« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic:  (Read 3201 times)

Offline -MAD- SARGE

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3279
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« on: May 07, 2004, 10:45:03 AM »
No, I havent heard anything about it.  But Im not suprised that it would be him doing it.  He's in it for shock value and publicity.  That's what he did with his other movie and everything that came out of his mouth from then on was garbage, just what ever came to the top of his head that would get people all worked up.  I really dont care for the guy.  

At first I thought that he was doing a well thought out and objective film about Columbine.  But it was full of opinions and twisted to show what he wanted shown.  Anyone who does this and calls it a "docutmentery" should lose all respect in the filming industry.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by -MAD- SARGE »
Logged


Don't be an Escalefter.

Offline Giland

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2004, 12:19:27 PM »
Disney (owners of Miramax) have told him flat out they will not publish the movie. Since they own it, that means it won't be shown anywhere. He is crying a fit because "the man" is trying to keep him down.
I don't like him, not even a little bit. If he was dying of thirst, I wouldn't spare the moisture to spit on him.

Bowling for Columbine a documentry? Wouldn't that require there to be some actual facts in it?
Here is a good read about all the stuff he (Moore) did in that movie to mislead, and outright lie to poeple concerning the NRA and Charlton Heston.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Giland »
Logged
________________________________
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.

Offline Legs

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2004, 01:03:23 PM »
Actually, it only means that Miramax, a Disney company, won't be distributing the film.  It will be shown and is being debuted at the Cannes festival this summer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Legs »
Logged
Molon labe
\"Zippo first.\"

Offline Greg

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2004, 01:27:36 PM »
I don't care if he has a different way of looking at things, but I can't stand the way that he blantantly lies through his "documentaries" and so many people believe his BS.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Greg »
Logged
-Greg of Christian\'s Team

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2004, 03:21:37 PM »
bowling for columbine was great theater.  crappy documentary.  i agree completely that it was misleading, badly cut, ect.  after reading his books, bowling really pissed me off.  but i have heard that 911 is properly done.  i'm hoping so, because in all honesty, the links between the bushes and the house of saud and the bin laden family really need to be exposed and made more public.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »
Logged

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2004, 03:23:13 PM »
greg, not defending the guy, but hes a hell of a lot more honest than limbaugh, hannity, and o'reilly, and look how many people buy THEIR bs...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »
Logged

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2004, 04:42:42 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />greg, not defending the guy, but hes a hell of a lot more honest than limbaugh, hannity, and o'reilly, and look how many people buy THEIR bs...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's classic!  Michael Moore more is more honest that Sean Hannity?!  BWAHAHAHA!  ROFL!

Yeah, suuuuuuuuure...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »
Logged

Offline thatoneguy92088

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant First Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2004, 04:54:37 PM »
I like o'rielly......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by thatoneguy92088 »
Logged

Offline Greg

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2004, 06:34:20 PM »
I like all three of those guys ;-)

You need to take ANY sort of political info with a grain of salt and decide for yourself, regardless of the source.

If you really examine Bowling, you will see constant bull ****... go read that article posted earlier.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Greg »
Logged
-Greg of Christian\'s Team

Offline TheCelticOne

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2004, 11:57:02 PM »
I doubt Moore is better than O'Reilly.  In fact, I'm gonna say "NO!".  I don't listen to Limbaugh or Hannity, so I can't argue that point.  Greg's got it right though with taking politics with a grain of salt; not saying O'Reilly's perfect, but at least he doesn't blatantly lie (or maybe he's better at lying than Moore, because I know he lies).  Here's a good Bowling for Columbine site: www.bowlingfortruth.com.  I've actually researched a lot of the stuff they claim, and it stands, with one or two minor discrepancies.

I actually only saw BFC last semester.  My oh-so-wonderfully liberal English 105 instructor decided that the entire class should watch it and do oral reports.  Needless to say, I was grating my knuckles with my teeth during most reports.  Ooh, this arrogant little economics-majoring Reagan-bashing know-it-all sissy boy who would sooner sell out his mother than actually lift a finger for a noble cause...Reagan was good!  God Bless America!...but I digress.  (needless to say, I don't like Moore).

Anyway, sorry for the tangent, and check out the site.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by TheCelticOne »
Logged
It is said that on the eve of battle, Dienekes was told that the Persian archers were so numerous that, when they fired their volleys, the mass of arrows blocked out the sun.  \"Good,\" Dienekes laughed, \"then we\'ll have our battle in the shade.\"

Offline TheCelticOne

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2004, 12:07:48 AM »
I actually just checked out the site I mentioned above for the first time in awhile, and I found this from Moore:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?"

What a patriot.  I'll let the quote speak for itself.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by TheCelticOne »
Logged
It is said that on the eve of battle, Dienekes was told that the Persian archers were so numerous that, when they fired their volleys, the mass of arrows blocked out the sun.  \"Good,\" Dienekes laughed, \"then we\'ll have our battle in the shade.\"

Offline leadmagnet

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2004, 11:16:36 PM »
Probably should put it this way; at this point it appears that their numbers will grow, nobody will win and a lot of people will die.  I don't see them as revolutionaries or minutemen, but I'm sure they see themselves that way.  For the most part, they seem to be malcontented individuals who consider us to be a occupying army.

Lead
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leadmagnet »
Logged

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2004, 02:46:24 PM »
arent we an occupying army?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »
Logged

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2004, 02:54:21 PM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »
Logged

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2004, 03:18:25 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />arent we an occupying army?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No, unless something recently developed; did we take down all the Iraqi falgs and put up the U.S. Flag in its place?   Did the June 30th transition/hand-over deadline go away?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »