Proof that Bowling for Columbine was a fabrication

bamma if this is true, why hasn't Heston taken legal action against Moore for slander or defamation of character?

And if all of the other charges are true, how come no one else is bringing lawsuits against him?

btw have you watched the movie?

 

Damn, that site has been linked to in every thread about that movie. It isn't new.

 

Nice find, Bama. It may be time for you to do the exposure honors to the lefties.

 

I think I linked that site about a year ago. Nevertheless, it's a pretty interesting read for anyone trying to master the art of manipulation.

 

the thing at the end of the movie where moore pulls the picture out to show charlton heston is also cinematically impossible. He uses fancy cuts as in one angle the camera is directly behind him and the other one is directly in front of him, yet he is talking through the whole thing superfluously.

yes there are a lot of lies in the movie and its very deceptive and it pisses me off when he does that to discredit a serious issue. I am against the legalization of owning guns but moore really hurts those that support the same cause.

On the other hand, the bush administration commits the same type of fraud towards the american public like moore did, and like the liberals that ignore the lies in moores movie, the conservatives equally ignore the lies from the administration.

To me, both sides have lost credibility from their lies. I think this situation on both sides tells more about the American public and gullibility as a whole, and those that are turned off by both sides are becoming very cynical. my 2 cents

 

This is truly shocking. I thought it was all true. Man my life has been thrown out of whack.

 

What is the point of posting old information that Moore has already answered point by point? Regardless of whether you buy his answers, you are still raising the same arguments he countered already.

It would be more convincing to counter his counter. Then he could counter the counter to his counter and so forth. That is how these things work.

Or, better yet it can be like the old conservative position on racism - if you stop talking about it, it will go away. Thus, if conservatives stop talking about how the movie is all lies (or posting it in this bbs for the fourth or fifth time), then people will stop talking lies will cease to exist. Let's be like little kids and play the silent game, what do you say?

 

Maximum exposure.

 

I watched B4C twice. I found it pretty interesting and Moore makes a lot of valid points, but it is also riddled with propoganda. Does the make the definition of documentary?

For instance, Moore deliberately left the impression that the NRA came to Denver due to the Columbine strategy. He doesn't once make mention, that I recall, that that conference had been scheduled long before the tragedy. That is dishonest.

Moore is a schlub who has made a nice life for himself. I give him credit.

 

Old site. Old news. Move along.

 

I've never seen the movie, and I've never looked at this Web site (until just a moment ago). What I read from the site a moment ago seems to indicate that it has been updated. I didn't read far enough to see if it countered Moore's counter or not, but it looks to me that it's not the same exact Web site that people would have looked at a year or so ago.

Besides, why does it matter how long ago it was put up? Does that alone make it invalid or something?

I don't know if all the criticisms of Bowling for Columbine are accurate. I certainly wouldn't put it past Moore to do these things. He has no integrity. He wants to be more important than he is.

I watched part of an interview with Moore the other day. At one point he said that he believes Bush is basically a good person. Not but about two or three minutes later, he said that he's evil (and the administration is evil). I don't know that I've ever met a good, evil person. Actually, I think Moore says whatever he thinks will work, whether it's consistent or not. At one point in the interview, it was shrewd to say, "Bush is basically a good guy. He's doing what he thinks is best. " and so (not actual quotes, by the way). Later in the interview he could score more points with his "Bush is the devil incarnate" routine.

In short, I'd rather listen to Joe Leiberman talk for hours--and that's saying something. He's not exactly exciting, you know.

 

This is fairly old, but rimbaud, you are so wrong. Your "point counterpoint" model has been thrown out. Discussion in Uhmehrca is on life support.

Let's say you ignore Moore's counterpoints for a moment (which bramaslammer et al probably will do). So, what's the big deal if the left (finally) has a guy who will manipulate information in the interest of his themes, just like Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, et alia? That's apparently what the times call for.

 

Uh, I'm as left as they come, and this movie actually shifted my thoughts on gun control -- to the right. I'll never own a gun and hope to see a gun-free world, but I'm not sure gun control is the best answer now. The government has no right to say what I can or can't have in my house. Before "Bowling for Columbine," I would have never said that.

This movie doesn't present answers to gun violence questions. It leaves it to the viewer.

But since it was made by Michael Moore, most conservatives dismiss this movie as "leftist propaganda," when the opposite is true. But carry on.

 

I frankly don't care who does the distorting, it's unacceptable to me. Left, right, squarely down the middle--it doesn't matter. I'm sick to death of people who don't mind the facts being distorted if it furthers their cause. Can anyone deny that Moore is one of these people?

By the way, I read a little more from the Web site, and he does mention Moore's explanation and gives a link to a page that I suppose deals with them (didn't follow the link, so I don't know for sure).

 

Here's the thing: I wouldn't dismiss it as "leftist propaganda," but I do believe the name Michael Moore taints anything it's attached to. Even if "the opposite is true," so what? Is it accurate? Why can't that be the standard? I don't want people being persuaded either way by inaccurate information.

Just for the record: I've never owned a gun, and I don't know that I ever will, so this is not some pet issue I'm trying to protect here. I don't really have any interest in guns. In fact, I'm for some reasonable gun control legislation, although I'm not sure what that is. I don't think waiting periods and things like that do much to deter criminals, but I have no problem with things like that. Actually, it always seemed strange to me that some people complained about the government forcing them to wait to purchase a gun, even though I'm sure 99% of the people complaining probably already owned several guns. If I thought I was in danger to the point that I had to have a gun today, I'll just buy a plane ticket instead and get out of town.

 

I agree 100-percent. The ultimate standard is truth, not ideology. I loved the movie, but I figured he took liberties with some of the information. Then, I looked up some of the information, read his responses to criticism, and saw that the facts were just THAT amazing.

 

I think it is only fair to provide a link to Moore's answer to the critics accusations

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/index.php

 

Good idea. Thanks for the link!

 

From Moore:
Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).


This part doesn't address the issues AT ALL. All I need to read.

I will never spend a dollar on this movie...I will never watch this movie. Frankly, I think Moore is full of himself and full of 'it'.

As giddyup mentioned, he may have some good messages in the movie, but I will never see them because the rest is a manipulative piece of trash. His response WRT the way he 'handled' the Horton issue could have changed my mind. It only reinforced it.

Deceiving deceiver.