MICHAEL MOORE CORRECTS WACKO RIGHT WING GUN NUTS

Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos...

How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about

"Bowling for Columbine"

by Michael Moore

One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public

eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about

you. For instance, I have read in quite respectable and trustworthy

publications that a) I'm a college graduate (I'm not), b) I was a

factory worker (I quit the first day), and c) I have two brothers (I

have none). Newsweek wrote that I live in a penthouse on Central Park

West (I live above a Baby Gap store, and not on any park), and the

Internet Movie Database once listed me as the director of the Elvis

movie, "Blue Hawaii" ( I was 6 at the time the film was made, but I

was quite skilled in directing my sisters in building me a snowman).

Lately, my favorite mistake is the one many reviewers made crediting

the cartoon in "Bowling for Columbine" as being the work of the "South

Park" creators. It isn't. I wrote it and my buddy Harold Moss's

animation studio drew it.

I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael

Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in

penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've

begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's

become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks

mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by

typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so

I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people

who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of

stuff that isn't true.

Of course, it would take a lot of my time to contact all these sites

and media outlets to correct their errors and I think it's more

important I spend my time on my next book or movie so I just let it

ride. But is that fair to you, the reader, who has now been told

something that isn't true?

With the unexpected and overwhelming success of "Bowling for

Columbine" and "Stupid White Men," the fiction that has been written

or spoken about me and my work has reached a whole new level of

storytelling. It's no longer about making some simple errors or

calling me "Roger" Moore. It is now about organized groups going full

blast trying to discredit me by knowingly making up lies and repeating

them over and over in the hopes that people will believe them - and,

then, stop listening to me.

Oh, that it would be so easy!

Fortunately, they are so wound up in their anger and hatred that they

have ended up discrediting themselves.

Look, I accept the fact that, if I go after the Thief-in-Chief - and

more people buy my book than any other nonfiction book last year -

then that is naturally going to send a few of his henchmen after me.

Fine. That's okay. I knew that before I got into this and I ain't

whining about it now.

I also realize that you just don't go after the NRA and its supporters

and then not expect them to come back at you with both barrels (so to

speak). These are not nice people and they don't play nice - that's

how they got to be so powerful.

So, a whole host of gun lobby groups and individual gun nuts have put

up websites where the smears on me range from the pre-adolescent (I'm

a "crapweasel," and a "fat fucking piece of shit") to Orwellian-style

venom ("Michael Moore hates America!").

I have mostly ignored this silliness. But a few weeks ago, this

lunatic crap hit the mainstream fan. CNN actually put some guy on a

show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the

other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a

"critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He

seemed mighty impressive.

Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a

contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has

made a career out of opposing any form of gun control-has a vested

interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a

horribly rotten movie.

So, what do you do when the nutcases succeed in getting on CNN? Do you

just keep ignoring them? How do you handle people who say the

Holocaust never happened or that monkeys fly? Ignore them and they'll

go away? If you give them any attention, all the nuts will come out of

the woodwork.

And that's what happened. I saw another one of these lunatics, this

time on MSNBC. A guy named John Lofton. He went on and on about how my

movie is all made up. The anchor on MSNBC never challenged him on his

lies and never told the viewers who he really was - a right wing crazy

who believes Bush is too liberal. He was once an advisor to Pat

Buchanan's Presidential campaign, and was a direct-mail writer for

Jesse Helms. Writing in opposition to Hate Crime bills in the

conservative Washington Times (where he was a columnist from '83 to

'89), Lofton explained:

Take, for example, this business of so-called "anti-gay violence."

This bill will be used to go after only those who commit crimes

against people because they are homosexuals. But this is not the most

pernicious form of "anti-gay violence." Not by a long shot.

The most violent - indeed fatal 100 percent of the time - form of

"anti-gay violence" has been committed not by so-called "homophobes"

who bash homosexuals - but by male homosexuals and bisexuals against

other male bisexuals and homosexuals.

To date, tens of thousands of male bisexual and homosexual men are

dead in our country because of AIDS, because they engaged in high-risk

homosexual sex.

Is this not "anti-gay violence" which numbers its victims far

beyond anything any "homophobes" have done?

Well, I figured I better deal with this because the nutters were now

being turned into "respectable critics" by a media that either had an

agenda or were just plain lazy.

So, how crazy are the things they've said about "Bowling for

Columbine?" Here are my favorites:

"That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!"

Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a

set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager

and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some

really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh?

Or...

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper

in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where

they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a

Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all

over the country - "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I

even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the

bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the

precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun

in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing

was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask

permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my

account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first

time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave

the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you

see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell

Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the

bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the

background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus

can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks

(the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally

approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms

License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background

check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film,

they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see

the outtakes, click here).

And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided

the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of

John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that

later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun

Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film

and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to

rage on.

Here's another whopper I've had to listen to from the pro-gun groups:

"The Lockheed factory in Littleton, Colorado, has nothing to do

with weapons of mass destruction!"

That's right! That big honkin' rocket sitting behind the Lockheed

spokesman in "Bowling for Columbine"-- the one with "US AIRFORCE"

written on it in BIG ASS letters - well, I admit it, I snuck in and

painted that on that Titan IV rocket when Lockheed wasn't looking!

After all, those rockets were only being used for the Weather Channel!

Ha Ha Ha! I sure fooled everyone!!

Or....

The Truth: Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons-maker in the world.

The Littleton facility has been manufacturing missiles, missile

components, and other weapons systems for almost half a century. In

the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan

intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear

warhead on the Soviet Union; in the mid-80s, they were partially

assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM, a space

laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as

Brilliant Pebbles.

In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he

told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton

and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles."

As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me,

"They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large

national security satellites, some we can't talk about." (see him say

it here)

Since that interview, the Titan IV rockets manufactured in Littleton

have been critical to the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

These rockets launched advanced satellites that were "instrumental in

providing command-and-control operations over Iraq...for the rapid

targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes

and clandestine communications with Special Operations Forces." (view

source here).

That Lockheed lets the occasional weather or TV satellite hitch a ride

on one of its rockets should not distract anyone from Lockheed's main

mission and moneymaker in Littleton: to make instruments that help

kill people. That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer

their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies

don't want to discuss.

The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this

one:

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech

near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away.

The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound

like rudeness."

Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He

never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly

what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's

speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out

of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10

days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word - read the

transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to

challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the

NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make

Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make

Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are

in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said.

Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son

died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same

weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston

doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and,

the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock

over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims

"from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced

in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image - hoisting

the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at

virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and

since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us

by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for

the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun

owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of

envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the

phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and

the words that accompany it?

I've also been accused of making up the gun homicide counts in the

United States and various countries around the world. That is, like

all the rest of this stuff, a bald-face lie. Every statistic in the

film is true. They all come directly from the government. Here are the

facts, right from the sources:

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the

Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by

the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from

Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics

Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun

deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain;

Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology;

France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of

Epidemiology.

Finally, I've even been asked about whether the two killers were at

bowling class on the morning of the shootings. Well, that's what their

teacher told the investigators, and that's what was corroborated by

several eyewitness reports of students to the police, the FBI, and the

District Attorney's office. I'll tell you who wasn't there -- me!

That's why in the film I pose it as a question:

"So did Dylan and Eric show up that morning and bowl two games

before moving on to shoot up the school? And did they just chuck the

balls down the lane? Did this mean something?"

Of course, it's a silly discussion, and it misses the whole, larger

point: that blaming bowling for their killing spree would be as dumb

as blaming Marilyn Manson.

But the gun nuts don't want to discuss either specific points or

larger issues because when that debate is held, they lose. Most

Americans want stronger gun laws (among others, see the 2001 National

Gun Policy Survey from the University of Chicago's National Opinion

Research Center) - and the gun lobbies know it. That is why it's

critical to distract and alter the debate - and go after anyone who

questions why we have so many gun deaths in America (especially if he

does it in best selling books and popular films).

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my

movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers

went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every

statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film

company would ever release a film like this without putting it through

the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat

of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or

theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think

there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have

better gun laws in this country - every member of Congress is scared

to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my

film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a

second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality

they would have. But they didn't and they can't - because the film is

factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by

any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for

Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true - and the

things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer

to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object

to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us

on the issues in the film - or resorting to character assassination.

They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film.

It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and

kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who,

after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fianc

Exposed liar lies again. Its this the the absolute truth until exposed

and then its all a joke.

"flamestar" <agnifire@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:aeaf9bcb-2260-41cf-8f7f-37a63f23e84f@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> Exposed liar lies again. Its this the the absolute truth until exposed

> and then its all a joke.

Is English your native language, or, do you speak only Rightwingbola?

On Dec 3, 2:28 am, 9 Trillion Dollar Republican National Debt

<icadse...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos...

>

> How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about

> "Bowling for Columbine"

> by Michael Moore

>

> One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public

> eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about

> you.

Yes. For example, Moore showing a child flying a kite as if Iraqis

frolicked under the bosom of the benevolent Saddam Hussein and enjoyed

freedoms that Americans could only dream of, making us look like the

bad guys for removing a dictator.

For example, Moore griping about health care while clearly being a

man who doesn't say "no" to at least one cake per week. He's a heart

attack waiting to happen. Moore complaining about health care is like

an addict complaining about a dirty needle.

For example, Michael Moore benefiting from the deaths of our

soldiers so he can make a buck, just like Halliburton. Moore is

convinced that because no WMD were found when we went in that Iraqis

deserved to be murdered by Saddam. This is the logic of liberals,

that if no WMD were found then all the crap Saddam did is suddenly

erased.

Liberals like Moore have no guts, but they sure do have the lung

power to support dictators like Chavez and Hussein. It makes one

wonder what "liberals" stand for. Liberals hate God and defend

dictators. Fascinating lack of self respect.

"Osiris88" <indexai@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:831596be-a1f7-4dc3-a25f-4ae782193b4c@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 3, 2:28 am, 9 Trillion Dollar Republican National Debt

> <icadse...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos...

>>

>> How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about

>> "Bowling for Columbine"

>> by Michael Moore

>>

>> One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public

>> eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about

>> you.

>

> Yes. For example, Moore showing a child flying a kite as if Iraqis

> frolicked under the bosom of the benevolent Saddam Hussein and enjoyed

> freedoms that Americans could only dream of, making us look like the

> bad guys for removing a dictator.

> For example, Moore griping about health care while clearly being a

> man who doesn't say "no" to at least one cake per week. He's a heart

> attack waiting to happen. Moore complaining about health care is like

> an addict complaining about a dirty needle.

> For example, Michael Moore benefiting from the deaths of our

> soldiers so he can make a buck, just like Halliburton. Moore is

> convinced that because no WMD were found when we went in that Iraqis

> deserved to be murdered by Saddam. This is the logic of liberals,

> that if no WMD were found then all the crap Saddam did is suddenly

> erased.

> Liberals like Moore have no guts, but they sure do have the lung

> power to support dictators like Chavez and Hussein. It makes one

> wonder what "liberals" stand for. Liberals hate God and defend

> dictators. Fascinating lack of self respect.

I notice you did not address a single one of Moore's facts.

On Dec 3, 4:18 am, "Joe S." <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> "Osiris88" <inde...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:831596be-a1f7-4dc3-a25f-4ae782193b4c@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > On Dec 3, 2:28 am, 9 Trillion Dollar Republican National Debt

> > <icadse...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos...

>

> >> How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about

> >> "Bowling for Columbine"

> >> by Michael Moore

>

> >> One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public

> >> eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about

> >> you.

>

> > Yes. For example, Moore showing a child flying a kite as if Iraqis

> > frolicked under the bosom of the benevolent Saddam Hussein and enjoyed

> > freedoms that Americans could only dream of, making us look like the

> > bad guys for removing a dictator.

> > For example, Moore griping about health care while clearly being a

> > man who doesn't say "no" to at least one cake per week. He's a heart

> > attack waiting to happen. Moore complaining about health care is like

> > an addict complaining about a dirty needle.

> > For example, Michael Moore benefiting from the deaths of our

> > soldiers so he can make a buck, just like Halliburton. Moore is

> > convinced that because no WMD were found when we went in that Iraqis

> > deserved to be murdered by Saddam. This is the logic of liberals,

> > that if no WMD were found then all the crap Saddam did is suddenly

> > erased.

> > Liberals like Moore have no guts, but they sure do have the lung

> > power to support dictators like Chavez and Hussein. It makes one

> > wonder what "liberals" stand for. Liberals hate God and defend

> > dictators. Fascinating lack of self respect.

>

> I notice you did not address a single one of Moore's facts.

I have already said in other posts that Moore is good at what he does

and makes some good points.

If you weren't a mindless left wing robot; you would know that

unsupported statements do not refute anything and that applies to

George Bush, Adolf Hitler or Michael Moore. Speaking of morons only

people who are too stupid to debate reprint the statements of others

in a forum.