I've been watching Bowling for Columbine for the first time and I feel some very valid points were made. It does give food for thought and confirms some of the "weaknesses" I feel our American culture suffers from. Whats the big deal? Why all the anger?
Bowling for Columbine...valid points
- Thread starter telewinz
- Start date
- Status
Lone_Gunman
Member
Crack?
or LSD?
or LSD?
:banghead: :banghead: 
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
The only halfway valid point Moore even comes close to making is the bit about how the media tend to blow things out of proportion and engage in needless fearmongering.
No duh.
Why the anger?
Maybe because every person he interviews who is pro-gun is either a backwoods hilljack, or a moronic quasi-terrorist.
Maybe because he insinuates that the KKK and the NRA are pretty much the same thing.
Maybe because the bit where he talks about the 'gun death' stats for different countries are either
A) Not taken from similar sources (ie his US death stat includes murders, suicides and negligent discharges, but other countries were just straight up murders.)
or
B) Wholly made up.
Maybe because he completely staged the exchange in the bank.
Maybe because he claims to be a competitive shooter, and an "Expert marksman" Well, which is it, Mr. Moore? Are you an Expert, or a Marksman. Surely he realizes that he can't hold two classifications.
Maybe because he claims that the reason white people own guns is out of fear of being victimized by African-Americans.
Maybe because he engages in a downright meanspirited attack on an old man suffering from Alzheimer's Disease.
But most of all, because Moore is a sloppy film shooter, bad at lighting, a worse editor, and apparently doesn't know how to use color-correction tools. On top of all that, he's a scatter-brained storyteller. Go back and watch the movie again. I defy you to tell me that the narrative thread of the film is even close to coherent.
No duh.
Why the anger?
Maybe because every person he interviews who is pro-gun is either a backwoods hilljack, or a moronic quasi-terrorist.
Maybe because he insinuates that the KKK and the NRA are pretty much the same thing.
Maybe because the bit where he talks about the 'gun death' stats for different countries are either
A) Not taken from similar sources (ie his US death stat includes murders, suicides and negligent discharges, but other countries were just straight up murders.)
or
B) Wholly made up.
Maybe because he completely staged the exchange in the bank.
Maybe because he claims to be a competitive shooter, and an "Expert marksman" Well, which is it, Mr. Moore? Are you an Expert, or a Marksman. Surely he realizes that he can't hold two classifications.
Maybe because he claims that the reason white people own guns is out of fear of being victimized by African-Americans.
Maybe because he engages in a downright meanspirited attack on an old man suffering from Alzheimer's Disease.
But most of all, because Moore is a sloppy film shooter, bad at lighting, a worse editor, and apparently doesn't know how to use color-correction tools. On top of all that, he's a scatter-brained storyteller. Go back and watch the movie again. I defy you to tell me that the narrative thread of the film is even close to coherent.
He intentionally set out to convey lies in the movie. If he can make them seem true the unwashed masses will beleive it. He's what they call a toe tag liberal. Someone who is never concerned with real facts he just makes up his own as he see's fit to get people on his side. He's not concerned with the truth whatsoever.
I've read enough about that movie I think its a complete waste of time watching it.
I'll give you a few points. On national radio I've heard his movie challenged on numerous fronts but he won't come out in public and even admit wrong doing. He doesn't want to talk to anyone who will call him to the table regarding his lies.
He set Charlton Heston up and edited video to make him look bad.
He intentionally trys to make it appear that the NRA has ties with the KKK. Totally false. The NRA founders were Union officers who had fought on the anti-slavery side of the Civil War.
In fact during the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.
He made it seem as if after columbine the NRA had their event to spite the tragedy even though the NRA event was planned months in advance.
The lady who's kid was hurt that worked in one of Dick Clark's businesses was a terrible mother. She should have had the kid taken from her custody. The uncle she left the kid with was living in a drug house. What was he doing there?
Some little fact fat boy left out of the movie. Gee I wonder why? You think facts are relevant?
If you leave your kid in a crack house what do you think is going to happen? Never would you have thought that was the case, but don't expect this guy to be honest.
Its the evil conservative NRA and their guns!
He received a free rifle for opening up a new bank account. He made that scene in the movie appear as if you can actually walk into a bank and walk out with a new firearm. Why?
In all actuality the bank payed for the firearm he then would have to go to the Federally Licensed Firearms dealer and then recieve the firearm. That is the law. You have to fill out form 4473 and do the background check.
Something else fat boy left out. Well he really didn't leave it out.
He wanted to create some dramatic situation to show how guns are out of control.
I could go on and on about things that have been obvious and reported in the mainstream media so they are in fact true.
People before you listen to this fat boy I urge you to do some research.
Lying fat boy will never get a penny from me.
Did I mention that fat boy is a liar?
I've read enough about that movie I think its a complete waste of time watching it.
I'll give you a few points. On national radio I've heard his movie challenged on numerous fronts but he won't come out in public and even admit wrong doing. He doesn't want to talk to anyone who will call him to the table regarding his lies.
He set Charlton Heston up and edited video to make him look bad.
He intentionally trys to make it appear that the NRA has ties with the KKK. Totally false. The NRA founders were Union officers who had fought on the anti-slavery side of the Civil War.
In fact during the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.
He made it seem as if after columbine the NRA had their event to spite the tragedy even though the NRA event was planned months in advance.
The lady who's kid was hurt that worked in one of Dick Clark's businesses was a terrible mother. She should have had the kid taken from her custody. The uncle she left the kid with was living in a drug house. What was he doing there?
Some little fact fat boy left out of the movie. Gee I wonder why? You think facts are relevant?
If you leave your kid in a crack house what do you think is going to happen? Never would you have thought that was the case, but don't expect this guy to be honest.
Its the evil conservative NRA and their guns!
He received a free rifle for opening up a new bank account. He made that scene in the movie appear as if you can actually walk into a bank and walk out with a new firearm. Why?
In all actuality the bank payed for the firearm he then would have to go to the Federally Licensed Firearms dealer and then recieve the firearm. That is the law. You have to fill out form 4473 and do the background check.
Something else fat boy left out. Well he really didn't leave it out.
He wanted to create some dramatic situation to show how guns are out of control.
I could go on and on about things that have been obvious and reported in the mainstream media so they are in fact true.
People before you listen to this fat boy I urge you to do some research.
Lying fat boy will never get a penny from me.
Did I mention that fat boy is a liar?
GigaBuist
Member
I haven't seen it. I pretty much refuse to.
His valid points, from what I gather:
a) Americans really like guns in general.
b) Americans do have a "high" rate of gun deaths.
The two aren't related at all. Our rate of crime is in no way higher because I own and responsibly use a collection of firearms. He tries to make it seem like the evil white man with a collection of firearms some how accounts for firearms violence in our society.
Point A does not cause point B, and there is nothing wrong with point A.
His valid points, from what I gather:
a) Americans really like guns in general.
b) Americans do have a "high" rate of gun deaths.
The two aren't related at all. Our rate of crime is in no way higher because I own and responsibly use a collection of firearms. He tries to make it seem like the evil white man with a collection of firearms some how accounts for firearms violence in our society.
Point A does not cause point B, and there is nothing wrong with point A.
Mulliga
Member
I've seen it.
Quite frankly, Mikey Moore's "documentary" is really, really lame.
The Hardy law site basically describes it all.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Quite frankly, Mikey Moore's "documentary" is really, really lame.
The Hardy law site basically describes it all.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
jfh
Member.
here's comments from one person
who did see the movie, and who presents an essay as to why he thinks its so bad...
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
If you do a google, you'll have no trouble finding many more critiques--some analyzing it for its deceptive presentation, others for its factual errors, and still others for its merits as a documentary.
The bottom line is--and I'm speaking as one who has training in 'literary criticim'--is that the movie is deliberately deceptive in its presentation and in fact has no merits as a documentary. It should be judged only as a work of fiction. It presents a POV that is seriously at odds with the values of nearly all gunowners I have ever known, and as such it is really no more than a propaganda work in the culture wars.
who did see the movie, and who presents an essay as to why he thinks its so bad...
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
If you do a google, you'll have no trouble finding many more critiques--some analyzing it for its deceptive presentation, others for its factual errors, and still others for its merits as a documentary.
The bottom line is--and I'm speaking as one who has training in 'literary criticim'--is that the movie is deliberately deceptive in its presentation and in fact has no merits as a documentary. It should be judged only as a work of fiction. It presents a POV that is seriously at odds with the values of nearly all gunowners I have ever known, and as such it is really no more than a propaganda work in the culture wars.
If you haven't seen it and aren't familiar with the problems in the movie, it's not a good idea to critique it as it simply makes you look like an idiot.
This for example, is not at all true. If it were, the number he reported would have been about 30,000 rather than 10,000. The issue with his murder numbers is that he used CDC numbers which are less accurate than FBI numbers.
That being said, the Hardy Law link Mulliga posted is probably the best point-by-point description I've seen of the problems in the movie. As someone else mentioned, his most valid critique is the media problem problem because just about everything else in his movie is dishonestly portrayed.
This for example, is not at all true. If it were, the number he reported would have been about 30,000 rather than 10,000. The issue with his murder numbers is that he used CDC numbers which are less accurate than FBI numbers.
That being said, the Hardy Law link Mulliga posted is probably the best point-by-point description I've seen of the problems in the movie. As someone else mentioned, his most valid critique is the media problem problem because just about everything else in his movie is dishonestly portrayed.
longeyes
member
Anger because...
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is propaganda pretending to be a documentary. Moore is an egomaniacal grandstander who will scourge our Constitution for his own gain, and that is dishonorable and detestable. A documentarist, above all, must be honest; he is not. Moore has learned how to milk the gullible, gun-grabbing liberal mind and get rich in the process.
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is propaganda pretending to be a documentary. Moore is an egomaniacal grandstander who will scourge our Constitution for his own gain, and that is dishonorable and detestable. A documentarist, above all, must be honest; he is not. Moore has learned how to milk the gullible, gun-grabbing liberal mind and get rich in the process.
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
angry cause when i told a neighbor that i was going to a gun show
he asked if they had KKK robes for sale
where did he get that meme?
from Mikey
He hates everything
he asked if they had KKK robes for sale
where did he get that meme?
from Mikey
He hates everything
Jeff Thomas
Member
telewinz, perhaps this discussion would be more productive if you would please cite the perceived valid points, and we can examine them ...
Regards from TX
Regards from TX
Michigander
Member
I am a firm believer that nothing in the Universe is impossible. All things are possible.
^^^^^ EXCEPT THAT ^^^^^^
^^^^^ EXCEPT THAT ^^^^^^
jnojr
Member
I refuse to watch that America-hating morons drivel as well.
If the US is as awful a place as he thinks, why doesn't he leave?
If the US is as awful a place as he thinks, why doesn't he leave?
HBK
member
Because it is supposed to be a documentary, but it is chock full of lies. It is not even close to the truth and Moore knows this, did it on purpose.
dustind
Member
You guys have only covered half of what is wrong with the movie. Also look at www.bowlingfortruth.com
Had a discussion with a friend about this very subject not too long ago.
He implies that if K-Mart (and, by implication, other major distributors) didn't sell pistol ammunition and ammo for "assault weapons", things would be better.
He implies that if whitey would just trust everyone enough to leave their doors unlocked, things would be better.
He implies that if COPS chased down white people instead of (not as well as) black people, things would be better. Apparently, he's never seen an episode of COPS where white people were arrested, which leads me to think that he's probably never actually watched the show.
He implies that if Lockheed-Martin would stop producing evil kill-death weapons, things would be better.
He implies that if people didn't have to work to get welfare, things would be better.
He suggests that racism is bad (I agree) but goes on to implicate the NRA (and indeed most white people in general) of being affiliated with the KKK or just racist (I disagree).
He suggests that school shootings are bad (I agree) but goes on to imply that K-Mart shares the guilt in how one of their products is eventually used (I disagree).
I don't know, Telewinz ... how about you regale us with the positive aspects of the film as you saw it.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Geech- Thanks for the correction. I typed all of that off the top of my head, based on when I viewed the movie early last year and got kind of swept up in the whole debate then.
gunsmith
member
even the rad libs on craigslist know he is lying
Tele,does Leni Reifensthal have "valid points" in her so called documentary "Triumph of the Will"?
Moore probably loves her work,he imitates it real well.
Tele,does Leni Reifensthal have "valid points" in her so called documentary "Triumph of the Will"?
Moore probably loves her work,he imitates it real well.
WonderNine
member
What exactly did you feel were his valid points?
He made several valid points.
...American burglars should head north, because everyone in Canada leaves their doors unlocked.
...Canada has free healthcare (though he cleverly omitted the fact that except for readily treatable conditions, it's rather horrible and has extreme wait times).
...Canada has plenty of guns, and yet they don't seem to have much of a gun violence problem.
...People who don't like school are not necessarily going to be failures.
...L.A. has too much smog.
...If you're going to make a film about the stupidity of the media and dumb Americans, the film and its director shouldn't be a case study.
...American burglars should head north, because everyone in Canada leaves their doors unlocked.
...Canada has free healthcare (though he cleverly omitted the fact that except for readily treatable conditions, it's rather horrible and has extreme wait times).
...Canada has plenty of guns, and yet they don't seem to have much of a gun violence problem.
...People who don't like school are not necessarily going to be failures.
...L.A. has too much smog.
...If you're going to make a film about the stupidity of the media and dumb Americans, the film and its director shouldn't be a case study.
clubsoda22
member
I find throughout the movie he constantly disproved his theories about guns, then caves into his biases.
There were some good points about where the real problems come from. In the flint, MI part of the movie, he goes into "how could this 6 year old boy shoot a 6 year old girl." He goes into the crappy conditions he lived in and why he was essentially parentless, then he somehow blames guns despite the fact that he just conclusively proves it wasn't guns and harasses charleton heston.
The part in canada, he shows canadians have guns too (at the time they did, at least). He shows that they have lots of gun and very little crime. He goes to conclusively prove that guns don't cause crime because canadians have them and don't have gun crime problems lie we do in the states and proves it has more to do with culture than guns...then goes right back to blaming guns for america's crime problems.
In the very premise he basically shows that guns have as much to do with school shootings as bowling does, and he shows repetedly how hard not just anyone can get a gun, (the bank scene was actually quite revealing. He had the dissapointed look on his face when he realized he'd have to go through a background check and recieve the gun through a licenced dealer) but then follows it up with a stupid stunt like getting k-mart to ban pistol ammo by exploiting a crippled kid.
Frankly, i think he has a psychological disorder.
There were some good points about where the real problems come from. In the flint, MI part of the movie, he goes into "how could this 6 year old boy shoot a 6 year old girl." He goes into the crappy conditions he lived in and why he was essentially parentless, then he somehow blames guns despite the fact that he just conclusively proves it wasn't guns and harasses charleton heston.
The part in canada, he shows canadians have guns too (at the time they did, at least). He shows that they have lots of gun and very little crime. He goes to conclusively prove that guns don't cause crime because canadians have them and don't have gun crime problems lie we do in the states and proves it has more to do with culture than guns...then goes right back to blaming guns for america's crime problems.
In the very premise he basically shows that guns have as much to do with school shootings as bowling does, and he shows repetedly how hard not just anyone can get a gun, (the bank scene was actually quite revealing. He had the dissapointed look on his face when he realized he'd have to go through a background check and recieve the gun through a licenced dealer) but then follows it up with a stupid stunt like getting k-mart to ban pistol ammo by exploiting a crippled kid.
Frankly, i think he has a psychological disorder.
I think some of you hate the film because you hate the film and Moore and have worked yourselves into a stew about it.
Moore does make some good points. None of them relate to guns however. Your murder rate is high. Nothing necessarily to do with guns.
I wrote the following a while back but never finished it, probably won't now as I haven't got a copy of the film and haven't seen it for months.
---------------
Bowling for Columbine - provisional title
Michael Moore's film, winner of the Academy Award for Best Documentary, is a touchy subject with some Americans. Moore, a Lifetime Member of the National Rifle Association, made a film perceived as 'anti-gun'. The film is the subject of many websites, some aimed at getting Moore stripped of his Oscar, some at highlighting errors and omissions, others just at attacking Moore as a fat, pompous, liberal windbag. Moore himself has replied to many of these criticisms on his own website, for some of these criticisms need answering.
A website devoted to the subject of this film can be found at http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html. David T Hardy's website is a fascinating and indepth analysis of the film, it concentrates a good deal on the techniques and tricks used to divert and hold the viewers attention and emotions. For example, after talking about the Columbine massacre and the visit of the NRA to Denver soon after, there is a clip of Charlton Heston, President of the NRA holding a musket aloft and declaring; 'I have five words for you: from my cold, dead hands'. In his website Hardy points out several interesting things in relation to this NRA conference and this clip. Firstly, the conference had been booked much in advance and all that could be cancelled under law had been. Under American coporate law an organisation has to give its membership 10 days notice of a cancellation or a switch of venue, the Columbine massacre happened 11 days before the conference was due to begin. The NRA has four million odd members. Secondly the clip of Heston uttering those seemingly incredibly insenitive words is actually taken not from that conference, but from a conference eight months later. As a critique of the film making process this is fascinating to those of us who want to know, but that is what it is - a critique of the film making process. Moore employs nothing new, this is not the Matrix of the documentary genre, using cunning special effects and cut and paste techniques never seen before on the inherently truthful media of celluloid. Read Hardy's website for further criticisms and alleged fakery with regard to the bank scene at the beginning, the interview with Heston and the ammunition purchase in Canada.
These criticisms go on and on, especially referring to the animated middle section and its apparent attempts to link the NRA to the Klu Klux Klan. This is a sore point with the pro-gun lobby. I arrived on a discussion forum a while back and read some criticisms of this. The counter argument runs that lots of gun control is inherently racist, as the film itself discusses when it talks about disarming the black populace of America. The other line of disagreement, as stated by Hardy, discusses examples of the NRA supporting racially oppressed groups. Ulysses S. Grant whilst President of the United States was responsible for the Klan Act, legislation through which the Klan were dealt a severe blow. After his term in the Oval Office Grant was made President of the NRA. In the 1950's and 60's the NRA supported black organised NRA chapters, arming them so they could defend themselves. It is true that some white racists regard the NRA as one of their own, this view is apparently not shared by the NRA. It is unclear what Heston is talking about in the end interview when discussing America's 'ethnicity' some have accused him of racism, others assert that Heston is not referring to 'racial violence' or racial predilection to crime, but 'racist violence'. Heston was at the head of the 'arts contingent' at the 1963 civil rights 'March on Washington'.
Critics should also point out, and some do, that this is not one film. It has at least two clearly definable premises that are cut and inter-weaved to make one mazy, incoherent film. Moore discusses Columbine and Flint, he talks to Marilyn Manson, the brother of Timothy McVeigh's accomplice and pulls the stunt with K-mart and the Columbine victims in one film. In the other he interviews Heston, talks about Canada and interviews some militia men. The distinctions as to where one premise ends and another takes over are not easy to make, film makers do not shoot films necessarily in the order that they end up on your local screen. Some identify the changeover moment as near the beginning where an obviously stunned Moore is talking about the September 11th 2001 attacks, he questions what he is doing by making a film about violence with guns when an incredibly violent attack has just occurred where the only clearly identifiable weapons were box-cutters. In the chronology of the Bowling for Columbine filming this event actually occurs near the end of filming, and some have argued caused a significant change in the whole film, especially the last twenty minutes or so. One film is clearly about the proliferation of guns and the violence perpetrated with those guns, especially in the hands of America's disaffected youth and its poor children. The other film is about the culture of fear in the United States, with an emphasis on the role of the media.
This second theme is the newer, and more valid one. Moore asks of Heston: "...why is it that they [Canadians] have all these guns laying around yet they don't kill each other at the level that we kill each other."
------------------
I've probably not covered the valid points relating to this thread in that. I do feel however that for some of you you read 'Michael Moore' and your easy stock answer is 'fat liar'. This doesn't engage the crucial points and does nothing to further your argument.
Moore does make some good points. None of them relate to guns however. Your murder rate is high. Nothing necessarily to do with guns.
I wrote the following a while back but never finished it, probably won't now as I haven't got a copy of the film and haven't seen it for months.
---------------
Bowling for Columbine - provisional title
Michael Moore's film, winner of the Academy Award for Best Documentary, is a touchy subject with some Americans. Moore, a Lifetime Member of the National Rifle Association, made a film perceived as 'anti-gun'. The film is the subject of many websites, some aimed at getting Moore stripped of his Oscar, some at highlighting errors and omissions, others just at attacking Moore as a fat, pompous, liberal windbag. Moore himself has replied to many of these criticisms on his own website, for some of these criticisms need answering.
A website devoted to the subject of this film can be found at http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html. David T Hardy's website is a fascinating and indepth analysis of the film, it concentrates a good deal on the techniques and tricks used to divert and hold the viewers attention and emotions. For example, after talking about the Columbine massacre and the visit of the NRA to Denver soon after, there is a clip of Charlton Heston, President of the NRA holding a musket aloft and declaring; 'I have five words for you: from my cold, dead hands'. In his website Hardy points out several interesting things in relation to this NRA conference and this clip. Firstly, the conference had been booked much in advance and all that could be cancelled under law had been. Under American coporate law an organisation has to give its membership 10 days notice of a cancellation or a switch of venue, the Columbine massacre happened 11 days before the conference was due to begin. The NRA has four million odd members. Secondly the clip of Heston uttering those seemingly incredibly insenitive words is actually taken not from that conference, but from a conference eight months later. As a critique of the film making process this is fascinating to those of us who want to know, but that is what it is - a critique of the film making process. Moore employs nothing new, this is not the Matrix of the documentary genre, using cunning special effects and cut and paste techniques never seen before on the inherently truthful media of celluloid. Read Hardy's website for further criticisms and alleged fakery with regard to the bank scene at the beginning, the interview with Heston and the ammunition purchase in Canada.
These criticisms go on and on, especially referring to the animated middle section and its apparent attempts to link the NRA to the Klu Klux Klan. This is a sore point with the pro-gun lobby. I arrived on a discussion forum a while back and read some criticisms of this. The counter argument runs that lots of gun control is inherently racist, as the film itself discusses when it talks about disarming the black populace of America. The other line of disagreement, as stated by Hardy, discusses examples of the NRA supporting racially oppressed groups. Ulysses S. Grant whilst President of the United States was responsible for the Klan Act, legislation through which the Klan were dealt a severe blow. After his term in the Oval Office Grant was made President of the NRA. In the 1950's and 60's the NRA supported black organised NRA chapters, arming them so they could defend themselves. It is true that some white racists regard the NRA as one of their own, this view is apparently not shared by the NRA. It is unclear what Heston is talking about in the end interview when discussing America's 'ethnicity' some have accused him of racism, others assert that Heston is not referring to 'racial violence' or racial predilection to crime, but 'racist violence'. Heston was at the head of the 'arts contingent' at the 1963 civil rights 'March on Washington'.
Critics should also point out, and some do, that this is not one film. It has at least two clearly definable premises that are cut and inter-weaved to make one mazy, incoherent film. Moore discusses Columbine and Flint, he talks to Marilyn Manson, the brother of Timothy McVeigh's accomplice and pulls the stunt with K-mart and the Columbine victims in one film. In the other he interviews Heston, talks about Canada and interviews some militia men. The distinctions as to where one premise ends and another takes over are not easy to make, film makers do not shoot films necessarily in the order that they end up on your local screen. Some identify the changeover moment as near the beginning where an obviously stunned Moore is talking about the September 11th 2001 attacks, he questions what he is doing by making a film about violence with guns when an incredibly violent attack has just occurred where the only clearly identifiable weapons were box-cutters. In the chronology of the Bowling for Columbine filming this event actually occurs near the end of filming, and some have argued caused a significant change in the whole film, especially the last twenty minutes or so. One film is clearly about the proliferation of guns and the violence perpetrated with those guns, especially in the hands of America's disaffected youth and its poor children. The other film is about the culture of fear in the United States, with an emphasis on the role of the media.
This second theme is the newer, and more valid one. Moore asks of Heston: "...why is it that they [Canadians] have all these guns laying around yet they don't kill each other at the level that we kill each other."
------------------
I've probably not covered the valid points relating to this thread in that. I do feel however that for some of you you read 'Michael Moore' and your easy stock answer is 'fat liar'. This doesn't engage the crucial points and does nothing to further your argument.
Last edited:
RED-DOG 40
Member
.quote:
"Frankly, i think he has a psychological disorder."
.
Look at definition of "psychological disorder"and you will see,MICHAEL MOORE.
....
....
"Frankly, i think he has a psychological disorder."
.
Look at definition of "psychological disorder"and you will see,MICHAEL MOORE.
.... ....- Status