book on Moore...

[buggs]

Uh. I just want to make everyone aware that there is a book available called "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" By David T. Hardy & Jason Clarke. You can by the book from it's publishers, Harper Collins, here:

http://www.harpercollins.com/catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060763957

Here is a posting of it on MSNBC:

http://www.moorelies.com/book/about/ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5288517

Here is an article that details a few things listed in the book. This link may or may not be a reputable news agency, and only gives description and commentary on the book:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/23/165945.shtml

It does contain a quote from the publisher of the book given to NewsMax regarding the quarel between Moore and Regan Books. If you are trying to make a fair judgement, I would recomend you get the book and hear from both sides. If Micheal Moore can make documentaires on other people, then it is only fair that the light of truth be brought out into the open on him.

[august spies]

in searching that cite for 20min i found not one michael moore lie.

[buggs]

What do you mean you didn't find any lies:

Meet the Flint-drone: Everybody knows Moore is a blue-collar guy from Flint, Mich., right? That's how he always sells himself.

In reality, he was born and raised in the wealthy, lily-white town of Davison, Mich.

or

film claims that Heston exploited a school shooting in Mount Morris, Mich., by staging another "big pro-gun rally" in October 2002.

In reality, Heston’s appearance came eight months after the shooting, at a get-out-the-vote event in nearby Flint.

or

The movie depicts Charlton Heston as making his famous "cold, dead hands speech" in Denver.

In reality, the remarks came a year later in Charlotte, N.C., and Moore spliced bits of footage from that and another speech for maximum distortion.

Moore claims President Bush invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban so he could get an oil pipeline built. You've probably heard others parrot this allegation. A master of propaganda knows that if you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it.


In reality, Bush had supported Enron's plan to run pipes under the Caspian Sea and avoid Afghanistan. "Clinton was the one backing the rival Unocal plan to put them through Afghanistan," Hardy and Clarke observe.

You watch a Bush-Quayle campaign ad, but in reality it was an ad Moore himself assembled.

[buggs]

Here is an article in Forbes Magazine By Daniel Lyons that shows a few of the lies in Bowling for Columbine (You have to pay $2.95 to read the article):

http://www.forbes.com/premium/archives/purchase.jhtml?storyURL=/forbes/2002/1209/059.html&_requestid=20469

Moore's "film implies Harris and Klebold had violent tendencies because of 'weapons of mass destruction' produced by a Lockheed Martin assembly plant in their hometown of Littleton. 'Bowling' actually features footage of giant rocket assembly to make the point. But, according to Daniel Lyons in Forbes magazine, (The article above) Lockheed Martin's Littleton plant makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites, not weapons."

Also, Moore's continued repetition of the lie that the U.S. gave millions of dollars in aid ($43 million last year and $245 million in total) to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. But here is the real deal on that:

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/U.S._Increases_Aid_to_Relieve_Afghan_Crisis.html

Here is another lie portrayed in the film:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "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;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say 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 here is the fact of what really happened:

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. And, at Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting as Reported by the Rocky Mountain News:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0422nra3.shtml

He has even rewritten Charlton Hestons speach at the Denver Event in the film from what Charlton actually said. Here is what the film is edited to say that Charlton said at that meeting in Denver:

Weeping children outside Columbine, explaining how near they had come to death and how their friends had just been murdered before their eyes;

Cut to Charleton Heston holding a musket over his head and happily proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'" to a cheering NRA crowd.

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore in voiceover intones: "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charleton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association."

Heston (supposedly) continues speech...

"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." [Footage of protest outside] "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. [picture of Webb, then back to Heston] 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. [cut to crowd cheering, then back to Heston] Don't come here? We're already here."


Here is a transcript of the actual Speech Charlton Gives:

Transcript of Actual Speach (http://www.freedaily.com/articles/990504n1.html)

The quote "Cold dead hands" is nowhere in the speech. It is actually from a speech given by Heston in Charlotte, N.C., a year later.

Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint after a school shooting of Kayla Rolland to have a big pro-gun rally." But the fact is that the Rolland shooting happened on Feb 29, 2000(See CNN story on it (http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/29/school.shooting.04/)), and the Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint on October 17th 2000, some 8 months after the shooting. (As Detroit Free press shows about the "Get out the vote" rally event (http://www.freep.com/news/politics/zero18_20001018.htm))


And now, as refferenced in an article by Debbie Schlussel (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/columns/column032303.shtml)(who is a frequent guest on many shows including ABC’s "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" and FOX News Channel’s "O’Reilly Factor," "Hannity & Colmes," "FOX News Live,", and others) has found out about what really went on with that infamous bank scene (from info from the Forbe's Lyon's investigation):

And Moore's anti-gun fervor also trumps the facts. He stages an event at North Country Bank and Trust in Michigan's Traverse City, claiming that opening an account would entitle one to walk out of the bank with a gun in hand. The film shows him doing just that. But the key word is "staged." In reality, the bank does not provide guns for opening accounts, and you can't walk in or out of the bank with one—unless you're a security guard employed by the bank. The gun is one of several "giveaways" that can be chosen by customers in exchange for opening a CD account. In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then [B]must pass a background check for the gun, which can only be picked up at a licensed gun dealer.

In the film. Moore also has a stupid animated sequence equating the Klu Klux Klan with the National Riffle Association, and the narrarator of the animated sequence suggests that the NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.

Here are the FACTS:

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA), group founded (1871) to promote shooting, hunting, firearm safety, and wildlife conservation.

The KKK was founded in 1867, 4 years earlier. (See here at a KKK page (http://www.kukluxklan.bz/))

President Ulysess S. Grant signed the Second Enforcement Act "The Ku Klux Klan Act" on April 20, 1871
(See here (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_enforce.html)). This act protected black suffrage and targeted the activities of such violent groups as the Ku Klux Klan.

On October 12, 1871, President Grant issues proclamation ordering the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina to disperse and surrender arms. (Again, see here (http://www.grantstomb.org/exhcivil.html))

After Grant left the White house, the NRA elected him their 8th President. (See here (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=2479)) This page also states that the the NRA's 9th President Gen. Philip H. Sheridan "would assume command of the Fifth Military District, and he would then remove governors in Texas and Louisiana for failing to oppose the KKK."

Now why would the NRA vote as their president, if they are made up of ex-KKK as Moore suggests in the film, a guy who enacted an Act and a Proclamation (The Klan Enforcemtnt Act and Oct 12, 1871 Proclamation-see above) that protected blacks' right to vote, hold office, serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws."? (Again, see here (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_enforce.html)) Why would they vote as their 9th President a guy who would remove Governors in two States for failing to oppose the KKK? Also, if it is ex-KKK, why then during the 50's and 60's do groups of African American's organize as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen? (See here (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=2960))

Now this is just me saying this, but it appears to me that Moore just doesn't like this part of the U.S. Constitution:

"Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Because of these lies (there are more things, I just got tired of doing research), the Academy needs to take away Moore's Award because the Academy Rules (http://www.academyawards.20m.com/rules.htm) for a Documentary film clearly state:

RULE TWELVE
SPECIAL RULES FOR THE DOCUMENTARY AWARDS

Definition

An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

But I am not going to expect much from a body that honors a Nazi: (Again, from the website of Debbie Schlussel, who is a frequent guest on many shows including ABC’s "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" and FOX News Channel’s "O’Reilly Factor," "Hannity & Colmes," "FOX News Live,", and others)
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/columns/column030104.shtml



Shall I continue?

[MikeMike]

For the record, there is a film comming out about Michael Moore:

www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

[buggs]

This is the one where the San Diego Police showed up. Here is Micheal's account of what happened that night in a letter on a website titles Scoop:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00073.htm

However, here is the account from another person who was there. He is a fan of Moore. He is in pictures on the page at the event with Moore next to him. Go to this page and read his account of what happened:

http://kynn.com/politics/moore/

[Jimblast]

...that the loony left hates this administration so much that they blindly flock behind even someone this dishonest who is merely an opportunist and does his best to hurt the moral of our brave heroes overseas. He certainly is larger than life! LOL! He also lied when he called this a documentary and stood behind the movie as fact, then when called on it he backed down like the coward he is and called it a fictional film. Here's a guy that even the far left knows is a liar, but they cling to him as if he's a diety. Isn't it great to see that they cannot prove one lie against Bush because he hasn't lied at all....but as hipocrites they rally behind what even the centralist left calls a a complete liar who constantly distorts facts to line his pocketbook. One individual even posted that he didn't read ONE lie in that article! See, that's how whacky the loony left has become. Thank God for them because Kerry is in a quandry. He has to distance himself from these lunatics yet try to appease them. It's really fun to watch! When Gen. Clark didn't denounce Michael Moore it cost him the election. What is even more hilarious is the loony left message: 'It's okay to lie and make up things about the administration as long as you hate them'. Isn't that pitiful! I'm just laughing my butt off watching all this. These people are making total fools of themselves! IT'S GREAT!! :devil:

[august spies]

sorry the only thing that might possibly be cosidered a lie is that michael moore never lived in flint. and i really dont care enough about that to research it.

you dont seem to know the difference between an opinion and a fact.

[Jimblast]

I find it fascinating that some who post in here from the extreme left now announce that they don't want to do any research on whether or not Michael Moore was lying. Again, blind following of their leader which is what they accuse the 'right' of. It's pretty pitiful if you hang your hat on what the likes of Michael Moore puts in his pack of lies they call a movie. Even the central left says he's lying. Trying to defend Michael Moore is a losing battle. Time for the loony left to pick a more believable leader.

[august spies]

jim i dont care if michael more grew up in hawaii, he is not my "leader" and i dont even agree with his politics.

the point is the hitleresque right and their attack on his movie is pathetic. the fact that its so strong shows just how afraid they are about the real points it makes.

not one person has been able to prove any of it lies.

here is an example of a right wing attack on the film (a true one)

moores message is that bushs connection with the bin ladens and the saudi royals shows his interests may be different than what our interests as avarage americans are.

(the right wing) ahhh thats a lie bush loves the average american..

see what you people dont understand is that above message is moores opinion. thats not a lie.

however the documents, facts, and statistics he uses in the movie to back up that opinion, if they were to be false, that is where your so called lie would come into play. however no one has been able to challenge them.

[venray]

Then please post the links backing up your statement Buggs. Or your statement is no more than your opinion.

Get it together guys. Facts are easy to verify. Do so before posting and provide your sources.


Ray

[Mitchell]

Why in fact is the left "loony"? Is this just because they dont agree with George W Bush? The liberal Democrats who are against Bush and this war have just as much of a right to express their views as the right wing who supports Mr Bush. This is a two party system, with differing views. While we may not agree with the other side, they have just as much of a right to be heard as Bush. This is not a monarchy or a one party system of government in the United States of America.

Mitch

[MrMacphisto]

The problem with Moore is that he's too anti-guns... The anti-gun attitude of many liberals is what alienates many moderates. If Moore would just drop his anti-gun agenda and focus more on the cold hard facts about Bush, he'd be far more effective in pointing out Bush's faults. As a conservative friend of mine put it, "Moore shouldn't have to create a conspiracy theory to flame Bush; Bush has already made enough policy mistakes that the facts alone should get the message across." That's why I liked the first few segments of 9/11 the most. He showed the important facts of the corrupt 2000 election, the James Bath connection, and the Saudi Arabia connection, which were enough material alone to show just how corrupt Bush really is. The problem is that he spent about the last half of the movie on the misery of this one woman's loss. The emotional side of the movie might have made for excellent drama and entertaining viewing, but it began to lose its documentary qualities at that point. He admittedly twisted some facts concerning the UNOCAL situation, but Bush's Bin Laden connection is well documented. I just wish Moore would focus more on the facts....

[venray]

A little more on Moore.....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/23/165945.shtml

[venray]

Seeing as no one as of yet has responded to the above link...let me respond myself.

It is yet another example of the biased positions that we can find anywhere on the net to back up any claim.

In obtaining info to back up our position we need to be careful what we deem reliable...and not just take the first thing that backs up a point of view.

Just thought an actual example would illustrate the point better than talking about it over and over.

If we wish to present "facts" let us first make sure that they are facts.


Ray :D

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by buggs
Uh. I just want to make everyone aware that there is a book available called "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" By David T. Hardy & Jason Clarke.

Just started reading it.

[buggs]

Cool!

[buggs]

How's the read going?

[MikeMike]

Hello there Buggs, was in DC then Chicago for a few days, now just catching up on it, you can count on a very thorough review.

[New2u]

Buggs, your anti-moore hyperlinks you provided show that all of the anti-moore publications and sites are supported by conservative pro-bush Republicans. These sites are so heavily one-sided it's enough to lay an aircraft carrier on its side. No doubt, you and your Bush loving buddies will argue that the liberal side does the same, well then, I guess two wrongs will make one right (sorry about the pun). well, I'm a liberal democrat along with Moore who is just waiting for Bush to get his butt kicked in November.

[buggs]

Nah. Your a Democratic Liberal? Hard to tell. And I guess all the newspapers, CNN, usinfo.gov, the Rocky Mountain News, Detroit free Press, the government page for Ulysys S. Grant, and other links I provided are very right wing. Yeah, I see your point now. What was I thinking in including them? If you haven't guessed, I am being very sarcastic. The fact is that you just don't want to accept teh fact that I have proven that your boy Moore lied. There was another person who used to post here, and no matter how much evidence there was, and the fact that they were un-biased links, he would suddenly have a case of blindness and swear that he could not see anything. This is another problem I have with a lot of liberals. No matter how much proof you show them they refuse to admit that they, or another liberal, is wrong. Clinton got caught purguring himself and he still cries that he did nothing wrong. They never do anything wrong. Well I take that back. There is that New Jersey Governer that just resigned, and he admitted wrong. I was shocked when I saw that. Conservatives will at least admit that their boys are wrong when they are. Moore can't even admit that he is wrong after the finidngs in the 9/11 commision, which he quotes himself as proof for his wacked out beliefes, prove him wrong. And Moore has said many times that he will do whatever it takes to get Bush out of office. He has been saying this since day 1. Richard Clarke is a reliable source of information for him unless he is stating that Moore is wrong, then he is not creedible at all to Moore. I am not attacking you, I am just stating the mass phenomenon as I see it, and have seen it with most liberals. Most I have personally met can't be wrong, even when they are. But there are a few I have met, and a few of them are members on this site, who have been rational, but only a few. Even though our viewpoints may differ, they still will admit when their side has done a wrong thing. I don't agree with Bush on everything. I don't agree with him on the illigal alien/mexican thing. I don't agree with him on the overtime thing. I don't agree with him on the psychiatric drug thing. Amd I think that he needs to tell Powell's sone to leave my man Howard Stern alone. I also wish he had never went to the U.N. on the Iraq thing and just went in and did it as he had authorization from the article that Saddam signed after Gulf 1 to do. Then weapons wouldnt have been moved to Syria like i believe, based on the evidence I have seen, happened. I can admit those things, and if I ever had the chance to talk to him I would tell him that. I strongly sidagree with him on those things. But most things I do agree with him on.

[TicklishKev]

I find something incredibly funny about this. Walk into any Borders, and you'll see a shelving unit where they have copies of popular books. Usually on that shelf you'll find Moore's "Stupid White Men" making it's publisher lots of money by being one of the best selling non fiction books in history.

The publisher? Harper Collins. The same publisher that released a book calling the author of it's largest nonfiction cash crop a liar.

Moore and Harper had a little tiff about the release of "Stupid White Men." The book made history. Moore changed publishers to Warner, and wrote an even more popular book called "Dude, Where's My Country." Harper released a derogatory book on Moore, despite the fact that they still make more money from "Stupid White Men."

Even the authors of the dissing book depend on Moore's popularity in order to sell their own books. I might add that you'll find no "#1 bestseller" on the cover of that book either. It's only noticable on a shelf buried among hordes of anti-Bush books because it's bright green and it takes advantage of Moore's popular face by plastering it on the cover. If it were a book that dissed Jim Hightower or Gore Vidal it wouldn't sell at all because they're not widely known to the American public.

Bush once made a joking statement that if he were to only have a single term, then people whouldn't have anything to write about. In a way he was right. Just go to the current affairs section of any bookstore. The left wing books faaaaar outnumber the right wing books. The left ones usually pose questions (conservatives don't like questions) and their content show innovative ideas on how to improve for the future. All the right wing books do is accuse and insult, or feign patriotism through attack. They have ludicrously medieval titles like "Treason" or titles like "Dereliction of Duty" which goes so far into the realm of bullshit that it's laughable. And their content is more or less fascist. Anne Coulter makes statements that promote ethnic cleansing for god's sake. Didn't millions die to prevent this type of garbage in the 30's and 40's?

**
Kev

[gila67]

Originally posted by TicklishKev
Just go to the current affairs section of any bookstore. The left wing books faaaaar outnumber the right wing books. The left ones usually pose questions (conservatives don't like questions) and their content show innovative ideas on how to improve for the future.

Got some examples of these books with innovative ideas on how to improve for the future? And while you're at it, improve what exactly? There are so many areas that could be "improved for the future" that the phrase could be stretched to cover almost anything.

All the right wing books do is accuse and insult, or feign patriotism through attack.

This much is true, but will you say that none of the left-wing books do the same? Or that Moore's books are really more worthy than Hannity's? Personally, I have no use for the extremists of either side.

They have ludicrously medieval titles like "Treason" or titles like "Dereliction of Duty" which goes so far into the realm of bullshit that it's laughable.

So books are to be judged by their titles, then? ("ludicrously medieval"?) Well then, I take personal offense at a book called "Stupid White Men"; see how ridiculous it can get?

And their content is more or less fascist. Anne Coulter makes statements that promote ethnic cleansing for god's sake. Didn't millions die to prevent this type of garbage in the 30's and 40's?

Again, let's have some examples of this instead of opinion.

[venray]

Thanks gila67...I couldnt have answered that post any better.

TicklishKev
...got some titles for us from both sides so we can judge for ourselves what innovative ideas the left has. I dont even see the current Democratic frontrunners actually SHARING any ideas..they SAY they have them, but give no specifics....kinda like buying a grab bag.


Ray