Backfire is right. Michael Mooore's films are always worth seeing, and always raise good points.
As intelligent (I would hope!) viewers, we just have to remember that these are definitely opinion pieces and not necessarily all there is to the story. That doesn't make them in some way wrong to make or evil. Moore does get very annoying sometimes when he is obviously trading objectivity for humour- something satirists do all the time, but you feel Michael Moore's fans might take it more seriously due to the way these are presented- but despite that this is valid counterpoint in operation, and even when I don't agree with him at least he has made an effort for researching his points, which is more than 99% of lazy critics of the administration do.
Originally posted by Phoenix
So, if you're not a sheep eating Moore's bullshit, are you one of George's shit-eating sheep? 😬
See that's another thing I've noticed. Why is it that when people give their opinion agains't Michael Moore they are either label as Republicans or Conservatives? (I'm not saying you are Phoenix, but Michael Moore fanatics always label those that oppose his films as conservatives)
I don't support the liberals or democrats or republicans. I also don't like Michael Moore. Not because I don't agree with his politics but because in his films he is always portraying HIS side of the story! He is like a crooked Journalist that only cares about his own fame rather than the story.
I have always advise people to do their own research. Read books, study the case, ask questions, consult people that are highly educated, learn more about facts. Don't rely on people like Michael Moore to bring you the goods. Because is NOT all 100% truth. Do your own research.
yeah moore does raise good points, however, they are all sadly one sided, If you think about or read up on the arguments moore brings to light, you will see that they are not as shocking as he makes them out to be. One great example is bowling for columbine, At first glance that documentary seems to be shocking, but it's just how he portrays his research. He mentions in a dreary manner that America has 75,000 gunshot crimes in america a year, and all other countries have only a fraction of that, but he fails to mention that all those other countries are just a fraction the size of America. That film is chock full of instances like this.
Everything he speaks on is diseased with a liberal point of view, now he claims to be an independant, but he's always bashing conservative's and never even giving you a peek at the other side of the story. He takes the truth and twists it into a shocking exageration.
Actually, Rage, that fact is good and true. He was talking proportional size- the US gun death rate is ridiculously huge compared to other western countries.
If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, you get roughly the same population as the US.
Those countries combined had 112 gun deaths in 2000, the US had 32000. A rate almost 300 times higher.
There is little argument about the figures- Bowling for Columbine was about the cause.
In 1993 homocide by firearms in Europe was nearly equivelant to the United States. Since then stronger gun laws were enforced through out Europe. Where as laws against firearms have been enforced in the united states. I know this is still a staggering fact, but America does not have the most gun deaths simply because we are bloodthirsty drones as moore insists we are, but because of the laws. I'm not trying to argue the gravity of the statistics, but rather the light that moore portrays these facts. Guncite.com has many points and facts that help explain the incredible crimes with guns in America. Regaurdless, it is still ridiculous to know that in the past ten years the strongest laws against guns America has introduced is the gun lock.This is'nt even a law, but a suggestion.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Those countries combined had 112 gun deaths in 2000, the US had 32000. A rate almost 300 times higher.There is little argument about the figures- Bowling for Columbine was about the cause.
Did you see the bit when a bank was giving away a free gun when you opened an account? I couldn't believe it was actually true at first, I thought it was a set-up!
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
In 1993 homocide by firearms in Europe was nearly equivelant to the United States. Since then stronger gun laws were enforced through out Europe. Where as laws against firearms have been enforced in the united states. I know this is still a staggering fact, but America does not have the most gun deaths simply because we are bloodthirsty drones as moore insists we are, but because of the laws. I'm not trying to argue the gravity of the statistics, but rather the light that moore portrays these facts. Guncite.com has many points and facts that help explain the incredible crimes with guns in America. Regaurdless, it is still ridiculous to know that in the past ten years the strongest laws against guns America has introduced is the gun lock.This is'nt even a law, but a suggestion.
Again, you are doing Moore a disservice, because he tackles exactly that issue in his comparison with Canada, which also has lax gun laws but has an almost European gun death rate. Whether he is right or not is debatable but you are trying to make out he ignored the legislation issue- he did not. Obviously in Europe we all think you need gun laws to address the ridiculously high gun death rate but Moore was actually advancing other reasons.
Incidentally, where the heck did you get that 1993 figure from? It is not even vaguely true in any part of Europe I know of.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Did you see the bit when a bank was giving away a free gun when you opened an account? I couldn't believe it was actually true at first, I thought it was a set-up!
Well, that is only weird from a European perspective. If you can buy guns on the High Street like you can in the US- subject to various approvals etc.- then why not get them as a free gift?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, that is only weird from a European perspective. If you can buy guns on the High Street like you can in the US- subject to various approvals etc.- then why not get them as a free gift?
Actually, I'm an american and I found that to be very strange. Not the fact that teh guns were given as a gift, but that it was from a bank, of all places. Banks are the one place people usually don't want guns around. Yet this bank is handing them out. It seemed very ironic to say the least.
i dont know, banks used to give out toasters and shit, a gun seems to be more fun atleast.
It's not like it is every bank, it is one bank in the world, in a small town that has a strange fatuation for guns with a police station located across the street. If you had the oppertunity to get a free shotgun for opening a bank account, you mean to tell me you wouldnt jump on that chance
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
I saw this today. At the risk of getting reamed by a number of people I know of on KMC who hate Michael Moore, I really enjoyed it.
Now, everybody knows that Michael Moore's films are more than a little biased, but I don't see what the big problem with that is. Everybody who has a political agenda does what Moore does.
Anyways... It was well made, for the most part. At some points it was a little over the top, like when
Spoiler:It had its funny moments as well. Overall I'd give it 8/10.
the lady went to the White House and was crying about her son who had died in Iraq. I wouldn't have minded the scene other than the fact that it went on a little too long... There came a time when I thought to myself, "alright, I get the point, now let's move on."