The very first thing I went to, first in the list, "Bowling for Columbine: Flaws in the name and meaning behind the movies title" sounds really familiar... like that I remember this particular attack on Moore having been debunked recently here in AO land.
Jesus, this stuff makes me mad
That guy just goes on and on about nothing, for no apparent reason.
He starts with a totally unattributed claim that Moore said "on various talk shows"(!!) that "the title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were at a bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders."
Then later, an actual quote of what Moore actually says in the actual movie:
"If they bowled that morning, did the bowling trigger their desire to commit mass murder? Or, if they skipped their bowling class that morning, did that bring on the massacre? Had they bowled, that may have altered their mood and prevented them from picking up their guns."
Hah! The stupid fat fool has blown his own bowling conspiracy wide open by freely speculating, on tape in a film that he himself created, edited and released to the public about whether or not they actually went bowling, when all along he has been pushing the malicious lie that they did!
PS note that this attack is just a retread of another pathetic lie with the more obvious holes in the logic covered over with vague assertions. For more see:
The whole "could make great contributions but doesn't" argument could be applied to many people.
Ya know what, you need to ratchet it down a couple notches. Why do I have to "reconcile" them, I was nice enough to dig deeper FOR YOU and this is how I get repayed? You're the one being adversarial here, I've just been posting links presenting my opinion of Moore. Try switching to non-caffienated herbal tea or something. I recommend Rooibos with a splash of milk.
Quote:
Of course, whenever people in entertainment actually do make good contributions to public discourse, conservatives repeatedly attack them and say their opinions are worthless.
Ummm.His opinions are fine, they're his. Its his method of presenting fiction as non-fiction that rubs me (and most everyone else who criticizes him) the wrong way.
Quote:
The goal of his films is to draw attention to the issues he focuses on, not to author some grand, all-encompassing solution for world peace and equality.
His goals are more than just to "draw attention", he slants facts and scenes to his needs and portrays them as truth. Many people take them at face value. If he would quit touting his films as non-fiction and stop accepting awards for them as such that'd be enough for me.
The thing that I think is disturbing, is he and his films are put up on high by those with a political axe to grind. The hollywood crowd swoons and the weak minded worship at the feet of the great exposer. He is a fat-cat in the political arena now.
He is shown to be a blatant fact manipulator, and the answer the swooners give is "He is just a filmmaker, an artist expressing himself." So why is he on every political talk show? Why is he a political player?
Which is it?
Is he a whacko filmaker? A quirky artist? Or is he a serious political voice?
Try switching to non-caffienated herbal tea or something. I recommend Rooibos with a splash of milk.
Coke is the closest I get to tea or any other caffeinated drink.
[edit] actually, Dr. Pepper has caffeine in it, doesn't it. I drink that far more often than coke, and that's pretty rare in itself.
Quote:
Its his method of presenting fiction as non-fiction that rubs me (and most everyone else who criticizes him) the wrong way ... If he would quit touting his films as non-fiction and stop accepting awards for them as such that'd be enough for me.
Why waste your time on some filmmaker when you have the most powerful government in the world doing it in ways that actuall matter on a global scale? There are vastly more important places to direct such criticism than some entertainer.
Then again, wannabes obsess over "It's Good to be Britney Spears" yet don't bother to learn the actual economics, marketing tactics and internal workings of the music industry. Apparently they have their counterparts in the political "audience."
C'mon man!!! If you don't know what a Bush ranger is then you needs to lurke to political discussions rather than respond to them...
Here I'll cut and paste because to get this from the AP directly will cost$$$. If you look for yourself though you'll find a free version.
"Some of these guests are old classmates, some of them have been friends of theirs for many, many years," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said. "They enjoy the opportunity to spend time with them."
"Old classmates"...
Yale? Wonder how many were also Skull and Bones members?
/tinhatthought
Moore reminds me of a P. T. Barnum of documentarists...
P. T. Barnum's dying words - "What were tonight's receipts..."
Why waste your time on some filmmaker when you have the most powerful government in the world doing it in ways that actuall matter on a global scale? There are vastly more important places to direct such criticism than some entertainer.
Then go start yet another anti-Bush thread and if its compelling enough, maybe I'll jump in. As for this one, Moore just bugs me and I feel like bagging on him. Is there some problem with staying on topic for once?
Quote:
Then again, wannabes obsess over "It's Good to be Britney Spears" yet don't bother to learn the actual economics, marketing tactics and internal workings of the music industry. Apparently they have their counter-parts in the political "audience."
Again with the veiled personal attacks? Are you deliberately trying to de-rail this thread? Drop the Coke... now.
Then again, wannabes obsess over "It's Good to be Britney Spears" yet don't bother to learn the actual economics, marketing tactics and internal workings of the music industry. Apparently they have their counterparts in the political "audience."
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Maybe he's a serial killer. Go start a geocities website about it and add it to your list above.
If criticism of moore is on topic, than criticism of criticism of moore clearly is too.
No personal attack involved. It's an attack on a level of discourse, aka, POV or argument. I know nothing about you as a person.
Time for this again I suppose...Mr. giant, how do you "resolve" calling someone a wannabe and pointing them to a "dummy" book to not be a personal attack?
And so it goes....
giant's idea of debate is to declare everyone, all their sources and ideas that disagree with his to be ignorant.
There is already plenty of proof if this. Don't argue with him. giant has his blinders on and everything you post is just ignorant nonsense to him. He will you tell you so repeatedly. He will also insult your intelligence, question everything about your background, make repeated claims about you with regard to ignorance, racism, hatefulness, etc.
Just take this post and make it a sticky. Whenever you see giant demonstrating one or all of these above, just ignore him. You can't discuss with someone who is wearing blinders. It isn't debate, it is attempting to argue someone through their own ignorance.
Bush uses a lot of self-deprecating humor. What is wrong with being able to tell and enjoy a joke? I mean regardless of party, we should be able to hear a joke from whoever is president. Many speakers open with a good joke to gain interest.
Nothing wrong with having a sense of humor...but the events of the last couple of years have rendered Bush's joking about what a dumbshit he is (while applying for what is probably the most important job in the world no less) a little too close to the bone for me to find it particularly amusing.
Besides, self-deprecation works best when you're actually good at something.
Originally posted by NaplesX the weak minded worship at the feet of the great exposer.
That can be applied to Bush and your love for him. Ironic.
Quote:
He is shown to be a blatant fact manipulator, and the answer the swooners give is "He is just a filmmaker, an artist expressing himself." So why is he on every political talk show? Why is he a political player?
This is the US. He is an entertainer. Just one with a self admitted political agenda(especially with this movie). Nothing new there is there? And he's on every political show because controversy =ratings and being the current flavor of the month, everybody wants him on. Again, nothing new there?
Quote:
Is he a whacko filmaker? A quirky artist? Or is he a serious political voice?
Let me guess. To you he's a whacko, pinko, commie liberal traitor who hates America?
Moore reminds me of a P. T. Barnum of documentarists...
P. T. Barnum's dying words - "What were tonight's receipts..."
And in this great land known as the USA....how is this news? It's capitalism.
Just be happy he's not throwing religion into the mix ala Robertson or the other worthless idiots who prey and profit on the religious beliefs of the "weak minded".
Quote:
Originally posted by InactionMan The document with Bush's name on it is some sort of military document ordering the suspension of GWB from flying status effective immediately! Not quite as damning as the trailer makes it seem.
Thanks for the pic. So we don't know exactly what the document
is right? I'll wait and watch the movie and see in what context it was used. A trailer is really meaningless to me at this point.
At that particular time, I think the president must've been aware of anyone who was being allowed to fly when everybody else wasn't.
The documentary looks pretty good, actually. From what I've read, the film looks interesting enough to actually see it when it comes out. This is coming from someone who has neither read any of Moore's books nor seen his movies. I bet the local 20 screen movie theater will show it-- although they recently devoted 10 screens total to Troy and Shrek 2.
Whatever maximizes profit, I suppose. *shrugs*
I think I'll rent The Fog of War, Elephant, and In America tonight.
That can be applied to Bush and your love for him. Ironic.
This is the US. He is an entertainer. Just one with a self admitted political agenda(especially with this movie). Nothing new there is there? And he's on every political show because controversy =ratings and being the current flavor of the month, everybody wants him on. Again, nothing new there?
Let me guess. To you he's a whacko, pinko, commie liberal traitor who hates America?
I could care less what he does or believes, I think he is an attention hungry guy with a camera and some imagination. He seems like an eccentric opinionator.
Good for him. i really have no problem with him. I have a problem with the people that put any stock in him as a serious political figure. And even then, i think they are just blindly accepting made up facts.
Oh Naples, wrong yet again... Here, let me recapitulate
"I feel this was a slightly off color remark and though funny may not have been the best move for a politician--especially one running for president."
This is very true. I'm sure there is going to be a lot of "out of context" remarks made by Bush, but that's not the point - the remarks he usually makes are not appropriate REGARDLESS of context - especially now that he is the president.
Well, from the little that I've read....Moore has a response(point for point) for every one of those whacky sites that claim to debunk Moore's research. Or "research".
Frankly, I never cared enough about this topic to do the due diligence, but I find it amusing to see the neocons so up in arms and so concerned about this documentary BEFORE it even comes out. I love it.
Even if they were made up facts, maybe we should be more concerned about our own Government's possibly made up facts from Iraq to WMDs and not about a bloody documentary. It's called perspective.
... Thanks for the pic. So we don't know exactly what the document
is right? I'll wait and watch the movie and see in what context it was used. A trailer is really meaningless to me at this point.
At that particular time, I think the president must've been aware of anyone who was being allowed to fly when everybody else wasn't.
Just to clarify, I'm not taking sides in this debate, just provided the pic. My assumption is that the document is from Dubya's dubious military record. As fair as the context in the trailer, it was just a clever edit.
Well, from the little that I've read....Moore has a response(point for point) for every one of those whacky sites that claim to debunk Moore's research. Or "research".
Frankly, I never cared enough about this topic to do the due diligence, but I find it amusing to see the neocons so up in arms and so concerned about this documentary BEFORE it even comes out. I love it.
I don't see anyone here that is "up in arms", do you guys?
I think most are predicting it to be a bunch of clever edits and lies based on his past works. I don't know if that quite qualifies as "up in arm".
Comments
Originally posted by shetline
The very first thing I went to, first in the list, "Bowling for Columbine: Flaws in the name and meaning behind the movies title" sounds really familiar... like that I remember this particular attack on Moore having been debunked recently here in AO land.
Jesus, this stuff makes me mad
That guy just goes on and on about nothing, for no apparent reason.
He starts with a totally unattributed claim that Moore said "on various talk shows"(!!) that "the title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were at a bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders."
Then later, an actual quote of what Moore actually says in the actual movie:
"If they bowled that morning, did the bowling trigger their desire to commit mass murder? Or, if they skipped their bowling class that morning, did that bring on the massacre? Had they bowled, that may have altered their mood and prevented them from picking up their guns."
Hah! The stupid fat fool has blown his own bowling conspiracy wide open by freely speculating, on tape in a film that he himself created, edited and released to the public about whether or not they actually went bowling, when all along he has been pushing the malicious lie that they did!
PS note that this attack is just a retread of another pathetic lie with the more obvious holes in the logic covered over with vague assertions. For more see:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...587#post614587
Originally posted by giant
[B]How do you reconcile these two posts?
The whole "could make great contributions but doesn't" argument could be applied to many people.
Ya know what, you need to ratchet it down a couple notches. Why do I have to "reconcile" them, I was nice enough to dig deeper FOR YOU and this is how I get repayed? You're the one being adversarial here, I've just been posting links presenting my opinion of Moore. Try switching to non-caffienated herbal tea or something. I recommend Rooibos with a splash of milk.
Of course, whenever people in entertainment actually do make good contributions to public discourse, conservatives repeatedly attack them and say their opinions are worthless.
Ummm.His opinions are fine, they're his. Its his method of presenting fiction as non-fiction that rubs me (and most everyone else who criticizes him) the wrong way.
The goal of his films is to draw attention to the issues he focuses on, not to author some grand, all-encompassing solution for world peace and equality.
His goals are more than just to "draw attention", he slants facts and scenes to his needs and portrays them as truth. Many people take them at face value. If he would quit touting his films as non-fiction and stop accepting awards for them as such that'd be enough for me.
He is shown to be a blatant fact manipulator, and the answer the swooners give is "He is just a filmmaker, an artist expressing himself." So why is he on every political talk show? Why is he a political player?
Which is it?
Is he a whacko filmaker? A quirky artist? Or is he a serious political voice?
Pick one.
Originally posted by dviant
Try switching to non-caffienated herbal tea or something. I recommend Rooibos with a splash of milk.
Coke is the closest I get to tea or any other caffeinated drink.
[edit] actually, Dr. Pepper has caffeine in it, doesn't it. I drink that far more often than coke, and that's pretty rare in itself.
Its his method of presenting fiction as non-fiction that rubs me (and most everyone else who criticizes him) the wrong way ... If he would quit touting his films as non-fiction and stop accepting awards for them as such that'd be enough for me.
Why waste your time on some filmmaker when you have the most powerful government in the world doing it in ways that actuall matter on a global scale? There are vastly more important places to direct such criticism than some entertainer.
Then again, wannabes obsess over "It's Good to be Britney Spears" yet don't bother to learn the actual economics, marketing tactics and internal workings of the music industry. Apparently they have their counterparts in the political "audience."
Originally posted by faust9
C'mon man!!! If you don't know what a Bush ranger is then you needs to lurke to political discussions rather than respond to them...
Here I'll cut and paste because to get this from the AP directly will cost$$$. If you look for yourself though you'll find a free version.
"Some of these guests are old classmates, some of them have been friends of theirs for many, many years," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said. "They enjoy the opportunity to spend time with them."
"Old classmates"...
Yale? Wonder how many were also Skull and Bones members?
/tinhatthought
Moore reminds me of a P. T. Barnum of documentarists...
P. T. Barnum's dying words - "What were tonight's receipts..."
Originally posted by NaplesX
Is he a whacko filmaker? A quirky artist? Or is he a serious political voice?
Pick one.
Maybe he's a serial killer. Go start a geocities website about it and add it to your list above.
If you need some help, try this.
Originally posted by giant
Why waste your time on some filmmaker when you have the most powerful government in the world doing it in ways that actuall matter on a global scale? There are vastly more important places to direct such criticism than some entertainer.
Then go start yet another anti-Bush thread and if its compelling enough, maybe I'll jump in. As for this one, Moore just bugs me and I feel like bagging on him. Is there some problem with staying on topic for once?
Then again, wannabes obsess over "It's Good to be Britney Spears" yet don't bother to learn the actual economics, marketing tactics and internal workings of the music industry. Apparently they have their counter-parts in the political "audience."
Again with the veiled personal attacks? Are you deliberately trying to de-rail this thread? Drop the Coke... now.
Originally posted by dviant
Is there some problem with staying on topic for once?
If criticism of moore is on topic, than criticism of criticism of moore clearly is too.
Again with the veiled personal attacks? Are you deliberately trying to de-rail this thread? Drop the Coke... now.
No personal attack involved. It's an attack on a level of discourse, aka, POV or argument. I know nothing about you as a person.
Originally posted by giant
Then again, wannabes obsess over "It's Good to be Britney Spears" yet don't bother to learn the actual economics, marketing tactics and internal workings of the music industry. Apparently they have their counterparts in the political "audience."
Originally posted by giant
Maybe he's a serial killer. Go start a geocities website about it and add it to your list above.
If you need some help, try this.
Originally posted by giant
If criticism of moore is on topic, than criticism of criticism of moore clearly is too.
No personal attack involved. It's an attack on a level of discourse, aka, POV or argument. I know nothing about you as a person.
Time for this again I suppose...Mr. giant, how do you "resolve" calling someone a wannabe and pointing them to a "dummy" book to not be a personal attack?
And so it goes....
giant's idea of debate is to declare everyone, all their sources and ideas that disagree with his to be ignorant.
There is already plenty of proof if this. Don't argue with him. giant has his blinders on and everything you post is just ignorant nonsense to him. He will you tell you so repeatedly. He will also insult your intelligence, question everything about your background, make repeated claims about you with regard to ignorance, racism, hatefulness, etc.
Just take this post and make it a sticky. Whenever you see giant demonstrating one or all of these above, just ignore him. You can't discuss with someone who is wearing blinders. It isn't debate, it is attempting to argue someone through their own ignorance.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Bush uses a lot of self-deprecating humor. What is wrong with being able to tell and enjoy a joke? I mean regardless of party, we should be able to hear a joke from whoever is president. Many speakers open with a good joke to gain interest.
Nothing wrong with having a sense of humor...but the events of the last couple of years have rendered Bush's joking about what a dumbshit he is (while applying for what is probably the most important job in the world no less) a little too close to the bone for me to find it particularly amusing.
Besides, self-deprecation works best when you're actually good at something.
Originally posted by NaplesX the weak minded worship at the feet of the great exposer.
That can be applied to Bush and your love for him. Ironic.
He is shown to be a blatant fact manipulator, and the answer the swooners give is "He is just a filmmaker, an artist expressing himself." So why is he on every political talk show? Why is he a political player?
This is the US. He is an entertainer. Just one with a self admitted political agenda(especially with this movie). Nothing new there is there? And he's on every political show because controversy =ratings and being the current flavor of the month, everybody wants him on. Again, nothing new there?
Is he a whacko filmaker? A quirky artist? Or is he a serious political voice?
Let me guess. To you he's a whacko, pinko, commie liberal traitor who hates America?
Originally posted by Artman @_@
Moore reminds me of a P. T. Barnum of documentarists...
P. T. Barnum's dying words - "What were tonight's receipts..."
And in this great land known as the USA....how is this news? It's capitalism.
Just be happy he's not throwing religion into the mix ala Robertson or the other worthless idiots who prey and profit on the religious beliefs of the "weak minded".
Originally posted by InactionMan The document with Bush's name on it is some sort of military document ordering the suspension of GWB from flying status effective immediately! Not quite as damning as the trailer makes it seem.
Thanks for the pic. So we don't know exactly what the document
is right? I'll wait and watch the movie and see in what context it was used. A trailer is really meaningless to me at this point.
At that particular time, I think the president must've been aware of anyone who was being allowed to fly when everybody else wasn't.
Whatever maximizes profit, I suppose. *shrugs*
I think I'll rent The Fog of War, Elephant, and In America tonight.
Originally posted by Gilsch
That can be applied to Bush and your love for him. Ironic.
This is the US. He is an entertainer. Just one with a self admitted political agenda(especially with this movie). Nothing new there is there? And he's on every political show because controversy =ratings and being the current flavor of the month, everybody wants him on. Again, nothing new there?
Let me guess. To you he's a whacko, pinko, commie liberal traitor who hates America?
I could care less what he does or believes, I think he is an attention hungry guy with a camera and some imagination. He seems like an eccentric opinionator.
Good for him. i really have no problem with him. I have a problem with the people that put any stock in him as a serious political figure. And even then, i think they are just blindly accepting made up facts.
Originally posted by faust9
Oh Naples, wrong yet again... Here, let me recapitulate
"I feel this was a slightly off color remark and though funny may not have been the best move for a politician--especially one running for president."
This is very true. I'm sure there is going to be a lot of "out of context" remarks made by Bush, but that's not the point - the remarks he usually makes are not appropriate REGARDLESS of context - especially now that he is the president.
Frankly, I never cared enough about this topic to do the due diligence, but I find it amusing to see the neocons so up in arms and so concerned about this documentary BEFORE it even comes out.
Even if they were made up facts, maybe we should be more concerned about our own Government's possibly made up facts from Iraq to WMDs and not about a bloody documentary. It's called perspective.
Originally posted by Gilsch
... Thanks for the pic. So we don't know exactly what the document
is right? I'll wait and watch the movie and see in what context it was used. A trailer is really meaningless to me at this point.
At that particular time, I think the president must've been aware of anyone who was being allowed to fly when everybody else wasn't.
Just to clarify, I'm not taking sides in this debate, just provided the pic. My assumption is that the document is from Dubya's dubious military record. As fair as the context in the trailer, it was just a clever edit.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Well, from the little that I've read....Moore has a response(point for point) for every one of those whacky sites that claim to debunk Moore's research. Or "research".
Frankly, I never cared enough about this topic to do the due diligence, but I find it amusing to see the neocons so up in arms and so concerned about this documentary BEFORE it even comes out.
I don't see anyone here that is "up in arms", do you guys?
I think most are predicting it to be a bunch of clever edits and lies based on his past works. I don't know if that quite qualifies as "up in arm".
Originally posted by tonton
I really don't think this guy reads.
"All I need to know I learned from Rush."
Golly gee wiz y'all cot me red handed. I be an unedumacated ditto hed.
What are you saying exactly? You quote one phrase and then try to marginalize me by making some wild eyed link to Rush Limbaugh?
That was the reason you wasted the precious electrons, not to mention the time to type it in?
Do you feel good about that post? really . Be honest.