MOOREWATCH
Fisking Miller
Author: Lee
This morning I posted some hate mail from a left wing dunce named Chris Miller. Not content to simply accept the fact he is an idiot, he wrote me three emails during the day. Normally I just ignore people like this, but the little tyke just put so much effort into it I figured, what the hell.
1. I'm glad to see you were a big enough man to actually respond to anything I wrote in my email. Oh wait you didn't say a damn thing. How about using some evidence to argue against what I said instead of running from the truth. Don't you have anything to say for yourself?

I hope I'm not the only one who notices the irony here. Chris, I write two blogs. There are hundreds of posts here on MOOREWATCH, and thousands of posts on Right-Thinking. I have plenty to say, and it's quite easy for you to go to either of my blogs and find out just what I have to say on pretty much any subject you can think of. All the evidence to refute the points in your original email is located right here on this blog. There's a search engine right there on the front page, knock yourself out.
2. You claim anyone with an 8th grade education and google can refute my
arguments well go ahead. Point me in the right direction.

MOOREWATCH.com is a great place to start.
3. Here some facts about gun violence for you to post verbatim on your website.

Gun Violence Statistics

I'm not going to post them here for two reasons. Firstly, they take up a lot of space, and secondly, you simply cut and pasted them from another website. The original can be found here. The fact that you can't make an original argument, and merely regurgitate the facts presented by others, shows that you have no grasp at all of the subject matter. No wonder you accept as gospel every lie propagated by Michael Moore.

The main thrust of the statistics you quote is that in areas with more guns there are more suicides by gun. My response? So fucking what. I'd be willing to bet that in areas with higher rates of automobile ownership there are higher rates of drunk driving. Does it follow then that the cause of drunk driving is automobile ownership? Is the solution to high incidences of drunk driving to regulate the sale of cars?

Okay, I'm in the mood for a good fisking. Let's take a look at your email from this morning.

I'm writing in response to some comments I saw you post on your website MooreWatch.com. In your posting titled "Columbine Secrets" you say "And he[Moore] definitely doesn't want to see fewer school shootings, because then he wouldn't have fresh victims to prostitute for his own monetary gain." What kind of sick person are you?

Sick enough to see through Michael Moore's bullshit.
Moore made the movie Bowling for Columbine in order to stop violence in this country including the sad instances of school shootings. The fact that you would claim that anyone would be a proponent of violence for monetary gain is sickening.

Chris, you're an idiot. You really need to learn a little bit more about your idol before you go making a fool of yourself in public. Moore made BFC because he thought he could make money at it. I don't think he was expecting it to be the kind of blockbuster hit that it was, but the fact remains that if he didn't reasonably expect to make money off it he wouldn't have been able to get funding for it. Now, I believe that Moore gladly prostitues the victims of any tragedy to make money for himself. I'm not the only one. Here's what one of the Columbine mothers had to say.

Recently, a co-worker asked me if I had seen the movie Bowling for Columbine yet, I told her absolutely not! My answer surprised her, given the fact my son, Matthew, was one of the 13 murdered during the deadliest school shooting in our country's history. I explained to her that prior to the public release of the movie the families of the injured and dead were invited by Michael Moore to attend a preview screening. How thoughtful.

Our family and others considered attending because we were genuinely interested in his message to the public regarding gun control and school violence.

However, once we discovered he was going to charge us admission we refrained from doing so.

It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view.


Michael Moore, the Park Avenue millionaire, charged the Columbine families to see the movie that made him millions of dollars. Now, explain to me, Chris, how this man does not prostitute the memories of the Columbine victims to line his own pockets. That, my friend, is sickening.
The fact of the matter is we do live in a society that is based around fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of minorities, fear of terrorists who may live next door to you so you better not trust anyone other than Big Brother who will protect you.

Here you display clearly your own monumental ignorance. What kind of a culture of fear do we live in, Chris? A country where a fat, unshaven slob gets an Oscar for convincing people that the United States is awash in gun violence? Let's take a look at a few facts here.

Race: If you want to look at crime statistics, Chris, two facts emerge clearly. Most crime in this country is committed by minorities, and most of their crime is directed against other minorities. LAPD officer Jack Dunphy recently discussed this fact in a column last year for National Review.

Consider: As of July 31 of this year there had been 299 murders in the city of Los Angeles. Of the victims, 141 (47 percent) were Hispanic and 134 (45 percent) were black, reflecting a pattern that has remained steady for the last few years. Detectives had identified 158 suspects in these crimes, of whom 69 (44 percent) were Hispanic and 64 (40 percent) were black. There were eight whites (5 percent) identified, as well as 17 (11 percent) of what LAPD record keepers label as "others," primarily Asians and Middle Easterners. Based on what I have observed since July, there is no reason to believe the year-end totals will produce anything but a similar breakdown among both victims and suspects.

So, Chris, if you want to be afraid of someone because of their race, the numbers are on your side. For much greater statistical info, take a look at the Department of Justice's website for victim/offender data broken down by race. (Or, you can believe what Michael Moore tells you.)

TERRORISTS: Chris, every one of the 9/11 hijackers were living next door to someone. There are terrorists living in this country right now. Unless you've been living on fucking Mars for the past few years you would have heard of multiple terrorist cells that have been intercepted and prosecuted by the federal government. We've also shut down major sources of funding for terrorists, sources operating right here in America. So, yes, Chris, despite what your idol says, there are terrorists in this country, and they could be living next door to any one of us. A little vigilance on the part of the public could prevent another 9/11.

If you would like an illustration of this point using one of Mikey's examples, see this post, then this one.
I'm not speaking out against gun ownership either. I personally don't own a gun or ever will, but does that mean others shouldn't do it legally? No. However, you can't ignore the facts that people who have guns in there homes are more likely to commit suicide or violence against someone they know.

Guess what, Chris? I can indeed dispute that. This is known in gun circles as the "43 times fallacy," and it has been debunked numerous times by numerous different people. You can read an excellent refutation of this nonsense at this link. Unfortunately it has been repeated so many times in the media that well-meaning, simplistic dolts such as yourself believe it to be true. It's not.
Anyway, I've ventured from my original point. If you really want to talk about someone using violence for capital gain then why don't you write about our own president. To this date roughly 400 troops have died in armed conflict in Iraq.

The fact that it isn't higher is a testament to the professionalism and skill of the United States Armed Forces.
They're dying off in order to protect George/Dick's oil interests.

Yawn. You're going to have to do better than that, stupid.
The fact is Saddam Hussein however bad he was, did not conspire with Osamma bin Laden or Al Qaida. His secular government in Iraq was against everything bin Laden believed in.

You might want to read this article before you make that claim. (See? It's called thinking for yourself. Funny how that works.)
In fact bin Laden spoke out against Hussein as well calling him an infidel .

(Gasp!) He called him an infidel? Oh, the horror! You really don't know any contemporary world history, do you, Chris? Maybe when you get into high school you'll discuss Word War II. See, in that war the US and British were allied with the USSR, which was at the time headed by Josef Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers who ever lived. After WWII the West spend 60 years fighting the USSR in the Cold War, but during WWII they were staunch allies against Hitler. So, even enemies can find common ground to come together to fight a greater enemy.
Or what about Bush's relation to the Saudi royal family. A connection he keeps with an extremely oppressive regime also for his own oil interests.

So, you would support an invasion of the Muslim Holy Land? That's brilliant, Chris. It's almost as if someone else is doing your thinking for you. Dumbass.
He is more likely to these murderers and dictators more then Michael Moore is, and has done so for years. That however, is an issue I have with something else you wrote and will address that at another time.

Note to Chris: after you take a history class, you might want to brush up on your English.
I think you need to take a moment at look at the facts that are out there before you claim someone is trying to make money off of people dying because they made a movie speaking out AGAINST gun violence.

And as you can see here, I think you need to get your head out of Michael Moore's ass before you waste my time sending me cut-and-paste statistics on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

Wanna tangle with me again, asshole? The comments section is available to you below. Hit me with your best shot. Or, you can be a fucking man about it, admit you don't know what you're talking about, and start thinking for yourself. The ball is in your court, Chris. Don't be a simp.

Posted by: Lee on Nov 25, 03 | 10:06 pm (profile) | Permalink
COMMENTS
Posted by: Aaron-Free Will on Nov 25, 03 | 11:27 pm
I'd fisk those idiotic gun statistics, but there's no point: They're all about suicide. In fact, the entire implication seems to be that handguns are largely relegated to suicide. I'm unclear on why this is 'violence'.

There's only one meaningful statistic there, which is the one about unintentional gun deaths in Kansas: The fact is, this is a big fat duh. Kansas has lots of guns. Ride a motorcycle, and you might die in an unintentional motorcycle accident. Drive a car, and you might die in an unintentional car accident. Do nothing, and you might unintentionally die of boredom. Such is life. (Furthermore, how are accidents "violence"?)

This is the imbecility that comes from attributing magic powers to guns. Murder is murder. Play the statistics fair, or go home and let the grown ups play.

How about some other, interesting facts, like that Vermont, the only state which allows it's citizens to carry firearms without even bothering with a permit, has a murder rate lower than Canada's? I could point out Switzerland, which basically requires most households to keep a machine gun, yet has one of the lowest property crime rates on the face of the Earth? (Crazy idea: Risk of getting ass blown off reduces incentive to commit crime.)

Maybe I could point out that most (far more than half) of U.S. murders are over gang and drug issues, while Britain and Australia both have rape, assault, burglary, robbery, car theft, and other violent crime rates several times higher than those of the U.S., or that you're six times more likely to be mugged in London than in NYC? The implication would seem to be that British and Aussie criminals are safe to malign the populace, while American criminals focus on killing each other. This makes me happy, because it means that as a law-abiding American citizen, I'm substantially safer than my British and Australian counterparts.

The only country that really *is* safer is Canada, and the fact is, their society only exists the way in the form it does because of U.S. economic, military, and cultural subsidy as a client state (they can thank their hippy Trudeauite leaders for merrily handing over their once-proud and firm sovereignity to America in the 70's), and therefore cannot be used as a model for any independant country.

Posted by: dwarfmonkey on Nov 26, 03 | 12:04 am
That is hilarious. Canada no longer can be used as an example of an independent country. I love it. Seriously.

In response to your statement that Canada is safer than the U.S., you might want to re-examine the data. A site I posted here once before mentioned that Canada's overall crime rate is somewhere near twice that of the U.S. That is not violent crime, but overall crime. I wonder if you really are safer in a place where you have double the chance of being the victim of a crime. Physically perhaps, but mentally and emotionally?

The figures that were available only went through 1993, so perhaps that has changed.

To top that I checked a Canadian website that did a comparative study between Canada's largest cities and the U.S.'s largest cities and they reported a very similar violent crime. They found that rape and sexual assault cases were higher in the U.S., but other violent crime rates were higher in Canada providing an overall similarity between U.S. and Canadian large cities.

Just a thought, but I wonder, if Canada had the same level of ethnic diversity, which does contribute to crime levels, and a comparable overall density, what would their crime rate be like?

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 2:28 am
"No wonder you accept as gospel every lie propagated by Michael Moore."

Lee, Moore is not the only one who writes and say those "lies", it's not because you agree with him that he LEARNS you something. I personnally didnt heared and read a lot of things from him that I didnt saw before from many sources. Moore just give his own version of what it means.

But to me, it has nothing to see with statistics and its more an ethic question. Guns just suck. The power to give death to a man just with a movement of the finger really scares me. No one should have the right to do that.

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 2:32 am
By the way, did you never think some things you say on this site could hurt Mike Moore ? Or you dont give a fuck ?

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 4:52 am
Does Old "Mike Moore" ever think about what he says, and how it may hurt others? I don't think he gives a fuck either. In fact, he charges admission for it.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 5:15 am
Lee you say: "I write two blogs. There are hundreds of posts here on MOOREWATCH, and thousands of posts on Right-Thinking. I have plenty to say, and it's quite easy for you to go to either of my blogs and find out just what I have to say on pretty much any subject you can think of"

You're right you do make allot of posts, but you never seem to have the stones to join the discussion and defend your postings (here or on your other sites). Also in nearly all your postings, you are rude to people and insult them for having a different opinion to yourself.

I would say that much of your "fisking" of this guy is speculative and dismissive of many pieces of evidence that wouldn't suit your point of view. If you wish to discuss this further make a post and challenge me or in your words..."Wanna tangle with me again, asshole? " ..ha ha how old are you anyway.

Otherwise I will just assert the fact that I AM RIGHT AND I DON"T HAVE TO PROVE IT like you do.
Thanks.

Posted by: JimK on Nov 26, 03 | 5:25 am
Guns just suck

And that. ladies and gentlemen, is the sum total of the intellectual argument from the gun grabbers.

Guns just suck.

Bugs bunny said it best. "What a maroon!"

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 5:42 am
Moogi,

I'm not Lee, and I do not claim to speak for Lee. However, I know that if someone wrote me and their letter started off with such intelligent observations as "What kind of sick person are you?", then said person has already set the tone for the "discussion", whether I agree with it or not.

For example - "Balynar, You are a slope browed misanthropic crotchmonkey...who is totally correct on positon X" is still insulting.

As for Lee responding to posts. Again, I cannot speak for him, but I know that he has two blogs, and it is not like he gets paid to sit here and blog all day. I am sure he has a job that takes precedence.

As for this - "Otherwise I will just assert the fact that I AM RIGHT AND I DON"T HAVE TO PROVE IT like you do."

You are incorrect. One of the reasons I keep coming back to Moorewatch and to Right Thinking is due to the fact that they ALWAYS support their arguement. There is a link on just about every post explaining where they got the information from, and supporting data to back up their viewpoints. I do not always agree with those viewpoints, but at least I can see where THEY may gain that belief. Conversely, the bastions of liberal "thought" like Democratic Underground use emotions, conspiracy theories, and their own personal insecurities to make arguements. They fling accusations like a monkey flings his poo, and ban anyone who says anything even remotely contradictory. If you haven't been there, I suggest that you go check it out. If for nothing else but to show you just how much you should appreciate THIS forum.

My 2 Ducets


Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 5:55 am
Well I've never read any of his comments during the discussion of his blogs, starting the argument is fair enough but get involved too.

Supporting an argument with links to other peoples points of view or statistics which we all have to take on face value is pretty weak. I would like to see their points discussed in a social or ethical context that applies to me as a human being. At least Moore makes the effort to do this..

For example the email from the Columbine mother claiming that he was to charge admission to see his film. I've seen this bandied about on countless right wing webistes, but this is not a piece of evidence. It's an anonymous email that could have been written by anyone. Do we know if MM actually did charge the parents? Or was this a misunderstanding or what?

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 5:59 am
Oh and he is rude, nearly all the time. I don't think you're gonna argue with me there. If i mad comments as provocative as his during my posts I would get labelled a Troll.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 6:03 am
Jimk.. "Guns just Suck"
I think this guy is just using the coloquial nuances of American English to illustrate his standing on the ethics of the situation. Not as a point worthy of debate.

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 6:06 am
I could argue that Lee's "rudeness" is either directed at people who are being rude themselves or at people who are stupid to the point of The Darwin Awards. It is very hard to be nice in the face of all that.

Good point about the Columbine email. I will see if I can find a good source for this on my own.


Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 6:18 am
"Does Old "Mike Moore" ever think about what he says, and how it may hurt others? I don't think he gives a fuck either"

Even if it was right, it would mean that you are as stupid as him to do the same thing... "He spitted in my face, so I have the right to stab him with a knife!" How beautiful!

"And that. ladies and gentlemen, is the sum total of the intellectual argument from the gun grabbers."
No that is not of course, that's just me.

Now here's my own translation of a phrase of George Courteline: "Being considered an idiot by a fool is a fin gourmet's delight"
I'm really enjoying the food:o)

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 6:20 am
"I think this guy is just using the coloquial nuances of American English to illustrate his standing on the ethics of the situation. "

At least someone who understands what I say, thanks Moogi.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 6:36 am
Balynar, yeah but it only weakons his argument in the eyes of his adversaries. And if us Liberals try it, the Troll word quickly rears his ugly head.

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 6:42 am
Even if it was right, it would mean that you are as stupid as him to do the same thing... "He spitted in my face, so I have the right to stab him with a knife!" How beautiful!

Incorrect. What you have in Michael Moore is a person who makes unsubstantiated accusations about people and their motives. He all but calls them murderer, and he used the largest of brushes to call an entire race of people fearmongers. Does he do this out of the kindness of his heart? Does he do this for noble means? No. He does this for the most mercenary of all reasons: Money.

People have tried to have intelligent discourse with Mr. Moore, but he bullishly stands by his lies and misrepresentations even in the face of facts. He deserves this derision. He all but asked for it.

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 6:54 am
"Does he do this out of the kindness of his heart? Does he do this for noble means? No. He does this for the most mercenary of all reasons: Money."

Huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhohohohohahahahahahhihihih, you really made me laugh a lot, great word settings and stuff... I applause :o)

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 7:09 am
Baynar I refer you to section of the original post where Chris says...

Or what about Bush's relation to the Saudi royal family. A connection he keeps with an extremely oppressive regime also for his own oil interests.

And Lee responds....

"So, you would support an invasion of the Muslim Holy Land? That's brilliant, Chris. It's almost as if someone else is doing your thinking for you. Dumbass."

If this isn't "unsubstantiated accusations about people and their motives" I don't know what is.. and you have just sung the praise of Lee earlier so I think you should be giving Moore the same leeway if you really believe it.

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 7:12 am
"People have tried to have intelligent discourse with Mr. Moore, but he bullishly stands by his lies and misrepresentations even in the face of facts. He deserves this derision. He all but asked for it. "

Well, with such a phrase, i must tell you, sincerely and without any hate, that I think you're mad, just mad.
Brrrrr, that kind of speeches really scares me.

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 7:22 am
Well, with such a phrase, i must tell you, sincerely and without any hate, that I think you're mad, just mad.

And why do you think so?

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 7:26 am
Moogi - Perhaps Lee was a bit off base with his comment. Like I said before, I am not him, and I do not speak for him. What I do know is that Chris' "point" has been repeatedly addressed in various posts on this site. I would get frustated with someone who asked a question that had already been answered over and over again. But maybe that is just me. I am sure others have more patience than I do.

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 7:33 am
Well, with such a phrase, i must tell you, sincerely and without any hate, that I think you're mad, just mad.

Welldigger - I am sorry my phrasing scares you. All I am trying to say is that Mr. Moore is not some great idiological leader that so many people see him as. He lies. He promotes fiction. He claims to speak for the common man while living in luxury. He presents himself as having "the key" to the American mindset, and then goes to other countries and talks smack about the very same American people he proports to speak for. I don't know where you are from, or how people treat each other in your neck of the woods, but in my circles we call people who pretend to be your friend and then talk shit about you "assholes". We do not befriend these assholes, and we caution those who would befriend said assholes about what to expect.


Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 7:44 am
Baylnar..Yep, fair enough but your still granting Lee a level of understanding and leeway that you refuse MM. I am merely illustrating the fact that many of the accusations aimed at MM on this site can just as easily be pointed back at the instigators. Therefore significantly lessening their worth.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 7:56 am
I don't believe that MM living in luxury is undermining the common man, every common man aspires to this.
It's obvious he has made his money from writing and until I see evidence that he also has associations with any multinational that abuses the concept of Free Market Enterprise I don't find it hypocritical. Before you say MM declares he isn't a Free Market Capitalist I don't think he has ever said he is against the Free Market as a concept, he has rallied against companies who abuse the concept to the disadvantage of the poorest people in the world. And the Ignorance of the rich..
And think carefully before you say companies don't so this because I will post up some very clear examples and you will merely become the "ignorant rich" of my original claim.

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 7:58 am
Moogi - fair enough.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 8:00 am
As for him talking shit about Americans, i would find this hard to take too if i was from the US. But he seems to be doing this for "humor" above all. Remeber this man did begin his career by thinking he was funny.

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 8:10 am
As for him talking shit about Americans, i would find this hard to take too if i was from the US. But he seems to be doing this for "humor" above all. Remeber this man did begin his career by thinking he was funny.

And for a while, he was funny. I really got a kick out of T.V. Nation the couple of times I saw it.

But somewhere along the line he not only got mean, but decided that he knew better than the rest of America. "The dumbest person in England is smarter than the smartest person in the United States"? How is that funny? How is that not a blanket condemnation?

I must be missing the point somewhere.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 8:24 am
yeah it's not great TV is it.

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 8:40 am
"The dumbest person in England is smarter than the smartest person in the United States"

Yeah I also find that stupid, and I think Mike Moore knows that its stupid too, it's complete exageration of what he thinks of course.
"blanket condemnation", huhuhu you're really taking what he says too seriously.

"but in my circles we call people who pretend to be your friend and then talk shit about you "assholes".
You seem to confuse the words friends/compatriots and also criticize/talk shit about.

"We do not befriend these assholes, and we caution those who would befriend said assholes about what to expect. "
Brrr I'm still scared.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 8:41 am
Welldig,
Why does that kind of speech scare you.
I have sent well-stated correspondence to Michael Moore explaining obvious falsehoods contained in BFC.
These included;
-his backhanded insinuations claiming that the KKK and NRA are associated.
-his spurious caption which claimed that Iraq invaded Kuwaited using U.S. weapons.
-his misuse and distortion of 1988 presidential campaign ads.
-his false claim that Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to hijack planes.
-his false claims about U.S. aid to Afghanistan.
He has never addressed these issues via correspondence or on his website.
All that he does is label anyone who questions his information as being "a wacko" or "gun nut", without factually disproving what is presented.
Name-calling does not suffice for intelligent discourse.
The statement, about Moore, which you discounted is verifiably true.
...and you must be easily frightened by that which you don't understand.

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 8:42 am
yeah it's not great TV is it.

Most TV isn't. It's why I mostly watch The History Channel, The Learning Channel, and National Geographic. :)

Seriously though...I see where you are coming from. I really do. On my end, I found this very website due to the fact that I read Stupid White Men and wanted to find the reasonings behind Mr. Moore's claims. The America that he described in his books looked nothing like the America that I live in. I personally grew up poor and inner city, and I am currently middle class because I busted my butt in school and working my way up through a myriad of crappy jobs. I now have a moderately comfortable lifestyle due to my labors. Mr. Moore's representation of America intrigued me by their lack of any similarity to my life experiences.

The more I read him, the more I see that he is more of a fiction writer than Tolkien. I do not begrudge him his wealth. What I do begrudge him is the fact that he has garnered his wealth by stepping on the backs of the very people he claims to represent. As a white male who has worked his ass off to get to where he is, I am supposed to feel guilty somehow. Whats more, I supposedly live in fear of the very people I played with as a child.

I refuse to subscribe to that, no matter how many books he sells or how many movies he makes.


Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 9:01 am
"blanket condemnation? Huhuhu, you're really taking what he says too seriously."

How very true. It is evident that there really isn't very much which Moore says that CAN be taken seriously.
Just consider his own statement during an Interview by Lou Dobbs:

"Hey, this is comedy. Since when does comedy have to be accurate?"

Effective satire should at least contain an element of truth in order to be funny. It's arguable whether what Moore does could even be considered "comedy". Comedy is normally understood to be funny.

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 9:23 am
"...and you must be easily frightened by that which you don't understand. "

Is it a backhanded insinuation that i'm a morron ? :o)

"Effective satire should at least contain an element of truth..."

There are, tests prove it.

"It's arguable whether what Moore does could even be considered "comedy". Comedy is normally understood to be funny."

I dont feel any traces of anger in this comment. Do you guys ?

Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 9:33 am
The entire premise of Moore's move "Roger and Me" concerned GM CEO Roger Smith's massive downsizing at GM and Moore's pursuit of Smith to confront him about the harm he did to Flint, Michigan.
Big Problems:
-Evidently, Roger Smith actually granted Moore an interview, of which none of it was included in the movie. So, the movie is based on a false premise.
-As CEO of GM, Roger Smith is responsible for his company's well-being, not the economy of the city of Flint. That would be the responsibility of Flint's Mayor, City Council, City Manager, and Economic Developement council. Did Moore ever confront them about their apparent lack of wisdom/competence in basing almost their city's entire economic well-being on one employer/one industry?
What if Smith had taken all of Moore's recommendations; kept the plant open and GM had gone into recievership, would THAT have mitigated Flint's economic troubles?

Oh, but of course..."This is comedy...Since when does comedy have to be accurate?" Geez, what's wrong with you guys? Lighten-up...Don't you like laugh?
Who cares if it is all just a pack of fictional nonsense supported by lies? (Just nod your head and laugh...or we'll call you a "wacko".)

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 9:40 am
Craig.. has MM ever claimed CIA taught bin laden to hijack planes. I thought this was a reference to The CIA's support and training of the Mujahedeen (members inluded many a fanatic and Bin Laden himself) during the Afghan/Russian conflict. The mujahedeen did give birth to Taliban according to everything I've read anyway.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 9:41 am
-"Is it a backhanded insinuation that I'm a moron?"
-"I don't feel any traces of anger in this comment. Do you guys?"

Oh, I compliment you on your perspicacity.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 9:51 am
moog,
The caption in BFC said verbatim:

"Sept. 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training To murder 3,000 People."

Keep rearranging those deckchairs on the RMS Mooretanic, buddy.

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 26, 03 | 10:54 am
You might want to read this article before you make that claim. (See? It's called thinking for yourself. Funny how that works.)

In the last thread, I just addressed the Sadaam/Al Qaeda link myth with something Fred Masters said. This was entirely coincidence, I wrote it before reading this thread. Lee posted the Weekly Standard article as "evidence" of the link. For purposes of convenience, I'll re-post it to this thread.

I wanted to comment on something Fred said about the sadaam/al qaeda link

you read that or heard about it from a friend who read it in the weekly standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Now, I had some problems with this when I read it. The first being, wouldn't it be illegal to post a "secret," confidential memo? The second being that their post was pretty full of holes. I'm not gonna both refuting it point by point since spinsantiy already did such a superb job.
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_11_23_archive.html

I was willing to take this article seriously despite where it came from. Most of the right-wing pundits hailed this article as final devastating proof the sadaam/al qaeda, and took it as justification for the iraq war. Wolf Blitzer of CNN hailed it as a "slam dunk."

Until, uh-oh, the department of defense comes to say the weekly standard was talking out of it's ass.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
The Standard continues to speculate....
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/396hflxy.asp

The evidence is still up in the air. Most of it shows there was no link between Sadaam and Al Qaeda due to ideological differences. You could argue it either way, (especially if you use anecdotal evidence and speculate) but to hail this memo as a "slam dunk" is pretty ridiculous. I just wanted to point this out since I assume a lot of "regulars" on this site might take that memo as a "slam dunk" as well."


/me laughs socks off

Posted by: moogi on Nov 26, 03 | 12:25 pm
Craig ,well then.. it's a loose association but it has it's basis in fact. It doesn't say the CIA taught him to hi jack planes does it?

Posted by: Mike Wilson on Nov 26, 03 | 12:27 pm
I love this site. Between working, filming, speaking, fundraising, writing and editing Michael Moore Hates America, I could never find the time to maintain a blog... Christ, I'm lucky if I can pound out a Filmmaker's Journal every week... Yeah I know, I haven't posted since 11/2... get off my ass. But case in point. I'm glad Lee and Jim have the energy to keep the conversation going while we get our little flick ready for distribution. Great job guys.

Posted by: Balynar on Nov 26, 03 | 12:42 pm
See, if I were Michael Moore I would say "Mike Wilson is a gun toting wacko!"

Oh, wait..he already did that, didn't he?

Welldigger...what is it that frightens you about what I wrote? Is it considered polite in your world to not warn your friends about a known liar?

Posted by: The welldigger on Nov 26, 03 | 1:17 pm
"How very true. It is evident that there really isn't very much which Moore says that CAN be taken seriously."

mmmm, isnt making a site called "watching Michael Moore's every move" in wich some persons try to dissect everyone of his words taking what he does and says seriously ?

Posted by: Lee on Nov 26, 03 | 1:27 pm
Craig.. has MM ever claimed CIA taught bin laden to hijack planes.

Yes.

Am I being asked to believe that this guy who sleeps in a tent in a desert has been training pilots to fly our most modern, sophisticated jumbo jets with such pinpoint accuracy that they are able to hit these three targets without anyone wondering why these planes were so far off path?

What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except this one fact — WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden!

Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!

Don’t take my word for it — I saw a piece on MSNBC last year that laid it all out. When the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, the CIA trained him and his buddies in how to commits acts of terrorism against the Soviet forces. It worked! The Soviets turned and ran. Bin Laden was grateful for what we taught him and thought it might be fun to use those same techniques against us.

We abhor terrorism — unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing.

Posted by: Chris Miller (not the idiot one) on Nov 26, 03 | 1:41 pm
I'm embarassed, frankly, that this ass-hat has the same as me. Keep up the great work, guys- there is a Chris Miller out there whose head is NOT buried up Moore's rectum.
-Chris Miller

Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 2:54 pm
moog,
Hell, read Moore's caption for yourself.
The 3,000 people who were murdered on Sept. 11, 2001 died because some terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings.
According to Moore, the CIA trained Osama Bin Ladin to do this.

The big problem is: the CIA has never had such a program to train suicidal attackers to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. The CIA was just as surprised as anyone else when this occurred, since they had no contacts with Osama Bin Ladin or Al Qeida.
The U.S. helped the Afghan resistence during the Soviet-Afghan war by providing weapons, food, medical, financial, and some military training concerning Soviet helicopter/tank capabilities. I don't recall any Afghan resitance members hijacking Russian Aeroflot passengerliners and flying them into Moscow buildings, so it is doubtful that training of that sort was given or would have been useful to them in fighting the Soviets.
U.S. aid went through Pakistan primarily to Akmed Shah Masood and his group who were actual Afghans, while Bin Ladin used his own personal fortune to fund a group of arab muslim fanatics. Mahsood was a very pro-Western leader and his group, known as the Northern Alliance, fought against the Taliban governement in the 1990s. They were the primary U.S. allie the Afghan war. Mahsood was assasinated by the Taliban.

Lee pegged it.
There it is...
Moore actually saying that the big bad CIA was at fault.
Even though the CIA doesn't train people to hijack airliners, nor would it have benefitted U.S. national security interests to do so. Notice that Moore doesn't cite any specific source for his information, other than "I saw this piece on MSNBC last year..." Is it too much to ask an award-winning documentarian to provide footnotes and facts to support his inane rants; especially when he discovers such earth-shattering news? That's just like his bogus claim that Iraq used U.S. weapons to invade Kuwait: He makes this claim while showing a picture of Iraqi troops using Soviet tanks and weapons.
Oh, but if you point this out it means that you are just a "wacko" or a "gun nut".
Don't bother confusing the issues with these bothersome facts.
In other words:
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I am...the great...Oz!"
-Professor Marvel (1939)

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 26, 03 | 3:00 pm
Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 9:33 am
-Evidently, Roger Smith actually granted Moore an interview, of which none of it was included in the movie. So, the movie is based on a false premise.


I've heard this before, but never seen evidence. I would like to. Link?

---

Hey lee as long as you're participating in the discussion I'd be interested to hear your response to my last post.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 3:15 pm
"We abhor terroism--Unless we're the ones doing the terrorizing."

Well, THERE IT IS!
THAT has GOT to be one of the absolute stupidest Moore-isms ever uttered.
It demonstrates that Moore really is just too fucking stupid to understand the difference between soldiers (adult men) in armed combat against other armed/trained soldiers (adult men)

Versus...
terrorists sneaking into a country and killing unarmed/helpless civilians.

The Afghan Resistance was fighting against (Moore's buddies) the Red Army, not unarmed Russian civilians. They weren't hijacking Russian passenger planes and flying them into civilian buildings.
DAMN!!! How can so many fucking people listen to his inane bullshit and then claim that BUSH is stupid?

Posted by: Aaron-Free Will on Nov 26, 03 | 3:33 pm
"That is hilarious. Canada no longer can be used as an example of an independent country. I love it. Seriously."

It really can't. Something like 95% of their international trade (both ways) is with the U.S.. They're all but a fully owned subsidiary. And they did it to themselves.

"In response to your statement that Canada is safer than the U.S., you might want to re-examine the data. A site I posted here once before mentioned that Canada's overall crime rate is somewhere near twice that of the U.S. That is not violent crime, but overall crime. I wonder if you really are safer in a place where you have double the chance of being the victim of a crime. Physically perhaps, but mentally and emotionally?"

Hmmmm. I had always seen statistics that showed lower rates for most crimes, on the other hand, they *were* tallies of specific crimes, and as you point out later, the total crime total may be different. I think the key point here is that America *has* a strong gang/drug subculture that is largely independant of our own, and is responsible for the vast majority of our crime. Canada's is much smaller.

Posted by: alfredo stroessner on Nov 26, 03 | 6:57 pm
Craig, Moore would never lift a finger to help this country. He is an elitist and expects to continue to be treated like one. He is smarter, nicer and better looking than us slobs. Especially those of us who, like the President, can wear a flight suit. Could you imagine Michael Moore in a flightsuit? I do not think that they make bolts of Nomex big enough.

Posted by: Lee on Nov 26, 03 | 7:00 pm
I've heard this before, but never seen evidence. I would like to. Link?

Jim, my MOOREWATCH collaborator, was being interviewed by Larry Elder back when we were doing RevokeTheOscar. (You can hear the interview here.) The guest that was on before Jim was singer Pat Boone. Pat, as you may recall, was in Roger & Me. During the commercial break Pat mentioned to Larry that he had been told by Roger himself that Roger had indeed sat down for an interview with Moore, but that Moore lied to make his movie more dramatic. (Big surprise there.) Now, as far as I know this has never been confirmed one way or another, so all we really have to go on is Pat Boone's account.

Hey lee as long as you're participating in the discussion I'd be interested to hear your response to my last post.

About the Weekly Standard article? Sure, there's some controversy around it. I never claimed it was an unimpeachable piece of evidence, but it is tantalizingly interesting, and certainly casts doubt on the iron-clad assertion that al Qaeda and Iraq would not work together. Sure, the military denied it. As any good leftie can tell you the military denies all sorts of things when it is in their interest to do so. Is it true? I have no idea. But I think it's quite telling that the supposedly pro-war media in this country have virtually ignored this leaked document, when other documents (like the notorious Rumsfeld memo) have been front-page news.

Could it be that the media in this country is not as gung-ho pro-war as the lefties make them out to be? Perish the thought. But you cannot deny that if a DOD report had been leaked which claimed that there was absolutely no evidence to connect Iraq and Osama bin Laden it would have been the headline on every paper in the country.

| 1 2 | NEXT page


Add your comments

Click to format text (requires Javascript): Bold | Italic | Link


Characters remaining: Notify you when someone replies to this post?