I will boycott anything that pig Michael Moore does

Kind of off-topic, but aspects of Bowling for Columbine do cause wonder on what we can consider truth.

Though I've not seen the movie, my understanding is that the title is based on the idea that the Columbine killers went to their bowling class that morning before the massacre.

The roll sheet counts them as absent, the score sheets are filled out to imply they were absent. The teachers and several students say they didn't see them in class that morning. But at least a handful of students have said that they saw them in class that morning.

So what is true. A preponderence of the evidence says they weren't there that morning; however, I'm sure that these people who claim to have seen them are just as sure that they were there.

 

It is a fact that Bush is our president, and deserves a bit of respect (note: not unquestioning obeyance or reverence, just respect) just for that. Some people, like Moore and a few people on this board, refuse to do that. I still gave Clinton respect even when he was wrong, because he was president and as such, deserved some respect. After the impeachment proceedings, I didn't whine about how the impeachment process was illegal and Clinton shouldn't be in office just because I disagreed with him. When the end of the impeachment came, it was over and I was fine with that. I don't understand why these people can't move on and fight today's fights instead of yesterday's fights.

 

I thought Michael Moore's speech was badass!! I only wish he would've ended in a karate stance with fire shooting out of his finger tips. ROCK!
-------


oh yeah and I agree with him and think that george son of the snake has hi-jacked the memory of the 9/11 dead to forward his own agenda and bring about the book of Revelation ROCK!

 

They went to a bowling alley off campus.

Not the one in school.

 

for some reason, i have a lot respect for many people posting in this thread. To some, the only common bond between them is loving Rockets.

 

the title of the documentary, bowling for columbine, doesn't really matter actually. its not even that much about wether or not those kids went bowling.

i think it was more about american media.

 

Coupla links regarding 'Bowling for Columbine'

Truth or Fiction

Wall Street Journal's take

 

I believe you are in the minority on the right in your beliefs (but I wish more people were as open minded as you). Many of the policies and stated aims of the Bush adminstration were initially adopted because they were exactly NOT the things Clinton would have done - involve our country in more multilateral agreements, try to get the Palestinian Israel peace process restarted, nation building, etc. They still use him as their anti benchmark, even bristling today at any comparison.
I listened to the entire Moore speech and I don't agree with half what he said. I am not sure if he believes it or if he is just trying to be a liberal provacateur (sp?) in the way Rush Limbaugh is for the right.

 

One more thing, Iraq may have more guns (including full fledged automatic rifles) per capita in its general population than we do. I don't see why the NRA's argument that the right to bear arms falls ( to prevent tyranny ) falls apart right there. Do the civilians then require bigger and bigger guns the bigger the tyranny?

 

I remember the first time I heard about Michael Moore. I caught his show after the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York. I don't remember exactly what he was doing, but I remember him walking around, probably at a City Hall protest, with a poster board that had a gun taped on one side and a wallet taped on the other. That caught my attention.

 

So they had a bowling class (which, as I understand it, was off-campus already), and they skipped it to go bowling at a different bowling alley? Is that what the movie really says?

There are other problems with the documentary in regards to the truth, too, which, I suppose, makes it somewhat ironic to have him rail against various "ficticious" things on television last night.

But I guess that depends on what one considers to be truth.

 

And anyway, my point was that how can we know. Five people from the class allegedly saw the Columbine shooters in class that morning. The roster says they weren't there. The teachers say they weren't there. The scoresheets say imply they weren't there. But five people apparently say they saw them there that morning.

Plus, ewfd apparently has reports that places them at a different part of town at a completely different bowling alley.

My point was, how can we know the truth. Much of what we consider to be truth is based on evidence that can be fallible. Someone is wrong in regards to the bowling class issue. They either were there or they weren't. It can't be both, but we've got evidence that says both things are true.

(And, for the record, it is somewhat important what the title of the movie is and what assertions are made therein. If they aren't accurate, then it's not much of a documentary, especially if the person who created is so interested in speaking out against fiction disguised as fact... at least in his view).

 

I wish people could separate their hatred for George Bush or whatever because it really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we're at war now and there is nothing to do but support the troops. I'm a Democrat and I'd like to think that the vast majority of people can separate their political agendas for the common good, and that is hoping for a peaceful resolution to this, getting our boys out of their safely, and taking down a nutcase before he does more harm. I saw that Michael Moore speech and let me tell you, and I try not to say this about a person, but Moore is a piece of garbage and a waste of air. Period. That wasn't an "opinion" from Michael Moore, that was grandstanding plain and simple. Itwas "look at me, I have an opinion about the war", and just like any loser he got booed relentlessly. Did you see the faces of the celebrities in the crowd? They were awed, and shocked, and some of them sickened. I'll follow Satan before I follow Michael Moore so that slob didn't represent me and I'm sure he didn't represent the majority of Americans who were as sick of his grandstanding, egostroking display as I was.

 

I agree that he values stroking his own ego and agenda more than he values the truth. The only person with a more extreme version of that problem is the guy he voted for, Ralph.

 

On an ironic note, Bill Clinton wanted to take down Hussein as much as Bush did. Hussein has to be dealt with, and he would have, whether it was a Republican president, a Democratic president, on an independent president.

 

Could you elaborate on Ralph Nader's ego? I don't agree with his politics but always thought he was a down-to-earth guy.

 

On a side note I hope people don't keep calling Moore's opinion "liberal slanted" or "liberal's ideas" or "Democrats opinions", I can guarantee that every person that booed him wasn't republican, some were democrats. This doesn't have anything to do with "conservatives vs liberals", this has to do with an idiot trying to get some face time because his ego is out of control.

 

Just my take here. Many intelligent Greens take me to task on this. Anyway...

Nader has appeared once per four years over the last decade. Where is he when elections aren't looming? Is he fighting the good fight? Building a 3rd party from the bottom up, in the only fashion it can ever really work? I have no idea. My friends who work tirelessly in the Green Party can't answer these questions either. He seems to disappear if there isn't a big worshipful rally of people ready to hear and cheer his one-note, overly simple views.

He was grandstanding very early in his career when he took on car manufacturers. (In retrospect, his biggest target turned out to be a fine, safe automobile. I'm literally thinking of purchasing one now; I love those cars). And I believe he grandstands now.

Did he sincerely believe that the Democratic and Republican platforms were "essentially the same" in the 2000 election? He convinced many people of this, even though there were very demonstrably different. The platforms should be even more obviously different now, in my opinion. His one-leg platform was not a viable alternative, in my opinion. Still enjoying his me-vs-the-big-corporations self delusions, he twisted that one belief into what was considered a "platform." "Corporations are evil" is simply not a platform. Bring something that could be compatible with reality next time, with real policies and realizable change.

Does he put his (considerable) money where his mouth is? His stock portfolio, last it was on record, included mutual fund investments in all the multi-nationals that he cherishes attacking.

Again, the bottom line for me is: if he believes so strongly in things, where the heck is he? I want all the deeds that should go along with the words. Maybe he's in poor health, and if that's the case, I should withdraw some of this polemic, (not that he cares, of course). If he starts appearing again in the year ahead, telling us that the Democratic hopeful is equivalent to Dubya, I will not be surprised, but I will be very disappointed and, well, angry.

 

Ugh. Must. Not. Rely. On. Edit. Function. Must. Preview.

Pardon typos and what-not. Basic ideas are there.