

Ive read SWM. A couple things I didnt agree with but they tended to be those parts with an editorial bent. Cite me a gross innacuracy in fact...

Why do you say I believe every word he says? This is the 3rd post where I say I dont... Much of what he says is based on work from other groups. Not all of this is his own and its easily verified. So GM didnt sue the US gov in the 60's for bombing their OPEL NAZI GERMAN plants during ww2?...

I agree that many corporations take short cuts and loophoesl to avoid environamentla rules. Ive seen the maquiladoras cesspools in mexico. I know their dirt cheap wages wont have them buying the products they make plain and simple. Dead rivers to shanti towns for workers... its a shame...

Some corps behave well and some dont... So nestle didnt give free similac to ignorant and dead poor african mothers for only as long until their own breast milk stop producing as they werent using them. Thus starving millions of kids when the mothers couldnt afford the now costly milk? Yep that was also on one of his shows...

 

[Legion]

It is no use attacking Moore, he is just a symptom. People like Moore and Coulter only get to publish their shit because there is a market for it ...

 

[pax]

Havent read Coulter but did read Oreilly. Lot of what he says is good but some of it is truly pure garbage...

Might pick up franken next...

 

[Legion]

I already mentionned what I disagreed with moore in bowling. He hit the nail when he clearly showed it was not guns or access to guns that was the problem but the level of fear americans live with and the culture of fear that is in general higher than elsewhere that is one of the major reasons why gun deaths are per capita so much higher.

How did he clearly show this by lying about his premise? Fear has nothing to do with this. The fear mantra is drawn mainly from our presses fixation on sensationalism not actual public sentiment. He fails to demonstrate how fear is an element in the average american's life. With that said no comparison can be drawn as to how much fear there is per capita

If you think you can mount an argument that shows that everything moore says is lies then you've got your job cut out for ya.

Pax, what he claims is logically fallacious. He never backs his conclusions nor does the evidence support it. It takes a willing and ignorant mind to believe americans live in fear. In other words how would one go about proving to the invincibly ingorant they are ignorant? How should i go back demonstrating other nations live in more fear per capita? Should i ask them? . What would be a representative sample? What are rational and irrational fears? How does fear at what level motivate person x, y, and z?

With the same kind of bs reasoning i can take French media opinion and state all French are american hating socialists. Of course not all of them are.

Go this far? I demonstrated Moore to be habitually dishonest and lacking in credentials and an objective stance. This is hardly going to far. In order for any intelligent debate to occur one must address such issues. Its hard to take Moore seriously as his works are so tainted with spurious claims and opinion rants.

As much as I hated the heston interview it was a bad idea and bad form for heston to goto columbine after the massacre for the NRA.

from http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.

Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.

Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. [No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.]

Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

I dont care how stylish moore was in painting this part of the docu. Ive seen whole speeches of Heston at nra meets and they arent that much diff from moores collage of bits of speeches.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Moore lied. Plain and simple. THe NRA didn't. Should Moore be excused because you have some bias against gun owners groups?

Lots of bluster all around...

Sounds like the Canadians medicare system

Personally I hated the kmart bit even more... I mean wtf didnt moore goto wal mart after? Excise tthose 2 bits and you have a pretty damn good docu.

Lol including Moore's equating the NRA to the KKK? Is this great example of moore's excellence in documentation

As for rejecting what Moore presents on his shows the guys he interviews (like the NIKE ceo) had plenty of chances to prove him wrong. "Americans dont like to make shoes" my ass, we do jobs here that are far worse than that for less pay...

More comedy gold from Moore

Lol if moore didn't misrepresent the interviews they wouldn't have to defend themselves

http://www.wweek.com/html/moore040198.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48562,00.html

Roger and me was pretty damn good. Roger had plenty of chances to respond but chose not to. He also had plenty of $ to make up his own docus but again chose not to. He didnt dare as he knew with modernisation alone he could keep GM profitable, competitive and in the US. You simply cant argue with more profits in Mexico. But it makes for a lousy docu.

Its pretty damn inaccurate to say the least.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

Heres one of my own. Bush is conservative so he obviously lied about Iraq...

Really? And i thought they were run by a tyrannical dictator. Maybe i was wrong. Perhaps we ought to reinstate him

Ive read SWM. A couple things I didnt agree with but they tended to be those parts with an editorial bent. Cite me a gross innacuracy in fact...

The whole of his documentaries are bent. You just pick and choose what you want to believe for your own reasons.

Why do you say I believe every word he says? This is the 3rd post where I say I dont... Much of what he says is based on work from other groups.

No it isn't. Much of what he says is propaganda from the left. It is not bassed on research it is based on ideology.

Not all of this is his own and its easily verified. So GM didnt sue the US gov in the 60's for bombing their OPEL NAZI GERMAN plants during ww2?...

GM must indeed be corrupt because he was able to peace together some production link to Germany during WW2. The GM we know today must be a band of Jew hating biggots right Pax?

I agree that many corporations take short cuts and loophoesl to avoid environamentla rules.

And many rules are not based on sound science.

Ive seen the maquiladoras cesspools in mexico. I know their dirt cheap wages wont have them buying the products they make plain and simple. Dead rivers to shanti towns for workers... its a shame...

I don't recall any other corrporations forcing other companies to pay foreign labor similar wages. Infact i would like to see a list off all companies that do and reasons why they and should. DO you understand that if they did pay them more the companies might as well pull out of those nations entirely? How would that help them?

Some corps behave well and some dont... So nestle didnt give free similac to ignorant and dead poor african mothers for only as long until their own breast milk stop producing as they werent using them. Thus starving millions of kids when the mothers couldnt afford the now costly milk? Yep that was also on one of his shows...

ANd i bet if you looked it up you would find his claims to be false.

Pax he is demostratably a liar. You just refuse to admit his credibility is nill because of your sympathy to his mantra. You have no reason to believe a word of what he says until he provides adequate proof for his claims. Which he never does.

What he does is this (an old psychological trick)

You attack one's character
make vague and ambiguos associations between the character and something else
then associate said behavior with an attitude
then display characters attitude
leaving viewer to believe character is capable do to behavior.

This is the main reason only emotion leftists by his nonsense.

 

[Fred]

Moore and Coulter both invent facts, its known, its been shown and documented.

Frankel and O'Reilly, don't usually sink to making up events, but they both have slants that are a rather ridiculous.

All these people are sensationalists, ie people with 'the solution'. They live off the fast food, short attention span thats dominant in media these days, from the left and the right. It doesn't matter if they are discredited, b/c thats a short slab in the paper. What matters is the big claims that show up on the front page everytime they come up with something.

Europe doesn't have that *as much*, instead they have certain old traditional dogma's that are as unflexible and undebatable as the above.

 

[pax]

OMG legion you are rabid... You distort my posts on top of generalizing.

Its not about painting a life of the average american in abject fear. Its a relative thing. Sampling culture and news and living habits... in that Moore did a damn good job. So finding that americans lock their doors while canadians dont while at home isnt an indicator?

I have no bias against gun groups. AGAIN the movie didnt paint or say guns are bad. It only said the NRA was in bad taste to goto columbine after the massacre. Im in favor of gun rights...

Not saying Americans live in fear... Fear is a part of the human condition. To indicate it might be culturally more of an issue in the US vs other westner countries can only be lightly touched on in a docu. he makes a good point of that... and AGAIN likely only one of several reasons why gun deaths are so much more a prob in the US per capita...

Why do you think americans gun each other down so much more?

Canadian medicare is blustering? I dont even get this comparison... NRA large, loud public org ... Can med public system without any significant public relations org...

nra=kkk Ya I know that bit has no relation but the cartoon shows that blacks werent given access to guns in the south. So extending a reign of terror another centory post civl war... the main points of the cartoon were true... whites loved slavery cuz they were ass lazy... That it was a coincidence the kkk was made illegal the same day the nra was formed doesnt mean antyhign ... heck moore is still a card carrying member...

Roger and me showed the pain and suffering of a factory town being shut down in the name of better profits... You cant argue with that. Its friggin history... Again tidbits that are innacurate whether due to style or outright lying are irrelevant to the main crux of what the show was about...

You didnt get my sarcastic bit about bush...

Moore is def a leftist ideologue. To say that doesnt mean all he says is lies legion... Its such a wwesak postion to argue from... cite me lareg specifics that point the premise as to be wrong... Fomr the simple premise of fear in american life in bowling to greed in roger and me and the big one... These are simply true. There was no real reason other than profit for GM to goto Mexico. Americans wouldve liked to make shoes for 10-12 an hour. Canadians do feel less fearful about crime than our us neighbors. My folks in montreal leave their doors unlecked when at home... our news programs are much less filled with crime and violence stories than us news shows.

Man the GM production link is well known. Opel has been owned by GM for generations... GM sued the us gov in the 60's and won for the bombing of its truck planst in germany in ww2... This doesnt deserve to be denounced?

Go take a stroll in the maquiladoras and says there are no good environmental rules that should be obeyed there...

The race to the bottom has no end for some corps. They are in fact pulling out of mexico for china...

I dont support him because of his mantra. I support some of what he says because thr main thrust of his exposes are widely reported and simply true. I read most of what hes done in docus before he did them.

Corps have all the money and time in the world to answer moore and the journalists before him who reported flint and the other subjects of his shows... They usually dont because there is no protected media environment that can help clean their slate any better than silence.

What proof does he need for flint? Or nike choice of indonesia and vietnam vs flint? What you guys question is almost always besides the point.

The nestle thing is plain history. Nestle admitted and apologized and fired some execs... then did the same damn thing 2 years later only to again apologize and fire some more execs... there was a worldwide boycott of nestle in the 80's over this...

I find your position far weaker than moores. You can amost never generalize everythign someone says as all black an white... Hitler might be an exception tho even he said so much shit its insane to say a short quote from him is a lie because "its hitler"...

I can understand if you want to nit pick the heston speeches. Ill likely agree there cept its irrelevant to the main theme of the movie.

Conservatives with their fabulous wealth had years to respond to Moores movies... There are plenty of conservatives in hollywood to fix up some docus of their own... however I cant for the life of me see how they could take on the observation in columbine that americans if ever so moderatley live more in fear of crime than some other countries...

Id be blown away if they dared to take on roger and me even at this late date and try to show it had nothing to do with simply wanting more profits...

 

[Legion]

OMG legion you are rabid... You distort my posts on top of generalizing.

I thought i was merely responding to your claims concerning Moore's accuracy.

Its not about painting a life of the average american in abject fear.

That was moore's intention.

Its a relative thing. Sampling culture and news and living habits...

You said it best. Its a relative thing. He takes behavior he views as fear related, distorts it, then tries to incorporate it into his movie.

in that Moore did a damn good job. So finding that americans lock their doors while canadians dont while at home isnt an indicator?

Of taking relative and subjective material, slanting it and marketing it as truth Moore definately did a great job.

Pax why can't you admit this is propoganda?

I have no bias against gun groups. AGAIN the movie didnt paint or say guns are bad.

Moore associated the NRA with the KKK directly as well as associated gun owners with irrational lunatics.

It only said the NRA was in bad taste to goto columbine after the massacre. Im in favor of gun rights...

You didn't read the link i posted did you?

Not saying Americans live in fear... Fear is a part of the human condition.

Whoa. Meaning its relative and subjective and even sometimes unjustified?

Did you know lying is apart of the human condition to?

To indicate it might be culturally more of an issue in the US vs other westner countries can only be lightly touched on in a docu. he makes a good point of that...

Of course you could say that. The popullation of canada is less than a 1/3 of the US. I suppose then one could say they have less fear. You could could also say they have less confidence as well by the same reasoning.

the fact remains its an nonsensical argument. You could make it about any nation in the world with the same kind of spurious support.

and AGAIN likely only one of several reasons why gun deaths are so much more a prob in the US per capita...

the obvious one that Moore completely avoids and only Heston refers to is the cultural differences in the US. BLacks commit disproporationately more crimes than both whites and latin americans in the US. If you compare by culture whites to white in Canada you will find the the crime rates to be closely related. Instead of researching this Moore tries to write heston off as a racist when infact heston is correct.

Why do you think americans gun each other down so much more?

what an obtuse question.

Do americans gun each other down so much? No. Infact the rate isn't much higher than many european nations when compared culturally.

Moore lies about the figures of deaths in the sample year he took. Read the actuall FBI report for that year. He reports that over 11,200 murders took place in the US in the sample years he took when the real figure was around 8300. Comparible by rate to other nations around the world. Of course it makes sense you are going to have more crime is a larger country.

Moores refusal to to igknowledge the predominately black on black crime committed in the US while blaming all of the US for their behaviors is yet a futher example of the leftist bias he has and his inability to igkownledge facts.

Instead he reports that fear is the cause of this behavior and not cultural aberance in mainly african american cultural.

Canadian medicare is blustering? I dont even get this comparison...

Its abunch of smoke and mirrors esque ideology with no praticle economic instituion that is bankrupting canada slowly.

NRA large, loud public org ... Can med public system without any significant public relations org...

NRA has over 4,000,000 support members and even more supportors. What about them is blustering?

nra=kkk Ya I know that bit has no relation but the cartoon shows that blacks werent given access to guns in the south.

and this is the NRA's fault how?

So extending a reign of terror another centory post civl war... the main points of the cartoon were true...

Uh no. It was suggesting the NRA helped the KKK supress the blacks. THE NRA did not do this. Infact didn't even exist for the earlier half the KKK. What was the NRA, the national rifle association, supposed to do? Arm a black malitia and then send them on a killing spree after the KKK? Would that have made any sense? How was the NRA responsible for the politics of the south?

whites loved slavery cuz they were ass lazy...

Moore will make such statements but assert welfare has nothing to do with personal laziness

Pax this is a generalization and stereotype of the people of the south. Moore loves to feed off of hate rhetoric to futher his points. Another example of his emotional bait tactics. Its easy to hate these people thus making his bs more believable. A very simple brainwashing technique.

That it was a coincidence the kkk was made illegal the same day the nra was formed doesnt mean anything ... heck moore is still a card carrying member...

However it doesn't keep him from trying to get you to draw the conclusion does it?

Roger and me showed the pain and suffering of a factory town being shut down in the name of better profits...

WHy should the whole company suffere lower profits because of one group of people? Its a company pax. Its publically owned. The board is doing what is in its constituents interest. You don't compete by having noncompetative prices or failing profits.

You cant argue with that. Its friggin history... Again tidbits that are innacurate whether due to style or outright lying are irrelevant to the main crux of what the show was about...

I most definately can. When he spoke to the president of GM he refused to show the interview and even denied it took place. Instead he make it seems as though he wasn't allowed to speak to him.

You didnt get my sarcastic bit about bush...

And you didn't get mine about the canadian medicare system...

Moore is def a leftist ideologue. To say that doesnt mean all he says is lies legion...

sigh...it also means, just like everyone else, until he proves what he says it remains unsubstanciated. Moore demonstrates over and over again he has a hard time accurately representing truth. This lends credence to the impossibility of merely taking him at face value.

Its such a wwesak postion to argue from... cite me lareg specifics that point the premise as to be wrong...

How is weak to demonstrate he is a liar?

Fomr the simple premise of fear in american life in bowling to greed in roger and me and the big one... These are simply true.

How are they simply true? All the psuedo facts he has used to support himself have been refuted.

It appears a weak stance to hold so strongly to disproven rhetoric pax.

There was no real reason other than profit for GM to goto Mexico.

really? I thought the practice of business was to lose money?

Same could be said about Debeers in south africa.

what would the mexicans have without them? Would you rather GM never have gone to mexico?

Americans wouldve liked to make shoes for 10-12 an hour. Canadians do feel less fearful about crime than our us neighbors.

You know this how?

My folks in montreal leave their doors unlecked when at home... our news programs are much less filled with crime and violence stories than us news shows.

I leave my doors unlocked. I haven't been robbed. I suppose then i am evidence that america isn't more afraid then canadians.

Pax, why can't you see the fallacies in your reasoning?

Our news agencies aren't always filled with crime. Infact i can't remember the last time they were every filled with crime. This is an extreme exaggeration and proof you have never been to much of america. Our news angencies love to sensationalize things. If it seems interesting they often will run with it. The press love to dig up whatever they can no matter how minor and bring it to light in hope of driving up raitings, regardless of how insignificant.

Does merely locking one's doors indicate their fear? Or does it represent methodology, habit, leasing directives, automatic security process etc?

Be honest, you are merely saying this because Moore asserted it aren't you?

You are clearly trying to take this as far as you can to substantiate Moore's point. In other words your are trying to justify the hypothesis because your conclusion has already been drawn.

Man the GM production link is well known. Opel has been owned by GM for generations... GM sued the us gov in the 60's and won for the bombing of its truck planst in germany in ww2... This doesnt deserve to be denounced?

WHy should it be denounced? I am confused. When did it become illegal for a company to run a business? They lost money and then got it back.

Mercedes was down with some pretty vile sh1t in WW2. SHould i denounce the whole company for what the previous owners did years ago?

Go take a stroll in the maquiladoras and says there are no good environmental rules that should be obeyed there...

Please tell me that all enviromental legislation is justified.

The race to the bottom has no end for some corps. They are in fact pulling out of mexico for china..

Why shouldn't they? Stock holders amongst other own the companies correct? Can't they do what they wish with it?

Honestly, if it is so bad, perhaps we should extract all our support from mexico....and then watch it burn in the fires of political corruption and self motivated poverty.

I dont support him because of his mantra.

You support what he says
what he says is mainly montra
you aren't supporting his documentaries for only what was said about mexico

so something you support is mantra.

I support some of what he says because thr main thrust of his exposes are widely reported and simply true.

Yeah, like lockheed martin makes nuclear missles. Just like he claimed.

I read most of what hes done in docus before he did them.

and you still believe him? Jesus what won't you believe.

Corps have all the money and time in the world to answer moore and the journalists before him who reported flint and the other subjects of
his shows...

SHould they? DOn't they? They do. Infact the president of GM did respond personally to Michael Moore not only in an interview but after the Roger and Me syndication.

Moore has been requested to come on a number of talk shows including O'Reily to dicuss his acusations. Most of which he has turned down as they involved confronting many of the people he accussed of misconduct.

They usually dont because there is no protected media environment that can help clean their slate any better than silence.

Now this is particullarly absurd Pax. You assume because they don't object they are guilty. So anyone who doesn't appeal a court ruling is automatically guilty of the offense?

What proof does he need for flint?

Why hasn't Moore been called in or answered to any of the rebuttles to his claims? Is moore guilty of lying? Why did Moore refuse to print his interview with the president of GM?

Or nike choice of indonesia and vietnam vs flint? What you guys question is almost always besides the point.

No it isn't at all. Infact its mainly to the point. Moore simply refused to print the facts and center on blaming some one who "we all know is guilty". In other words he is trying to pick easy targets to boost his career.

WHy should GM try and give a response. They did on numerous occations. Just do a google search about the interview between GM and Moore or GM and foxnews. GM doesn't need to substantiate itself to a man so lacking in personal calibur. No one quit frankly cares but the extremists (the only ones who are listening to him).

The nestle thing is plain history. Nestle admitted and apologized and fired some execs... then did the same damn thing 2 years later only to again apologize and fire some more execs... there was a worldwide boycott of nestle in the 80's over this...

Sounds to me then justice was served....what more would you like to do to them? WHy do you appear so paranoid of corperations simply because a few aforementioned ones may at sometime been engaged in shady behaviors? Why do you put faith in things like government when the evil you descibe is human nature ? You are an ideologue and heart.

I find your position far weaker than moores.

Is that because i back my claims up with facts and not emotions?

You have yet to give me a reason as to why my accussations are inaccurate. You just claim i am not centering on what you consider important issues. You are skirting the real issues pax while only chosing to debate a very small portion of Moores work. You value B for C simply because it proports rhetoric you already concluded to be true without evidence or any logical support, refuse to explain why you believe it, and then try and tell me that i am centuring on things which are insignificant? Are you sure you didn't work for the ELF legal team?

You can amost never generalize everythign someone says as all black an white...

You are the one looking at it in black and white. You said they were guilty. You denied grey areas.

Hitler might be an exception tho even he said so much shit its insane to say a short quote from him is a lie because "its hitler"...

Lucifer might be an exception tho even he said so much shit its insane to say a short quote from him is a lie because "its satan"...

Humor pax

I am stating Moore is a liar because i can prove he is a liar. Not because i don't like him, that came after i realized he is a liar. I am not saying everything he said is a lie. I just said much of what he said was demonstratably lies.

can understand if you want to nit pick the heston speeches. Ill likely agree there cept its irrelevant to the main theme of the movie.

The main theme of the movies was centered around the lies which were supposed to substantiate it.

I can understand why you, without prejudice, would conclude him to be telling the truth though mounting evidence suggests his claims to be spurious. You have made up your mind before hand and now are merely looking for justification.

conservatives with their fabulous wealth had years to respond to Moores movies...

HOLY SH!T. As if the liberals don't have the money either. They chose to sit by because they are in the same camp as Moore. Are you suggesting that because the whole conservative world didn't lash out at Moore he is somehow somewhat right? Ludicrous. Moore has had numerous objections. THe majority of people don't respond to his holywood ilk (who are also guilty of refusing to respond to allegations of moral corruption) because they are plastic people. They have no barings in the real world. People mainly ignore them.

There are plenty of conservatives in hollywood to fix up some docus of their own...

And the behavior of hollywood is some how an example of the conservative mindset?

however I cant for the life of me see how they could take on the observation in columbine that americans if ever so moderatley live more in fear of crime than some other countries...

You have never proven such absurd allegations. What on earth does your statement prove? That moore is some how right? How has he ever proven what he has stated. We live in fear more so then some other countries? What on earth does that mean. Even if it were true what political significance does it have? We live in more fear then some countries....so what?

Id be blown away if they dared to take on roger and me even at this late date and try to show it had nothing to do with simply wanting more profits...

lol. As if by not defending yourself or others you are some how guilty of allegations. I will remember that the next time i hear leftists try and support the UN when their behavior demonstrates their lack of dedication to solving world problems.

 

[zurich]

OMG legion you are rabid... You distort my posts on top of generalizing.

You just found that out now?

I found the best part of Bowling for Columbine was the interview with Marilyn Manson. He summed up the entire thesis of the movie in like 2 sentences heh.

Also, one has to find it funny that the neocons here are going after Moore with a torch and pitchfork for 'lies' and 'bias', when their own administration has been doing the same thing for 3 years now (and the lefties get chased down everytime they even mention Bush's lies).

 

[Legion]

OMG legion you are rabid... You distort my posts on top of generalizing.

You just found that out now?

I found the best part of Bowling for Columbine was the interview with Marilyn Manson. He summed up the entire thesis of the movie in like 2 sentences heh.

Also, one has to find it funny that the neocons here are going after Moore with a torch and pitchfork for 'lies' and 'bias', when their own administration has been doing the same thing for 3 years now (and the lefties get chased down everytime they even mention Bush's lies).

i find it funny that leftists have a tendency not to admit their personal flaws, write them off historically, then judge people for the same offenses they are guilty of. As if corruption were centered only to conservatives in the US . Are leftists really so blind? Has anyone forgotten Clinton's equally unjustified (by their standards) ventures into Iraq and afghanistan? Where were people to complain then? So strange. Yet the similar numbers of nations objected to his attack. To strange for words.

Leftists love to ridicule this administration over "lies" concerning their information involved in their decisions over this war. Politics just has me so confused. Are not the lies that moore speaks and those leftists claim Bush speaks lies? Curiously, with all the objection on this board alone leftists still refuse to igknowledge a very sound reasoning for attacking Iraq. Iraq was unwilling to fully cooperate with the US/UN inspectors, has violated many of the agreements made inorder to make him cooperate to confirm Iraq's concurance to arms reductions policies and has demonstrated a willing to mass murder in the past. What has changed about his character? He still allows his people to starve while he lives the life of luxury in his multibillion dollar palacies. He built most of the with money he acquired from UN policy plans that were put into place to allow him to remain in power but force him to change his public policy. To many nations ignored regulations and continued full trade with him in light of their knowledge of his continuing exploitation of his populace. Now France and Russia cry us crocodile tears over lost life while they continued support of Saddam (thank you TFE).

Saddam had a responsibility to his people and to the UN to demonstrate his willingness to concur. A policy none of the UN was unaware of as they themselves had decided apon it. Yet leftists employ backwards reasoning to suggest his innocence at this moment. They suggest that the neocons, as they like to call us, have the responsibility to demonstrate these WMD exist. It was confirmed more than 14 years ago they had tousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons. The regulations against Iraq were originally intended to force him to dismantle ICBMs, missles of particular range, chemical and biological weapons and to dispose of any nuclear plans he may have among with a list of other changes. He was supposed to, by a certain time (which i believe was around 1998), demonstrate he had concured with these regulations. If not there would be military consequences. Bill Clinton himself did not deny he had exhausted all other routes.

Inspite of the regulations, threats, and sanctions Saddam was openly beligerant; thumbing his nose at the most powerful collective military force in the world. Not a surprise. Considering his past and currenct history he is clearly insane. Should a man such as this be in power? Is a man such as this beneficial to his people? He has murder the innocent, exploited his populace, frightened resistance underground, and existed souly as the major cause of the economic poverty of the Iraqi people. What excuse do leftists have? This is a country with a fairly good supply of oil. There is no reason for his people to starve. None. He ought to be able to pay for their comfort to some extent. Yet, through the years of the oil for food act he used increased purchases of oil to fund the building of elaborate palaces. I repeat: Is this the kind of man sound minded enough to run a country?

more than 12 years of sanctions had no positive affect on Saddam or the populace of Iraq. Why would 12 more change anything?

I have never met a leftist who disagree with any of these facts likewise i have never heard a leftist with an adequate solution that wouldn't prolong the suffering of the Iraq people or that they could validate as affective. History has shown us dictators, more often than not, respond little to threats without force.

If hitler had never attacked the rest of europe or Russia and If he had killed only 20,000 Jews and forced the rest of their populace into refugee camps in forests in and around germany would the leftists have authorized an attack on Nazi germany? I highly doubt it.

So much news air time is dedicated to leftist rants about the failures of the neocons to demonstrate Iraq as a threat. As if that were the only point of removing saddam from power while you never hear of a solution proposed by any of them. Why is this? Because none of them have a solution. None of them had a problem. Much like europe sold out to the germans in ww2 the UN now partially sells out to Saddam. Why should they do anything when they live in comfort free from the reaches of tyranny. I am baffled. One would think that the leftists, so self absorbed with their ideology wouldn't consistantly be the last to dedicate themselves to proven affective meassures..

Why is the left so myopic? here we have taken this country, freed it from Saddam and all their minions refuse to see something beneficial has been achieved. They can't recognize it. Instead they pick away at the situation exposes only troubles within it. As if any non military situation would have been without them. Over all the loss in life does not compare to leaving this man in power. The iraqi people have a great chance now of improving themselves. Where there are pockets of resistance there are many more pockets of willingness to committ to better Iraqs future. No leftist sees this.

Honestly, how many of you leftist would actually have cared about doing a damn thing for the iraqi people if these attacks didn't bring Iraq to light? Does the mere fact of the lose of innocent life mean anything to you? How can you all sit by in your Ivory towers, condescend to us from atop your pedistals your slanted views of world culture and economics while ignoring the truly needy? It is perverse.

 

[Sxotty]

Your funny legion, you should learn to relax.

 

[Florin]

Do americans gun each other down so much? No. Infact the rate isn't much higher than many european nations when compared culturally.

I'm not sure what comparing culturally means. I'd say looking at various stats like these from the International Journal of Epidemiology, the rate per 100.000 inhabitants is much, much higher than in the european nations you speak about. In fact, there is only one european nation, the hardly typical Estonia, where the rate is even more than half of the USA rate.

Maybe you have more recent stats from an objective source that back up your claim that the rate is indeed comparable.

 

[Legion]

Your funny legion, you should learn to relax.

I am relaxed.

I just wish to make the point rather clear that Michael Moore is dishonest and his information should be held subject. I see no reason to assume he is accurately representing the american public.

 

[Legion]

I'm not sure what comparing culturally means. I'd say looking at various stats like these from the

I see no reason to not to compare the the total of all ethnic backgrounds to nations of disimiliar ethnic backgrounds.

If we were comparing the US to predominately white England i would suggest we compare the ethnic backgrounds which are similar to for purpose of statistical accuracy.

By doing this you more than likely you would find comparable ethnic backgrounds to be of similiar rates of crime across the board.

Many other factors including urbanization also play into the violence factor.

It is a fact that african americans committ disproportionately higher amounts of crime (specifically violent crimes) then whites or latin americans. This obviously is a cultural element. Is crime some how a problem with america as a whole or mainly the majority of those whom committ violent crimes. Does american somehow become a fearful place because african americans committ such acts of violent crimes? How are african americans (a minority in america) representative of american sentitments as a whole?

International Journal of Epidemiology, the rate per 100.000 inhabitants is much, much higher than in the european nations you speak about. In fact, there is only one european nation, the hardly typical Estonia, where the rate is even more than half of the USA rate.

I don't recall anywhere in the article suggesting where these figures came from. Infact this sounds familiar to Moores claims that utilized a health board figures to verify his claims. It is very possible this site is using the figure not verified by the FBI. I wouldn't consider them an accurate representation of violence related fire arm deaths.

The article i posted refers you to the actual number of fire arm related deaths which come to a number around 8,300. The health boards figure was around 11,200. A clear discrepency. I would be more inclined to believe the FBI then i would the claimes of hospitals who have done no research into the patience death.

Maybe you have more recent stats from an objective source that back up your claim that the rate is indeed comparable.

I already posted them in that article. The author explains Moore's figures (which i believe to be the basis of the figures in your article) and why police and FBI records are more accurate.

aside from all of this using such reasoning to doesn't justify his claims that america is a land of fear. There is no logical link between the two.