|
On March 08 2012 14:30 Silvertine wrote:
The only actual example you gave is a situation in which Moore was completely in the right. Charlton Heston held an NRA rally in the town in which that little girl was killed in response to the killing. It was a disgusting act with absolutely no justification behind it at all.
no he didn't, and this is an example of michael moore's lies:
the rally that was held was an annual rally whose date and location had been set for years prior to the shooting. unless you're claiming that Heston planned out the shooting, then he did not go and hold a rally "in response to the killing".
another tidbit: the NRA cancelled all committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies that normally occurred before their annual meetings.
In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.
All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.
Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.
The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.
"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.
emphasis added by me
another little fact that moore misrepresented: the "from my cold, dead hands" speech was not given at that rally, or even in that year. it was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina.
more? okay: moore edited this part of the speech out:
"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."
more editing you ask? okay:
moore would have you believe that Heston said: "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"
when the actual speech (the part containing that michael moore quotes) was:
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.
I have bolded the parts that michael moore used. as you can see, he spliced up parts from two separate speeches, using three completely separate parts of one speech, and made it look like one statement. this is honesty?
so yeah. please, do your research before you go blasting Heston for doing something he didn't do. and holding a dead girl's picture in front of Heston, chasing after him, and then leaving the picture? wtf? what did Heston have to do with that girl's death? nothing. that was pure emotionalism and straight up lies.
i can't believe anyone actually takes that liar seriously. and the fact that you bought into his lies is sad.
edit: guess you weren't talking about columbine.
|
Wow did not know that people actually believe Moore's movies are fact based and objective. There based on emotion and fact distortion. Anyone can spin the truth which ever direction they want if they try hard enough.
|
On March 09 2012 05:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:
no he didn't, and this is an example of michael moore's lies:
the rally that was held was an annual rally whose date and location had been set for years prior to the shooting. unless you're claiming that Heston planned out Columbine, then he did not go and hold a rally "in response to the killing".
You seem very confused. We're not talking about Columbine at all, this is a completely different shooting.
A perfect example of the ignorant hatred of Michael Moore.
|
I am a liberal, and I dislike Moore as much as I dislike Limbaugh. They represent the same thing, for each side of the spectrum. Its fair to say that at least Moore is fighting for a ppositive cause, but I think he does more to damage our case than to support it. He doesnt debate or argue for our cause, he twists facts, has bias information, and chooses to be a nuisance to get his point across, instead of approaching subjects intellectually and fairly.
His movies are a waste of time. He only appeals to those that act and think based off emotion, because anyone that wants to actually take part in debate or intellectual discourse on a subject couldnt possibly find his movies compelling.
This is a somewhat off-topic discussion though.
On point, I cant believe Santorum is viewed as the candidate that most represents the people, and can relate to them best. That speaks volumes about how absolutely abysmal the other candidates are. If your opponent with such radically archaic social views is the most relatable, you are a failure of a politician.
|
On March 09 2012 05:32 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 05:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:
no he didn't, and this is an example of michael moore's lies:
the rally that was held was an annual rally whose date and location had been set for years prior to the shooting. unless you're claiming that Heston planned out Columbine, then he did not go and hold a rally "in response to the killing".
You seem very confused. We're not talking about Columbine at all, this is a completely different shooting. A perfect example of the ignorant hatred of Michael Moore.
wow. okay:
1. i've never seen the movie, so i don't know what michael moore was talking about. his movie is called bowling for columbine, so i assumed he meant columbine. don't see how that fact changes anything though
2. you completely ignored everything else in the post, that proves michael moore used lies and selective editing and omission to make it seem like Heston was saying and doing things that he was not doing.
3. you have yet to admit that you're statement about him holding the rally in "response to the killing" was completely untrue.
4. i have no hatred of michael moore, in fact, i feel sorry for him. he is obviously an emotionally unstable and unhappy person. no one but an emotionally unstable and unhappy person could openly and knowingly lie about tragedies in order to score cheap political points.
|
I consider myself a moderate liberal. But I just want to say I think Michael Moore is a horrible, highly hypocritical, manipulative propaganda film maker. He takes cheap, sensationalist shots that repeatedly undermines the legitimate, valid positions of others.
In short, I think he makes other lefties look stupid and pathetic with his antics by association, and is just as bad as Limbaugh.
When Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, it got a standing ovation at the theatre where I saw it. <e and my friend left the theatre in disgust. I told him, "The backlash against this film is going to get Bush re-elected." And I was fucking right.
|
On March 09 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:
I told him, "The backlash against this film is going to get Bush re-elected." And I was fucking right.
Bush got reelected, but you weren't necessarily right 
|
On March 09 2012 05:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 05:32 Silvertine wrote:On March 09 2012 05:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:
no he didn't, and this is an example of michael moore's lies:
the rally that was held was an annual rally whose date and location had been set for years prior to the shooting. unless you're claiming that Heston planned out Columbine, then he did not go and hold a rally "in response to the killing".
You seem very confused. We're not talking about Columbine at all, this is a completely different shooting. A perfect example of the ignorant hatred of Michael Moore. i've never seen the movie, so i don't know what michael moore was talking about. his movie is called bowling for columbine, so i assumed he meant columbine. don't see how that fact changes anything though
If you don't know what the issue is then don't give your passionate opinion on it.
How does that not change the fact? Your entire criticism of it was based off the assumption that it was Columbine...
The reason I didn't respond to the rest is because you clearly have no respect for the truth. I just showed you how what you said was utterly false and your response is "So what"? Given that attitude there's absolutely no progress that can be made.
On March 09 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:
When Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, it got a standing ovation at the theatre where I saw it. <e and my friend left the theatre in disgust. I told him, "The backlash against this film is going to get Bush re-elected." And I was fucking right.
What a false connection that is.
|
So this thread has degenerated into a discussion on the substantive merits of Michael Moore's work? Really? I actually like Michael Moore and think that he is a very talented filmmaker, but I don't see how anyone can confuse his work with being "fair" or even "accurate."
|
On March 09 2012 06:03 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:
I told him, "The backlash against this film is going to get Bush re-elected." And I was fucking right. Bush got reelected, but you weren't necessarily right
I was right I say!!!!! I'm A FUCKING GENIUS. 
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 09 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:
I consider myself a moderate liberal. But I just want to say I think Michael Moore is a horrible, highly hypocritical, manipulative propaganda film maker. He takes cheap, sensationalist shots that repeatedly undermines the legitimate, valid positions of others.
In short, I think he makes other lefties look stupid and pathetic with his antics by association, and is just as bad as Limbaugh.
When Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, it got a standing ovation at the theatre where I saw it. <e and my friend left the theatre in disgust. I told him, "The backlash against this film is going to get Bush re-elected." And I was fucking right.
Agreed completely. In the bank scene in Bowling, I believe the actual policy had them doing a background check and then mailing the rifle 30 days later, but he told them to show it off and present it immediately for the movie.
|
On March 09 2012 06:08 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 06:03 Djzapz wrote:On March 09 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:
I told him, "The backlash against this film is going to get Bush re-elected." And I was fucking right. Bush got reelected, but you weren't necessarily right I was right I say!!!!! I'm A FUCKING GENIUS.
=D
|
Michael Moore is a scumbag and people should stop giving him a microphone, especially those of us on the left.
|
On March 09 2012 06:03 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:
I told him, "The backlash against this film is going to get Bush re-elected." And I was fucking right. Bush got reelected, but you weren't necessarily right
But seriously, I remember that summer and the public opinion of Bush was at an all-time low.
Than this inflammatory film came out, and won the Cannes Palm D'Or, at the insistence of Quentin Tarantino to literally 'send a message to America'.
The amount of attention that this film got international really did galvanize the right, and supporters of Bush. And it's how this whole myth of the media being controlled by "Liberal Elite Media" and snobs originated -- and makes it seem credible.
|
See, silvertine? My sentiments are fairly common. That's why I used him as the example that I did.
Anyway, does Romney get all the Ohio delegates or are they distributed?
|
On March 09 2012 06:17 DoubleReed wrote:
See, silvertine? My sentiments are fairly common. That's why I used him as the example that I did.
Did I ever doubt that? I'm extremely aware of how many people hate or disagree with Moore. That's specifically why I responded to you, because I think that a lot of people just accept that he's a liar without any evidence.
|
On March 09 2012 06:04 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 05:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 09 2012 05:32 Silvertine wrote:On March 09 2012 05:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:
no he didn't, and this is an example of michael moore's lies:
the rally that was held was an annual rally whose date and location had been set for years prior to the shooting. unless you're claiming that Heston planned out Columbine, then he did not go and hold a rally "in response to the killing".
You seem very confused. We're not talking about Columbine at all, this is a completely different shooting. A perfect example of the ignorant hatred of Michael Moore. i've never seen the movie, so i don't know what michael moore was talking about. his movie is called bowling for columbine, so i assumed he meant columbine. don't see how that fact changes anything though If you don't know what the issue is then don't give your passionate opinion on it. How does that not change the fact? Your entire criticism of it was based off the assumption that it was Columbine... The reason I didn't respond to the rest is because you clearly have no respect for the truth. I just showed you how what you said was utterly false and your response is "So what"? Given that attitude there's absolutely no progress that can be made.
my entire criticism was based off the fact that Michael Moore used selective editing and straight up lies and omission to make it seem like Heston did something that he did not do. you completely ignored all of those facts, and when i showed you that what you said:
"Charlton Heston held an NRA rally in the town in which that little girl was killed in response to the killing."
was false, you ignored it. you didn't even say "so what?" you said... nothing. you acted like it didn't happen.
but you're absolutely right. no progress can be made given that attitude.
|
On March 09 2012 06:14 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 06:03 Djzapz wrote:On March 09 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote:
I told him, "The backlash against this film is going to get Bush re-elected." And I was fucking right. Bush got reelected, but you weren't necessarily right But seriously, I remember that summer and the public opinion of Bush was at an all-time low. Than this inflammatory film came out, and won the Cannes Palm D'Or, at the insistence of Quentin Tarantino to literally 'send a message to America'. The amount of attention that this film got international really did galvanize the right, and supporters of Bush. And it's how this whole myth of the media being controlled by "Liberal Elite Media" and snobs originated -- and makes it seem credible.
I'm pretty sure I've heard this myth for much longer than that. And do you honestly think the large majority of the people voting have any idea what the Cannes Palm D'Or is? It has little relevance of the movies credit regardless, it's not a journalistic award. I have a very hard time the outcome of that election would have been different if that movie never came out.
|
on topic:
i think Dick Morris made a good point last night (or maybe it was the night before last) when he said that only Romney has a chance of being nominated before the convention. the problem he saw with this was, (and i tend to agree) that if Santorum or Gingrich did get the nomination they would only have about 60 days to campaign against Obama. which would mean Republicans have spent over a year running against themselves, and only 60 days running against Obama.
is 60 days enough time to campaign effectively against Obama? i doubt it.
|
Are you actually still confused over this? The girl died in a different shooting, not Columbine. You responded as if we were discussing Columbine:
the rally that was held was an annual rally whose date and location had been set for years prior to the shooting. unless you're claiming that Heston planned out Columbine, then he did not go and hold a rally "in response to the killing"
You've since edited it, but that's what you originally said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
