Moores film

[seen_che]

When they showed Moores film "Fahrenheit 9/11" in cannes the crowd cheered for 25 min this hasent happend in 20 years......after the movie you could see americans crying and a french guy showted " you damn Americans ".... I think this film well have an effect but i think the Europeans now more about the facts in the film then the Americans doo....cant wait to see the pics of Bush playing golf....tey say that he has been on vacation 43% of hes time as president...that dont really suprise me <_<

[Yazman]

Yeah, I really can&#39;t wait to see Fahrenheit 9/11&#33; What pisses me off the most is that Disney can get away with breach of contract like they are. But then again, we can&#39;t really expect much of big corporations anyway.

[h&s]

Yeah, its not surprising that Mauswitz (Disney) don&#39;t want to distribute the film; at the moment they are recieving tax-breaks from Jeb Bush, so they are hardly going to release a film that critisizes his brother. Just another example of how capitalists get away with anything.
Anyway I can&#39;t wait to see that film. Moore has a way of showing up people for what they really are. Bowling for Columbine was brilliant, as I expect this one will be.

[fuerzasocialista]

I think that this film will is going to be a brilliant insight into the mind of a mad man (Bush).

[truthaddict11]

i think it will just repeat the same crap i have heard for the past 3 years

[fuerzasocialista]

There is a lot of stuff that people don&#39;t know about the Bushes and their connection to the Saudi royal family. Its obvious that the film is going to be extremely controversial but perhaps it might open a few eyes...

[Anarchist Freedom]

i personally think the film is going to rock and i cant wait to see it oh man am i excited.


:che:


CGLM&#33; (http://www.cglm.net)

[Edelweiss]

It may even be a good film, but still it seems to me that this whole Disney censorship story is just a successful marketing gag. Moore is rich enough that he easily could have financed the movie by himself. He also posed more like a Hollywood star in Cannes than an independent leftist film maker...

[Urban Rubble]

Well I hope this time he has the sense not to deliberately lie in the film, so it will actually be a critical blow at the Bush administration. I have mixed feelings on Moore, but you have to admit, this is the kind of thing that gets people to wake up. The American public, for the most part, doesn&#39;t read a whole lot, and when they do, they tend to rely on major media sources. They respond much better to this kind of thing, a 20 foot tall picture screaming at them exactly what is wrong with their president. This kind of thing is much more effective than guys like Chomsky and Zinn could ever be.

But Moore is kind of a prick. And Bowling was filled with lies. I hope he learned his lesson this time around.

[Skeptic]

I like Michael Moore personally. I think he has a lot of guts and genuine
spirit in support of regular people. He is good at his craft. Some of what he
says isn&#39;t politically sophisticated. His support for the Democrat party stuff
is goofy and is a dead end, but he does a good job speaking to regular people.
If only he had some valid solutions. What he said about Mumia is dead wrong;
that Mumia probably committed the murder of Officer Faulkner. Moore vacillates
like Liberals do because they don&#39;t have a deep enough grasp on politics. I
look forward to seeing his movie and I hope if moves people to get involved in
politics against the growing Fascism in the United States and by this I don&#39;t
mean voting. The mainstream electronic media has been so devoid of politics
that I hope his movie is a shot in the arm to more thorough debate. I hope the
message stirs things up, but we have masters (what elites give they can take
away) so his message might only be broadcasted in Europe. I hope the award
helps him get futher funding for more activist movie making. Political movie
makers like Oliver Stone are in hiding or making a shitty movie about football.
When Moore stood up at the Academy awards it was a shining moment, he spoke a
truth that can not usually be said in the ever growing repressive political
atmosphere. The fact that act is so rare show how phony &#39;democracy&#39; really is.
He has real heart. I hope good things for him. People need to get past dopey
democracy and see the problem is Capitalism and the solution is Socialism.

<<In a message dated 5/24/04 2:36:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jeremy asks:

<<Interesting. So you don&#39;t think his winning the award is a sign of his being
a watered down message or that there is a growing acceptance of his attitudes
(and anti-Bush stance), but rather that it was a fluke.>>

--Jeremy>>

No, I haven&#39;t seen his movie so I don&#39;t know what the exact his message is. I
know from Moore&#39;s poltical activities, like his support of General Wesley Clark
for President, for example, where he is coming from and that he vacillates and
often fumbles around and appears confused without a clear political line. Many
of the judges for the Cannes Palme D&#39;or award were American and while I think
the film making probably merits the high award (it wasn&#39;t a fluke) the vote may
also be a political statement by the Judges in an attempt to force Disney&#39;s
hand to release the movie. I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if Moore&#39;s film moves your
average American from the midwest and could influence the political climate.
Moore&#39;s role, I suspect, will be to bring people&#39;s into the fold of the
Democrat party, whom they will rely on and be betrayed by ruling class politics
and politicans. I just hope that average Americans could be motivated to move
for substantive change and that they don&#39;t pin their hopes on the creepy John
Kerry. Don&#39;t get me wrong. I feel a sense of solidarity with Moore&#39;s attempt to
deliver a message of saying &#39;No&#39; to Bush. I saw Moore&#39;s speech today on Free
Speech TV and the reaction to it by the French audience reminded me of the
Singing of the &#39;Marseilles&#39; (the French National Anthom) in the movie
Casablanca, where the French stand up to Facism. The ovation I read was the
longest in Cannes Film Festival history. But people have to deliver a message
of saying NO to everything Bush stands for. John Kerry&#39;s position is to be more
to the right of Bush on most substantive issues like prosecuting the war and
attacking civil liberties at home. So saying &#39;Yes&#39; to Kerry would not be saying
&#39;No&#39; to everything Bush stands for. It&#39;s not in the Democrats interests to
promote real dissent or to build a different and better society. The
Republicans and Democarts are both the party of the Rich, nothing more. But
outside of electoral politics there is the potential for truly massive
resistance. We need to really deepen the consciousness of people about the
culture wars including the rise of Christian Fascism, and what kind of
resistance is required to oppose the wars, and why a revolutionary
tansformation of society is necessary and possible to move beyond the terms
dictated by the system. I hope Moore doesn&#39;t narrow many people&#39;s vision into
only acceptable forms of protest as he has done in the past.

<<In a message dated 5/25/04 11:58:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Jeremy asks:

<<So, you see it as a move motivated by partisan politics. Instead, of a
heartfelt vote for peace, justice or truth, you think it&#39;s more of an attempt
at motivating marginal power change.>>


I haven&#39;t see the movie yet, I hope it brings up issues beyond partisan
politics. I suspect the movie will reflect the limits of Michael Moore&#39;s
liberal outlook. I think his movie making is heartfelt, but Moore cannot see
beyond the narrow boundaries of bourgeois political reform. I see the reaction
to his film at Cannes as definitely a statement about &#39;peace, justice, truth&#39;
and antifascism. I would hope that segments of viewers could see beyond
marginal &#39;for show only&#39; maneuvering of one representation of the ruling elite
for another, whose interests are fundamentally opposed to the interest of the
common man that Moore hopes to speak for. Moore will be disappointed as he
always when he will be betrayed by ruling class politics and ruling class
politicians. Fascism is coming like a freight train, basic people need to fight
for substantive change not liberalism.


<<In a message dated 5/25/04 1:54:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jeremy asks:

<<Is it &#39;for show only,&#39; or do you think he&#39;d like to educate/motivate change?
How narrow is Moore&#39;s outlook exactly, do you think?

--Jeremy>>

Politically in the election Michael Moore stumped for Presidential Candidate
General Wesley Clark, who was in charge of the Southern Command at the height
of the insurgency in Peru, in which the U.S. government trained their
deathsquad &#39;Cinche&#39; forces by having them bite the necks of their pet dogs
killing the animals to make the fighting forces crazed, then wearing the bloody
corpses of their pet dogs around their necks. In Yugoslavia General Clark
oversaw the massive bombing and killing of civilians on a tremendous scale. He
was also one of those in charge of the first Iraq attack. In Moore&#39;s public
statement&#39;s and movie making he personally wants Unionism to be successful and
he wants positive things for the working class. But politically he promotes the
Democrat party. John Kerry&#39;s interests are for the rich and are fundamentally
opposed to the interests of regular people. Some people say that even if John
Kerry was the second worst President of the United States he would still be
better than Bush. Kerry has campaigned politically for making the USA Patriot
act more Stringent than Bush has called for and for prosecuting the war, but
fiddling and tweaking a few aspects of the occupation of Iraq. Moore wants the
Democrat party to represent regular people. It doesn&#39;t.

Skeptic

[fuerzasocialista]

But Moore is kind of a prick. And Bowling was filled with lies. I hope he learned his lesson this time around.


I&#39;ve heard conservatives say that Bowling was full of lies. What exactly were the lies?

[h&s]

Who cares if it had lies in it?
The pricks at the NRA were bound to spread bad publicity about it, but anything that condems guns has to be a good thing. Anyway, the interviews with the gun owners showed them up more than Moore could with his commentary.
Guns should be banned; who needs something designed specifically to kill fellow human beings?

[refuse_resist]

Fahrenheit 9/11 sounds like it will be great.

[Yazman]

Bowling for Columbine had no lies. If they were lies, then you go complain to the governments, historians, etc. that gave him the facts.

[Urban Rubble]

I&#39;ve heard conservatives say that Bowling was full of lies. What exactly were the lies?

That&#39;s not really for me to explain to you. Go do a search on google. It wasn&#39;t so much that he came on the screen and lied, he just edited it to make things look worse than they were. He would say Heston was making a speech about this on this day, and it would turn out the speech was on a different day, on a different topic and Moore simply edited it out of context to make it look as if he was saying something totally different.


Who cares if it had lies in it?

Me, and anyone else who has a brain. Anyone who cares about striking a real blow to the people Moore is trying to hit should concerned. No matter how good what he said was, they right can always just show how he lied and discredit all the times he didn&#39;t lie.


Guns should be banned; who needs something designed specifically to kill fellow human beings?

Hunters, armies, cops, people who like to target shoot, ME.


Bowling for Columbine had no lies. If they were lies, then you go complain to the governments, historians, etc. that gave him the facts.

The government didn&#39;t edit the film. The government did not blatantly deceive the viewers of this film to get their point across, Moore did. What you just said has to be the stupidest thing all week. It is the filmakers responsiblity to make sure his film is accurate, not the government.

And yes, it was full of lies. You are, quite simply, wrong.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:13 PM

But Moore is kind of a prick. And Bowling was filled with lies. I hope he learned his lesson this time around.


I&#39;ve heard conservatives say that Bowling was full of lies. What exactly were the lies?
Truth About Bowling (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

[Edelweiss]

UR, I think you are a victim of that (pretty convincing but still wrong) conservative propaganda sites on the web. As Moore himself said very often, noone ever succesfully has sued Moore for any alleged lies in the movie. And it&#39;s not really hard to get sucessfully sued in the US because of stuff like that...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 26 2004, 09:37 AM
Who cares if it had lies in it?
The pricks at the NRA were bound to spread bad publicity about it, but anything that condems guns has to be a good thing. Anyway, the interviews with the gun owners showed them up more than Moore could with his commentary.
Guns should be banned; who needs something designed specifically to kill fellow human beings?
&#39;Hammer&Sickleforever&#39; how can you have a revolution with out guns? Gun ownership sould be universal. We need to turn the guns on our masters. If you are worried about small children getting a hold of them and having accidents, there are responsible ways to keep guns in safes and such. You think only the Police should have guns?&#33;

[Urban Rubble]

UR, I think you are a victim of that (pretty convincing but still wrong) conservative propaganda sites on the web. As Moore himself said very often, noone ever succesfully has sued Moore for any alleged lies in the movie. And it&#39;s not really hard to get sucessfully sued in the US because of stuff like that...

Well, to me, people who buy Moore&#39;s thoughts hook line and sinker are victims of liberal propaganda. Just because Moore hasn&#39;t been sued does not mean he didn&#39;t intentionally mislead people. Editing a film in a decpeptive and misleading manner is not a crime, and he cannot be sued for character defemation because he didn&#39;t outright lie, he just deceived. The justice system looks at "deceit" as very different than a straight up lie, but I don&#39;t. The intent was obvious, he was exagerrating and stretching the truth to make his point. I am not upset that he tried to make his case more convincing, what I am upset about is that he made it very easy for the right to dismiss everything he said because of a few lies.

I&#39;ve reviewed all the claims against Moore, and I don&#39;t think it&#39;s conservative propaganda at all, I think it is completely within reason to say that film was very misleading, because it was. But hey, if you disagree, I&#39;d like to hear why. Refute some of the claims at that website, I&#39;ll admit if I&#39;m wrong =).

[j.guevara]

Skeptic, you dont seriously believe that armed revolution is possible in America. We would be utterly destroyed.

[BuyOurEverything]

Alot of that site truthaddict posted is complete crap. The guy says Moore is lying about things he never even claimed in the movie. That said, Moore did deliberately distort facts in the movie. The biggest problem with the movie, though, was that it was all style and very little substance. I mean, what did he actually say, guns are bad and should be banned? Whatever. He&#39;s just another idiot American liberal, although a very talented filmaker.

[h&s]

Why do you think you should be allowed guns then?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:46 AM
Skeptic, you dont seriously believe that armed revolution is possible in America. We would be utterly destroyed.
I.quevara, here is what I think about armed struggle in the USA, of course you need the right conditions first:

The Path to Power

The People Must Wage a Revolutionary War

Marx once noted that “Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with the new.” The old ruling classes have never voluntarily stepped down from power. They will clutch their butcher knives until they are taken out.

The proletariat cannot use the bourgeois state to remake society, or even to bring into being a single one of the great changes just laid out. Whether *“democratic” or openly terroristic, the bourgeois state is a machinery of repression. It is an expression of the basic capitalist relations it serves and enforces. It has been developed and refined over centuries.

Thus the proletariat must overthrow and thoroughly smash and dismantle the bourgeois state. And that requires war. In the words of Mao Tsetung: “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

War brings with it great bloodshed and destruction, and the proletariat will ultimately abolish war. But this will be done, and can only be done, by abolishing the system of capitalist accumulation and class oppression that constantly gives rise to war.

Could the masses actually win a revolutionary war against imperialism? This is a serious, literally life-and-death, question, one of great complexity. But the short answer is, yes. While the imperialists are strong, beneath the surface they have weaknesses. They have suffered defeats in the past—including Vietnam and Korea—and they can be defeated today.

The key to victory is correctly applying the Maoist military line of people’s war, which shows how a force that starts out weak can ultimately defeat a more powerful one. The tactics and guiding military strategy of people’s war enable the masses of people to support the revolutionary war, to actively join it in ever-increasing numbers, and through it to develop their ability to become masters of society.

People’s war in a country like this would begin with mass insurrections centered in the urban areas. These would lead to the establishment of a revolutionary regime in as much of the territory as possible, and then the waging of a civil war to finally and completely defeat the old ruling class and its counter-revolutionary armed forces and to consolidate the rule of the proletariat in as great a territory as possible.

Such a war should only be launched when the proletariat has a real chance of winning. This requires three basic factors: first, a serious crisis in society and in government; second, mass upheaval and rebellion among the proletariat and other sections of the people; and third, a vanguard party capable of turning the mass upheaval and rebellion into an organized insurrection and giving it overall leadership and direction.

Once such a situation does emerge, the party must lead the masses to hit and hold nothing back, delivering a powerful enough blow to crack the authority and ruling structures of the enemy. This will cause still more masses to surge forward to join the people’s war and begin a dynamic that increasingly brings out the weaknesses and counters the strengths of the imperialist forces while bringing to the fore the great strategic strengths of the revolutionary forces, relying on and activating ever greater numbers of the masses in revolutionary war and finally carrying that war to victory.

The People Need Leadership to Make Revolution and Carry It Forward; That Leadership Is the Party

Oppression breeds resistance—this is a law proven by thousands of years of class society. But in the words of Mao, “if there is to be a revolution, there must be a revolutionary party.”

When you consider what it would involve to launch and win a revolutionary war, the need for tested leadership quickly becomes clear. But the necessity for the party goes much deeper than that. The proletariat needs a party committed to fight for its fundamental class interests at every step, bringing people a clear understanding of the problem (capitalism) and the solution (proletarian revolution).

The party must put the revolutionary interests of the proletariat, not just in the particular country but worldwide, at the forefront and base itself on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, fusing this outlook and science with the experience and sentiments of the proletariat and other oppressed masses. Only in this way will the revolutionary showdown come to be and will the proletariat be capable of winning.

V. I. Lenin, the great leader of the Russian Revolution, first developed the theory and practice of the proletarian vanguard party. This party is based on the most advanced revolutionary theory and organized in a way to lead the proletariat in a revolutionary struggle with the goal of overthrowing capitalism and transforming society.

While the masses develop class feelings and revolutionary sentiments on their own, they need a party organization to raise those sentiments to the level of class-consciousness—that is, a basic understanding of the two fundamentally antagonistic forces in society, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and the need for proletarian revolution. And while the masses can and will wage heroic struggle on their own, they require the party to take the diverse streams of struggle and lead and unite them into a revolutionary flood-tide against the system.

The party must be built with deep roots among the proletariat, first of all, but also among the middle strata. It must be organized in such a way as to take into account the basic antagonistic relation between the proletariat and its vanguard on the one side, and the imperialist ruling class on the other. It has to be based on the recognition that the strategic orientation of the ruling class is to crush anything that poses a serious challenge to it. It has to be organized in accordance with the party’s strategic orientation of overthrowing the system through mass revolutionary warfare, when the time comes.

The party must have a core of professional revolutionaries as its backbone and must be built in such a way as to be able to combat the spying, disruption, sabotage, and outright murderous actions of the enemy’s political police and its overall apparatus of repression. Only such a party can fully unleash the masses’ conscious activism, train the most advanced as revolutionaries, and take on the bourgeoisie for real.

The party is organized on the basis of democratic centralism. This principle combines centralized leadership and the greatest degree of discipline on the one hand, with the fullest discussion and struggle over line and policies within the party and the selection and political supervision of party leadership by the party membership on the other hand.

The mass line is the method through which the party both learns from and leads the masses. The party takes the ideas of the masses and concentrates these ideas into a more fully correct and all-sided view of reality. It then returns that synthesis to the masses in the form of line and policies, winning the masses to take these up and uniting with the masses to carry them out. This is a key tool in welding the unity of the party and masses to advance the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle.

The party cannot bring on a revolutionary crisis solely through its own efforts, but neither can it sit back and wait for a revolutionary situation to fall into its lap. The party can and must hasten the arrival of such a crisis, struggling to strengthen the “pole” of revolution in society and “preparing the ground” for revolution, even as it awaits still greater shifts and turns brought on by larger events like crises, wars, etc.

[Yazman]

That&#39;s not really for me to explain to you. Go do a search on google. It wasn&#39;t so much that he came on the screen and lied, he just edited it to make things look worse than they were. He would say Heston was making a speech about this on this day, and it would turn out the speech was on a different day, on a different topic and Moore simply edited it out of context to make it look as if he was saying something totally different.

Michael Moore&#39;s response:


The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston&#39;s speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston&#39;s mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don&#39;t take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor&#39;s pleas that the NRA "don&#39;t come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader&#39;s words are in my film? You&#39;d think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn&#39;t look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston&#39;s most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?

I&#39;ve also been accused of making up the gun homicide counts in the United States and various countries around the world. That is, like all the rest of this stuff, a bald-face lie. Every statistic in the film is true. They all come directly from the government. Here are the facts, right from the sources:

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan&#39;s gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

After Michael Moore&#39;s personal response to your moronic claim that he lied in Bowling for Columbine, if you still don&#39;t believe that he was telling the truth about what he said, here&#39;s even MORE proof that the NRA Gun Rally DID happen in Denver, it WASN&#39;T on a different day, and it WASN&#39;T on a different topic. Here&#39;s the PROOF:

The Columbine High School Massacre occurred on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Jefferson County near Littleton, Colorado, United States, when two teenaged students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, executed a planned shooting rampage, killing 12 other students and a teacher before committing suicide. It is considered to be the worst school shooting in U.S. history.[source: wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre]

So there we establish that the massacre occured on April 20th, 1999. Now I will prove that the NRA rally did indeed occur in Denver, Colorado as it was claimed in Bowling for Columbine. I&#39;ll start by providing links to the NRA website itself that has the transcript and date of the speech, and the location:

http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_open.asp

http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_close.asp

The NRA Site itself lists the rally as happening on the 1st of May, the date given in Bowling for Columbine, and exactly 10 days after the Columbine High School Massacre, as claimed by Michael Moore. Not only did HESTON repeat, again and again, that the MAYOR OF DENVER ASKED HIM NOT TO GO THERE, but the NRA Executive Vice President ALSO spoke on the issues, and claimed that he was asked NOT ONLY by the Mayor of Denver to not go there, but also said "his associates advised" he not go there. I&#39;ll link you to HIS speech on MAY 1ST, AT THE NRA RALLY IN DENVER, COLORADO, EXACTLY 10 DAYS AFTER THE MASSACRE THERE:

http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_wlp.asp

I&#39;ll now provide you with some parts of the transcript to prove the idiocy of some members who post at this forum, who believe in right-wing propaganda without doing any real research at all:


Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver, sent me a message: "Don&#39;t come here. We don&#39;t want you here."

I say to the Mayor, "I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I&#39;ve run small errands for my country from Nigeria to Vietnam." I know many of you could say the same. But the Mayor said, "Don&#39;t come."

I&#39;m sorry for that. I&#39;m sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing. "Don&#39;t come here." This is our country. As Americans we are free to travel wherever we wish in our broad land. They say we&#39;ll create a media distraction. But we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews.

They say we&#39;ll create political distraction. But it has not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation.

They say, "Don&#39;t come here." I guess what saddens me most is how it suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and eighty million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don&#39;t care as much as they, or that we don&#39;t deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.

"Don&#39;t come here." That&#39;s offensive. It&#39;s also absurd, because we live here.

There are thousands of NRA members in Denver and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado. -Charlton Heston, May 1st, Denver Colorado

Funny how he talks about Littleton, Colorado and the people telling him not to go there. After reading that, what do you now think of THIS(?):


That&#39;s not really for me to explain to you. Go do a search on google. It wasn&#39;t so much that he came on the screen and lied, he just edited it to make things look worse than they were. He would say Heston was making a speech about this on this day, and it would turn out the speech was on a different day, on a different topic and Moore simply edited it out of context to make it look as if he was saying something totally different.

Here&#39;s another juicy quote from Heston&#39;s opening comments:


And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students of Columbine from evil, mindless executioners.

"Don&#39;t come here?" We are already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross-section of American life imaginable.-Charlton Heston, May 1st, Denver Colorado


The best part is how he SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL. NOW what do you think of THIS(&#33;?):


That&#39;s not really for me to explain to you. Go do a search on google. It wasn&#39;t so much that he came on the screen and lied, he just edited it to make things look worse than they were. He would say Heston was making a speech about this on this day, and it would turn out the speech was on a different day, on a different topic and Moore simply edited it out of context to make it look as if he was saying something totally different.


*Summary edited out as I agree with the posts directly below made by DaCuban and hammer&sickleforever*

[h&s]

Many people at che-lives are fucking idiots who believe right-wing propaganda that has no basis in fact.

I think thats a little harsh.
The whole point of this is so that we can debate our views. When someone throws in a right-wing opinion it is a good thing because it teaches us to debate our way to discount it. This helps us for when we are arguing with the real right-wing tossers.

[DaCuBaN]

Many people at che-lives are fucking idiots who believe [...] propaganda that has no basis in fact.

That works :rolleyes:

I do totally agree that the opposing views are absolutely necessary. If we ignore them we merely become complacent in our own views, and start to swallow the propoganda that the more dubious on the left seem to think helps when it&#39;s distributed despite the fact that the right has taken away the credibility of the majority of the left through their own propoganda.

In other words they got there first :angry:

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I saw the trailer today for Fahrenheit 9-11, and I cannot wait to see the whole film now. Moore&#39;s films are amazing... he is a much better filmmaker than author, though I have also enjoyed his books.

To check out the trailer:

Fahrenheit 9-11 (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/)

[Matty]

Note- If Moore was lying, do you not think he&#39;d have been sued a dozen times by gun companies?

[Guerilla22]

The thing about Michael Moore is most of what he is saying is true and while you may not completely agree with his politics, his films and books will make you think and that is exactly what America needs at this point. Obviously, he&#39;s no Chomsky, but his works still have great relevence.

[h&s]

&#39;Hammer&Sickleforever&#39; how can you have a revolution with out guns? Gun ownership sould be universal. We need to turn the guns on our masters. If you are worried about small children getting a hold of them and having accidents, there are responsible ways to keep guns in safes and such. You think only the Police should have guns?&#33;

Sorry man, I&#39;ve just read this and I think it is shit.
I think that no-one should be allowed guns, ever.
I suppose we may need guns to turn on our masters, but you know that armed revolution is not possible.

[Sabocat]

I mean, what did he actually say, guns are bad and should be banned?


Actually, I think the most poignant point the film "Bowling for Columbine" was how there is a cultivated culture of fear here in the U.S.

Fear of crime, fear of different cultures, etc.

[Yazman]

Actually, I think the most poignant point the film "Bowling for Columbine" was how there is a cultivated culture of fear here in the U.S.

Fear of crime, fear of different cultures, etc.

That&#39;s what Michael Moore is trying to put across in Bowling for Columbine, although some may not have figured it out yet.

[h&s]

Yeah, the little south park - style cartoon in the middle of bowling is the most memorable part of it for me. Its hilarious, yet scary.

[praxis1966]

I know this is a bit out of line for the direction in which this discussion has turned, but I thought I&#39;d bring it up anyhow. For those who earlier expressed concern about Disney&#39;s refusal to distribute the movie, not to worry. This is the latest statetment of Mike&#39;s from his mailing list:

June 4, 2004


Fahrenheit 9/11 Opens June 25

Hey Everyone...

As you may have heard by now, we finally have a distributor in America for "Fahrenheit 9/11." Actually, two of them&#33; Lions Gate Films and IFC Films have agreed to aggressively distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11" in theaters all across the country beginning three weeks from today on Friday, June 25th. We are, needless to say, extremely grateful for their courage (trust me, no matter what the potential box office may be, anyone who has considered taking on this distribution job has also met with a lot of pressure NOT to do it in the past month).

They will open it on a record number of screens for a documentary. There is no stopping it now&#33;

These are great distributors. Jon Feltheimer, the man who runs Lions Gate, was the executive in charge of the company that produced my television series, "TV Nation." And the people at IFC (which owned Bravo) were the same people responsible for funding and broadcasting my other series, "The Awful Truth." So we are in very good hands.

(And, as an added bonus, Lions Gate is a Canadian company. Once again, the Canadians to the rescue&#33; It was also a Canadian company, Salter Street Films, that produced "Bowling for Columbine." I know, it&#39;s kinda sad we have to keep depending on our good neighbors to the north. But maybe this is the year we give &#39;em their Stanley Cup back.)

There&#39;s a lot more to tell you -- and I will write to you again over the next few days. I&#39;m in the mood to spill some beans, much to the consternation of certain people. Oh well&#33;

Also, I have posted the trailer for "Fahrenheit 9/11" so that you can get your first glimpse at scenes from the movie--you can check it out at www.fahrenheit911.com (http://www.fahrenheit911.com).

Thanks for all your wonderful letters of support -- they have meant a great deal to us.

Save the date -- June 25&#33; It&#39;s the first summer film where the special effects will be real...

Yours truly,
M-I-C (see ya real soon&#33;)
K-E-Y (why? because they can&#39;t kill this friggin&#39; movie&#33;)
M-O-O-R-E

P.S. For our fans in the rest of the world, don&#39;t worry -- you already have distributors. And most of you will also be able to see it this summer&#33; Thanks.

[fuerzasocialista]

"Bowling For Columbine" was an eye opener especially for those living inside the poorly-informed borders of white america. It caused a great deal of controversy. However, Fahrenheit 9/11 looks like its going to be downright explosive.

[Chad King]

I will commend Moore on having balls, thats about it. I have the night of the 25th off of work and I will go see the movie, not that I need an eye opener, but because I think Moore is a fucker. I wish I could find the page that had more lies in Bowling, such as him staging walking into people&#39;s houses in Canada (I think that was BfC, I could care less, Im super tired and a little drunk...

Anyways, after talking to people I know in Canada, they lock their doors, bad people exist everywhere and an invisible line known as a border doesnt change a damn thing...

Moore is an idiot and, yeah, I guess, a talented movie producer guy, but I still think he is only prying off of people&#39;s fears to make money, I mean, if you saw him years ago, he was skinny as hell, seems that making more money he can eat a little better and gained some weight.

BUT&#33;

I dont see how you can ***** about a system that basically gave birth to you and allows you to express your views (not that Im defending the States) and then turn around and take direct advantage of it.

Hes Socialist? Yeah right&#33; Hes all over the damn television whenever some new, cute, "controversial" thing pops up, and the TV is one of the really big ass markets here in America, by putting his fat ass all over it, hes making a lot more money.

[praxis1966]

I dont see how you can ***** about a system that basically gave birth to you and allows you to express your views (not that Im defending the States) and then turn around and take direct advantage of it.

Hes Socialist? Yeah right&#33; Hes all over the damn television whenever some new, cute, "controversial" thing pops up, and the TV is one of the really big ass markets here in America, by putting his fat ass all over it, hes making a lot more money.

Would you rather he didn&#39;t say anything at all? I mean, it&#39;s kind of a requisite that you get your message out somehow. I suppose you would argue that bands like Rage Against the Machine are somehow sell outs because they didn&#39;t die of starvation before anyone heard what they had to say.

[fuerzasocialista]

did Moore ever claim to be a Socialist?? I have never read that claim although I can make an educated guess that he&#39;s most definitely in the left. He did work on Nader&#39;s 2000 campaign and Nader is considered pretty far left according to U&#036; standards.

[redfront]

Speaking of Cannes. I look even more forward to see "Motorcycle Diaries".