Not until he joins the Republican party will you care.
Unless you would like to explain why you trust a known and admitted liar not to lie in a book.
Of course, Clinton got re-elected, so I guess it makes sense to a certain subsection of the populace.
Regards,
Shodan
All of his facts are solid. Everything in his books is true(to my knowledge)…Trust has nothing to do with it.
I toilet papered a friend’s house when I was little. When he asked me if I did it I said “no.” That was a lie. Am I a liar?
Liar is a relative term. Jokes and pranks are not enough for me label someone as such.
Have you ever told a lie?
Liar! 
I hate to break this to you but that “certain subsection of the populace” just happened to be the majority of registered voters.
Please explain where Franken’s admitted prank killed people. You will get a free pass on excusing Bush’s lie when the WMD show up. How long has it been again?
BTW, nice job trying to blame Clinton again.
Just to send the Moore-bashers into another screaming frenzy (somebody get the popcorn!), it looks like he has another book coming out soon.
Just to send the Moore-bashers into another screaming frenzy (somebody get the popcorn!), it looks like he has another book coming out soon.
WRONG!!!
Here are some statistics from the “Bundeskriminalamt” (the German FBI) for 2000:
Straftaten(gruppen): Mord, Totschlag, und Toetung auf Verlangen
erf. Faelle insgesamt: 2770
darunter: mit Schusswaffe geschossen: 352 (12.7%)
These statistics can be checked here. Clicking on the link: “2.1.4 Schusswaffenverwendung” will open a .pdf with the relevant data on page 2.
Basically these statistics say that there were 2770 cases of murder, manslaughter and “killing on request”
in Germany in 2000. Of these 2770 cases, 352 were commited using a firearm. From what I can find the population of Germany is given as somewhere between 82 and 85 million people. Let’s use the low number and check how many murders using firearms there are per capita:
352 : 82,000,000 * 100,000 = 0.429 murders per 100000 citizens commited using firearms.
Now let’s check the same thing for the United States for the year 2000:
According to these Bureau of Justice statistics, there were 10,179 murders with firearms in 2000. The population of the U.S. is usually given as 290 million. OK, let’s do the math again:
10,179 : 290,000,000 * 100,000 = 3.51 murders with firearms per 100,000 citizens.
Now 3.51 compared to 0.429 does seem like an exponential increase to me. In the States your odds of being killed by gunfire increase almost tenfold! And I’m sure for certain regions and/or population groups it’s a lot higher than that even.
The interesting thing is if you look at murders as a whole. For the U.S you have 15,517 murders in 2000, which works out to 5.35 murders per 100,000. In Germany you have 2770 murders, which works out as 3.38 murders per 100,000. Now that difference is a lot smaller!!! In other words, in Germany 12.7% of the murders were commited using firearms, and in the U.S. 65.6% of all murders were commited using firearms. So, I guess you can say strict gun control laws make the criminals more creative when it comes to weaponry:confused:
It’s funny because I liked Roger and Me. As all manufacturing seems to be moving to China, you’d think Moore would stick with that particular issue. Wonder why he’s off discussing things he knows nothing about – like aid to Afghanistan? Am I a basher if I can’t help but notice he’s passing around a long-ago debunked lie which originated in an op-ed piece?
Excuse me for the nit-pick but an almost tenfold increase does seem exponential to me.
I´m not american and not very up-to-date about any effects of Mr Moore´s work but I get the feeling that his way of arguing turns the discussion to arguing about his way of arguing, instead of discussing if the amount of guns and the liberal gun laws in the U.S. is contributing to the high murder rate.
Very perceptive observation, Swiring.
Maybe i’m just a bit dim, but i don’t see the disagreement here!
Oh boy oh boy… please feel free to pit me :smack:
My deepest apologies to Mycroft Holmes.
I recently watched teh film. i enjoyed it. I could see some cheats done in editing to make his point. Especially with Mr Heston, but he did not once state that the footage was from the same meeting.
He did a montage that was deceptive in that people now used to editing telling a story simply assumed it was a narrative. It’s dishonest in that he likely knew the average viewer would not critically view the scene (the tie changing the cover shots used to mask the edits).
But aside from that and the odd assumptions and leaps of logic, I did walk away asking the one question he was trying to get the audience to think about.
Why do more gun deaths occur in America than any other peace time Western country?
I did not expect him to answer that but putting it forward in such a controversial way made people take notice and even discuss it. Those who do not like the question or its ramifications tend to try to disect the movie’s techniques.
Is he wrong in pointig out there is a growing culture of fear?
Is he wrong in that the media sensationalizes that fear for ratings thus feeding into it?
Is he wrong in pointing out that some of the myths of why Americans are more prone to use guns are wrong? (Such as the US having a more violent history than other nations or that they have more violent media?)
Are any of the questions he asks really invalid?
Yes he is a blowhard and hamless self promoter. Yes, he has shown himself to be a bit of an ass at times. Yes, he uses deceptive techniques.
But didn’t this film actually do what it set out to do and make people think about the issues?
That is all a documentary is really supposed to do. Anyone who thinks a documentary to be a completely honest unbiased record doesn’t understand the medium at all.
Interesting link, Hamlet… I get a strong sense of apologism from it, and very little by way of really addressing issues that have been brought up by Hardy and others.
For example, the lengths the author of the “Defense” goes to to defend the Kayla Rolland and Flint sections is nothing short of ridiculous. The real point to be made in both of those cases is that Moore did not make the arguments the author of the Defense makes. The Kayla Rolland segment was (as Hardy points out) cunningly edited to keep context pretty much out of the picture. And in the Flint shooting, the fact that the six-year-old was already violent doesn’t seem to factor into Moore’s defender’s viewpoint. No, he chooses to blame everything from the CIA to the War on Drugs to welfare programs for what happened. It’s a fascinating conspiracy trail, none of which, unfortunately, has much to do with what Moore said in Bowling for Columbine.
Erik Möller, the author of the article, also states (several times) what a “brilliant” or “talented” or “skillful” filmmaker Moore is (fanboy much?). He then goes on to excuse Moore’s many misleading sequences and exaggerations and time compressions as “normal film editing,” as if such distortions are a required side-effect of filmmaking. However, if Moore is as skilled a filmmaker as Möller believes him to be, then he could have done far better. Moreover, it stands to reason that such a talented guy knew exactly what he was doing.
What’s funny is, I agree with Möller about this much: Moore is a skilled filmmaker. He knows how to manipulate an audience, he knows how to craft a scene, and he knows how to edit clips together to be as damning as he wants them to be. There is no question that he did exactly that in the NRA sequence, the bank sequence, the Lockheed-Martin interview, and the Canadian ammunition sequence, and Möller’s “Defense” even admits that it is so, though it excuses it.
I liked what this person said in response to the Defense:
Is Moore a talented filmmaker? Sure he is. Is he also a misleading prick? You bet. The two are not mutually exclusive.
You know, I would love to believe what Moore is saying, because his politics agree with mine on many points. But the point of all this is, the way Mooremakes his statements is shamefully misleading, and no honest defense of BfC can say otherwise. Some people are willing to vilify lies from the opposing side of an argument while forgiving lies coming from their own side. Erik Möller is apparently one of those.
I am not one of those people… I favor honesty from both sides, and I criticize anyone, from Ann Coulter to Michael Moore, who uses dishonest tactics to make a point.
In short: Erik Möller, Moore apologist and fanboy extraordinaire, can take the big fuck-off as well. He’s almost as full of shit as Moore is.