Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Long and thorough list of lies in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"


GB81

Recommended Posts

Art,

I am not defending the indefensible. You haven't even seen the movie and take this guys word for gospel, down to how he says Moore is trying to portray Heston and the NRA. I don't have a copy of the film at home, and wasn't taking notes while watching the movie, but I remember it being presented in the way the article mentions.

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

The movie never suggested that the meeting was held to promote school violence or support gun-ownership. Or that it was scheduled in haste after the incident occured.

"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."

Moore never brought this up, irresponsible on his part... lying-- not really.

"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 a response to his being given the musket, a collector's piece, at that annual meeting. Bowling leads off with this speech, and then splices in footage which was taken in Denver and refers to Denver, to create the impression that the entire clip was taken at the Denver event."

Moore used that clip to introduce to the viewers Charlton Heston, as he is to take on a bigger role as the movie continues (not playing Moses). He talks about CH's role in the NRA, then goes into the meeting they held in Denver... never leads one to believe that CH said that in Denver-- not an impression I came away with at least.

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

The old cut-and-paste thing. He definitely does that, but is doesn't change the whole theme of his speech. It is more like paraphrasing when you are using a documented source for some research.

3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK

His whole argument here is wrong... he isn't trying to equate the NRA with the KKK... that whole animated story (narrarated by a talking bullet) was exploring historical links between Americans and gun-violence. Anyone that had actually seen the movie would see this as a BS argument. It starts with colonizing America, the American Revolution, goes for a few second into the KKK, and then right out again.... Every argument the guy makes on this point is baseless. Moore never lied in that whole sequence, as can be seen by this guys article. He never paints CH to be a rascist, he doesn't have to. His own words did that-- not in a cut-and-paste fashion either, it was't necessary.

4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan

"No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."

Well, just because someone is a bully, and has grown up with family who deals drugs... that is why children get shot at school? Stabbing someone with a pencil and shooting someone to death aren't all that similar in my opinion (just my opinion, many may disagree). Both may be acts of violence, by they have wholly different outcomes. I am not going to even try to begin understanding why anyone wants to kill anyone (when not self-defense) as it differs from case to case..... but this small kid lacks motive and the understanding of what it means to kill, so it is a lie when one says, ""No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl." I don't get it... how is that a lie?

5. The Taliban and American Aid

The United States government did give a lot of money to the Taliban. FACT. The Taliban was allowing terrorist master-mind BinLaden to hide out and train his AlQueda forces in Afghanistan. FACT. That same terrorist organization planned to fly two airplanes into the World Trade Towers and succeded. FACT. Where is the lie?

6. Canadian Comparisons

This one really pissed me off. You obviously can't judge "rates-of-violence" (or some other similar violence-trend comparison) between the US and Canada by acts per sq KM. In the movie Moore never uses that as the measure. He says that they kill each other less often than americans, after spending some time looking for numbers it seems that murder is commited in us at 5.7 per 100,000 while in canada it is 1.7.

The US Bureau of Justice actually stated it as being 6 per 100,000 (in 1999). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Statistics Canada (found via link from the US BofJ) has the Canadian rate at 1.7 per 100,000. http://www.statcan.ca/start.html

Well, if the whole of the country were like North Dakota, Montana, Vermont, Maine, etc... I would think that comparing all of Canada to these few border states might be somewhat relevant. But then we have New York and LA, and Chicago-- they don't remind me much of the northern border states.... are we just supposed to take them out of the equation? If we do then Moore's figures would be wrong, but if you choose to include them as a part of the US their figures (and those from other highly-populated urban areas) would show that there is more murder in America (per relative population).

So this is another BS argument.

There is my defense of the indefensible. It obviously must call into question my character, Art. Moore did no less misleading than did the fella who wrote this article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ,

You recall the Heston speech being portrayed as the article mentions. Then all else is gibberish. If you want, I can go through what you bring up, in a point by point manner, but, it's irrelevant because the information provided is ALREADY tainted. I've already answered the money to the Taliban point, which you seemed to ignore and seem to just want to repeat a false stance. That's fine.

I haven't addressed, though, a single point from the article as it relates to the move EXCEPT the Heston speech that you agree was boldly misrepresented amounting to a lie. So, when you say that I'm taking this guy's word as gospel, you're just whistling Dixie, because, the ONLY part I've even brought up is a part YOU AGREE WITH ME ON, so why would you go out of your way to insult me in such a way as makes you look dim?

I just don't get it man. I asked a very narrow and pointed question. Did Moore lie when creating a Heston speech as this article outlines or not. You, finally, said you remember this lie. That's all I've said. So, for you to say I've taken any word as gospel, other than the FACTUAL outline of Moore's version versus the real version of a transcribed speech is ludicrous and you should apologize to me for the characterization :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured you would ignore the rest of the post... I saw you do the same thing on another thread very recently. Someone brought up valid points and you ignored them. You wanted to stick to one small part of an argument that you thought you were right about... suits me just fine. I have said, and will again, that the way Hardy writes Moore shows Heston, and the speech is accurate (if memory serves me right). Boldly misrepresented-- I wouldn't go that far.

You asked a question, and I answered it.... also provided a bit more to show how this guy is no better than Moore. He has an agenda and is willing to "stretch" the truth, or lead the reader in the wholly wrong direction from what Moore intended-- as long as Moore gets painted a liar.

You believe him to be so based on the cut-and-paste "paraphrasing" done by Moore in the movie. He uses his words. He doesn't say that they organized a rally in Denver because of Columbine or anything like that-- as is suggested in Hardy's article. But I guess that is beside the point in your mind. He didn't quote Heston fully and that makes him a liar. OK.

If you considered that an insult you might want thicker skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ,

I only ignored the rest of your post because you commented that I had already taken the remainder of the article as gospel when, as it happens, I hadn't made a single comment about it. The ONLY part of the article I've discussed is how the Heston speech was portrayed in the Moore film. You initially agreed that the article was accurate in the portrayal. Now you think it wasn't boldly misrepresented.

Again, this calls into question YOUR character. A speech some 25 paragraphs long, rendered down to eight or nine sentences, pulling half lines and coupling them with other half lines is bold, brazen, fabrication. The only response to this is, "Yeah, it is." No other response is acceptable, or understandable, without making YOU out to be an idiot and I don't, necessarily, think you're an idiot.

I believe Heston's speech was misrepresented, and if the comparison is truthful as to how Moore played it in the movie, the only thing you should be expressing is outrage. If you'd like to bring up other points, that's fine. What you can't do is claim I believed the points you are bringing up as if countering statements you are crediting me with making and then being upset I haven't answered.

I haven't answered except to say I never spoke on any other part of the article except what you agreed was a bald-faced misresentation of what was said in Denver. Now you seem to be backing off that. Explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

art,

you have not brought up the other points in the article . so my apologies for gouping you with those who say everything that michael moore says is a crock of ****. you are now removed from that population in my book. i found myself defending not only the one part of the article (the heston speech) but the movie as a whole.

despite his manipulation of the heston speech it still comes off pretty accurately. is it documentary material, no. it is unfortunate that moore used that speech in the way he did, because he could have made the same point using the original quotes. too bad this taints the rest of the movie for some, it does not go to such measures in its presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ, you just wrote, "despite his manipulation of the heston speech it still comes off pretty accurately."

My friend, this is mind numbingly frightening to see coming off the fingertips of anyone. I have to ask, in all seriousness, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Here was the Heston speech, in full.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. I am very happy to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. Thank you all for coming and thank you for supporting your organization.

I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Or course, you have a right to be here. As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.

But it's fitting and proper that we should do this. Because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity.

I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing. But the mayor said don't come.

I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing, don't come here. This is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.

They say we'll create a media distraction, but we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. They say we'll create political distraction, but it's not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation.

Still they say don't come here. I guess what saddens me the most is how that suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and 80 million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care. We don't care as much as they do, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.

Don't come here. That's offensive. It'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.

NRA members labor in Denver's factories, they populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the Front Range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment.

NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're 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.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.

Here is what Moore presented this speech as:

"I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands Good Morning. Thank you all for coming, and thank you for supporting your organization. I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this, and said 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I said 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.

Now, you have to explain to me how these two are proximate enough that you think the Moore usage captured the Heston words. Hell, Moore even got "Good Morning" out of place. The fact of the matter is, without being a brain-dead moron, the ONLY statement you can make, assuming the accuracy of these contrasted presentations is that Moore brazenly and utterly misrepresented what Heston said in the extreme and he CLEARLY lied.

That's the ONLY thing you can say. Yet, you are STILL defending the indefensible by, in some way, saying what Moore pictured was close enough. That's utter horsesh!t man. And, here is the crux of the remaining portion of your debate. If, indeed, it is true that Moore did what he appears to have done, then, every other shot and cut in the movie requires your immediate doubt.

I'm not saying that anything Michael Moore says is a crock, though, I'm certainly falling along those lines. I know little about Moore, but, it is fairly clear he got caught on several misleading statements. Some mild. Others, as the Heston speech, overt lies. His entire movie and every word presented to you must be questioned because of the open lies he resorted to to show Heston's speech.

Now, because I'm engaged, let me go to the points you did bring up.

You wrote, "The movie never suggested that the meeting was held to promote school violence or support gun-ownership. Or that it was scheduled in haste after the incident occured."

A couple of things here. First, the movie DID suggest the meeting was to support gun-ownership. The article outlines, and I presume you aren't saying it wasn't in the movie, ""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;"

That voice over, as written in this article, clearly expresses that the movie not only suggested, but outright stated the meeting was held to promote guns. In fact, that's exactly what the meeting was, so, not only did the movie suggest it, but, you saying it didn't seems odd because that's what the meeting was and if the movie didn't suggest it, Moore's a moron for not mentioning it.

The second point is that you say the movie never suggested the meeting was scheduled in haste after the incident occurred. This is false. Why? Because at least one reviewer is quoted and linked as saying, ""it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." In fact, if ONE reviewer wrote this, and this is linked, then, yes, Moore did convey that the meeting was hastily scheduled. I grant, however, it wasn't an overt thing. Much more subtle.

"Moore never brought this up, irresponsible on his part... lying-- not really. "

Ok. The writer didn't say Moore lied. You say Moore was irresponsible. That's probably correct.

"Moore used that clip to introduce to the viewers Charlton Heston, as he is to take on a bigger role as the movie continues (not playing Moses). He talks about CH's role in the NRA, then goes into the meeting they held in Denver... never leads one to believe that CH said that in Denver-- not an impression I came away with at least."

Here, A.J., either you have proven Moore a liar (and you sadly dim), or you've proven Hardy to be one or both. According to the article, the movie, in sequence, showed weeping Columbine students discussing the deaths of their classmates. Then it cut to Heston and his "cold dead hands" line. Then the voice over saying that just 10 days after the shootings Heston came to Denver.

If this is not PRECISELY accurate, then Hardy is a liar who's attempting to manipulate us. If this is PRECISELY accurate, then clearly Moore wasn't introducing us to Heston, but, placing Heston in Denver AFTER the shootings. He did this in two ways, if the article is accurate. He first showed the students, then he showed Heston. This COULD still have been an intro to Heston, but, then the voice over gave away the timing Moore was attempting to paint. If the article is accurate, Moore lied here, and you are an amazing dope for defending this. If the article is incorrect, you have found one hell of a point to use in future debates if this article comes up. Only you know which it is, but it's nothing but one of those two things. I think I know which it is as well. :).

"The old cut-and-paste thing. He definitely does that, but is doesn't change the whole theme of his speech. It is more like paraphrasing when you are using a documented source for some research."

You astound me. We've gone over this. Defending this as you have in this reply is a terrible character flaw on you A.J. I hope one day you let yourself alter this idiocy and allow yourself to have a reasonable, thoughtful discourse, even when it turns out a man you like screwed up very large. I can't believe you're defending it.

"3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK

His whole argument here is wrong... he isn't trying to equate the NRA with the KKK... that whole animated story (narrarated by a talking bullet) was exploring historical links between Americans and gun-violence. Anyone that had actually seen the movie would see this as a BS argument. It starts with colonizing America, the American Revolution, goes for a few second into the KKK, and then right out again.... Every argument the guy makes on this point is baseless. Moore never lied in that whole sequence, as can be seen by this guys article. He never paints CH to be a rascist, he doesn't have to. His own words did that-- not in a cut-and-paste fashion either, it was't necessary."

I would like to grant you the benefit of the doubt, A.J. I really would. But, thusfar you have refused to even allow yourself to fairly brand Moore's easily branded lies, so, forgive me for not taking you too seriously when you, here, defend him. You may be right to do so, but, given your clear lack of objectivity on the matter, I believe there are other words and deeds that may be more appropriate. Like, Heston's work with and for the civil rights movement.

Let's just say this. If it's true Heston marched on Washington with Martin Luther King in 1963, then, I'm going to take it that Moore did have to manipulate things to make the man come off as a racist, because, he is known for actions that would brand him an activist in terms of equality for ALL men. Since it is TRUE Heston has worked for civil rights and equality, I'm going to presume it's false that he's a racist. How about you?

"Well, just because someone is a bully, and has grown up with family who deals drugs... that is why children get shot at school? Stabbing someone with a pencil and shooting someone to death aren't all that similar in my opinion (just my opinion, many may disagree). Both may be acts of violence, by they have wholly different outcomes. I am not going to even try to begin understanding why anyone wants to kill anyone (when not self-defense) as it differs from case to case..... but this small kid lacks motive and the understanding of what it means to kill, so it is a lie when one says, ""No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl." I don't get it... how is that a lie?"

I think Moore's point is that the kid was a kid and he had no inherent evil in him that would lead him to WANT to kill this girl. Therefore, the death of the girl, by this boy, was something I think Moore may have been portraying as the gun's fault. I mean, the kid, afterall, is just a kid. That's kind of how I took the way it was presented to me in the article and I think that's probably true to the spirit of Moore and his views against guns. But, that's really inconsequential. I don't think the writer said Moore lied. I think the writer attempted to say the boy wasn't just a boy, but rather, he was a boy in a terrible environment who was prone to violence and grew up with it around him. I didn't see Hardy say Moore lied. I saw the writer say Moore didn't present the boy's history. Why?

"The United States government did give a lot of money to the Taliban. FACT. The Taliban was allowing terrorist master-mind BinLaden to hide out and train his AlQueda forces in Afghanistan. FACT. That same terrorist organization planned to fly two airplanes into the World Trade Towers and succeded. FACT. Where is the lie?"

The lie is that the money never went to the Taliban. The money was in the form of humanitarian aid and it went to third party aid orginzations to help the citizens of the country. If the movie said, or alluded, to U.S. aid, from Clinton's years on, given directly to the Taliban, it is a lie, because the U.S. government didn't give a dime to the Taliban, but did give many millions to the country of Afghanistan to outside organizations to feed people. But, I already answered this and you simply don't have a background of understanding that allows you to see how your statements are false. Simply look it up. I can post you many links if you'd like that outlines who received the aid to Afghanistan during the Clinton years and during the Bush years. The $245 million did not go TO the Taliban. There's your lie.

"6. Canadian Comparisons -- This one really pissed me off. You obviously can't judge "rates-of-violence" (or some other similar violence-trend comparison) between the US and Canada by acts per sq KM. In the movie Moore never uses that as the measure. He says that they kill each other less often than americans, after spending some time looking for numbers it seems that murder is commited in us at 5.7 per 100,000 while in canada it is 1.7. The US Bureau of Justice actually stated it as being 6 per 100,000 (in 1999). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Statistics Canada (found via link from the US BofJ) has the Canadian rate at 1.7 per 100,000. http://www.statcan.ca/start.html

Well, if the whole of the country were like North Dakota, Montana, Vermont, Maine, etc... I would think that comparing all of Canada to these few border states might be somewhat relevant. But then we have New York and LA, and Chicago-- they don't remind me much of the northern border states.... are we just supposed to take them out of the equation? If we do then Moore's figures would be wrong, but if you choose to include them as a part of the US their figures (and those from other highly-populated urban areas) would show that there is more murder in America (per relative population).

So this is another BS argument."

Well, it's only BS because you seem confused. Hardy stated comparing Canada to the U.S. is ludicrous largely because of our urban centers and substantially greater population density. Moore said that in rural border states that have a similar population density, the rate of murder is similar to Canada. That's his point. That when you have 1 guy every mile or so, you're probably going to have very few gun deaths because you just don't run across as many people. Urban centers breed crime because of how close people live and in the U.S. that certainly is where much of our crime is centered. I think you have actually agreed with Hardy in your response here but you don't know it.

"There is my defense of the indefensible. It obviously must call into question my character, Art. Moore did no less misleading than did the fella who wrote this article."

In order to validate your points, you continually had to say Hardy claimed Moore lied, and then you showed how that wasn't so. In fact, rarely in your examples did Hardy actually say Moore lied. So, your defense, is defending something that wasn't attacked. And, again, you have been defending the indefensible in terms of how you've decided to color your incomprehensible views on the Heston speech, which remains all I really care about from the movie or the article and it's enough to make EVERY single intelligent person among us sickened by Moore's deception.

If you aren't sickened, that says a lot about who you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ, you just got rhetorically knocked da f*ck out, man!

Don't feel bad, though, AJ. Art tends to be a master at this. :)

Of course, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, AJ, if you felt that you were not roundly bested in this debate by Art, as you tend to cling to lies and distortions. I mean, you still champion Ralph Nader, for instance, even though the man's scheme to take money out of the pockets of unknowing college students and place it in his PAC's coffers was recently discovered.

Yes, yes, AJ, I know -- Moore and Nader "make people think," so who cares about their deceptions, right? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and so i have been bested, deceived by the left once again. that nader got me, i actually thought he had good intentions. then there is moore, bald-faced manipulator of the spoken word. art is very good at proving his point. i should have never engaged in a debate (more-or-less) trying to defend moore's movie and its attempt to be viewed as an accurate portrayal of charleton hestons speech. the way he configured the wording can not be considered a quote or a... fair attempt to show exactly what heston was communicating with his fellow nra members.

this does call into question the remaining points moore examines throughout his movie and their validity.

documentary, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough A.J. Though, the reason the Moore film was seen as something "to be viewed as an accurate portrayal of charleton hestons speech," is because it was a documentary. That it was said to be a documentary means it was done to present accurate portrayals of everything, not just Heston's speech. If this was NOT a documentary, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, since it was, and Moore lied to tell his story, it tears the whole of it down. Otherwise, I appreciate you coming around to at least throw in your outrage at what happened with Heston's speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while i may have been wrong on this point, he (moore) still makes some good arguments-- as does nader. there is a lot of deception around from those we like to those we dislike. the more we find out the truth the better informed we can be to make wise decisions.

too bad that moore doesn't have the integrity to make his film without resorting to misinformation. anyone that is in the documentary/news business should respect the way isues are presented to the public. they also should know what true documentation is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redman,

I considered, for a moment, sarcasm was there. I dismissed it though in the hope that a quick embrace of the smartest things said in this thread by A.J., now twice in a row, may mean he is actually open-minded enough to actually allow flexibility to reconsider his views in the face of overwhelming evidence that should cause any of us to address how we feel about something like this.

Besides, if he was being sarcastic, by accepting it as NOT sarcastic, I was able to end the thread :). Still, in the end, I don't think he was being sarcastic and I respect A.J. more now than I did during the conversation because he seems to be something I didn't think he was going to prove to be. A bright person willing to allow facts to alter the balance of his views, while still maintaining a fair and understandable viewpoint.

Now. I won't mention any names, Jack, but, there are a lot of people, Jack, that ignore facts, Jack, and simply continue to spew, Jack, rhetoric that borders on the absurd, Jack. But, that's not something, Jack, we need to assign to any, Jack, individual :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...