Bowling For Columbine - DVD Question

Yes, I agree with you Cliff. I guess the point I was trying to make was that you definitely have to take Michael Moore with a pinch of salt. I mean how many doors did it take him and his film crew to try to open before they found a couple unlocked?
As you can see in both Britain and Canada, over time, the use of guns for criminal purposes has increased dramatically despite rigid gun controls. The controls don't stop the baddies, they just make it more and more difficult for legitimate gun sales (if there is such a thing ).
I'm gonna get off this thread now, but one more time,yes, America is the King for just about everything good and bad. Here in Canada (and in other countries, I'm sure) we law abiding folks would like all of the good from them with none of the bad. I guess we can't have it both ways But we certainly try hard to!

 

I notice how almost everyone from the US has backed out of this thread. Interesting!

For your question, I think you need look no further than Michael Jackson!

My question is, what the heck was Moore's agenda by going up to Canada and showing only the good stuff? I think he did muddy up his purpose by spending so much time on it.

I wonder if hie movie would have had any validity if he had gone down to Mexico...

 

I recall that he took exactly ONE jab at the Democrats, saying in words to the effect that they can't get their act together.

 

Grant,
It's probably easier for us "outsiders" to discuss these contentious issues than those who reside in the US. The issues, as raised in the documentary and many others in the US right now (taxes, war in Iraq, etc) are very polarizing.

For us Canadians, the biggest challenge is not to get too political and get Gorted - we generally just have opinions, but as the issues have little impact on our day to day lives, we just don't feel as strongly as American Forum Members about them.

We also have to be very careful - the Iraq War thread basically turned into an American (pro-War) versus non-American (anti-war) situation (with exceptions on both sides) that fortunately stayed civil.

Cliff

 

He did include their administrations in the history of the country. He never named a Democratic President per se. He talked about the bombings the morning of the Columbine shooting but again didn't mention any names.

I believe he said, "Bush" fifty times.

You are correct. I sugar coated when saying, "sugar coated".

It does amaze me that a true liberal democrat would scream "War mongor Bush" at the top of his lungs at the Academy Awards and misses some others that took us into wars....Wilson (WWI), Roosevelt (WWII), Turman (Korea), Kennedy (Vietnam) in his two plus hour documentary.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Grant


I recall that he took exactly ONE jab at the Democrats, saying in words to the effect that they can't get their act together.

He did include their administrations in the history of the country. He never named a Democratic President per se. He talked about the bombings the morning of the Columbine shooting but again didn't mention any names.

I believe he said, "Bush" fifty times.

You are correct. I sugar coated when saying, "sugar coated".

It does amaze me that a true liberal democrat would scream "War mongor Bush" at the top of his lungs at the Academy Awards and misses some others that took us into wars....Wilson (WWI), Roosevelt (WWII), Turman (Korea), Kennedy (Vietnam) in his two plus hour documentary"

Bye-bye..... this sounds political to me....

 

How can you editorialize or offer an opinion on a politically idealogy based documentary and not stick a toe across the line? It's impossible to offer an opinion, not even "good" or "bad" without political undertones.
If you say you liked this documentary you've given a political opinion.

I apologize if I crossed the line.

The cover art was colorful.

 

Just a guess, but wouldn't Yoko happily give permission for that song to be used in an anti-gun movie? Not that she's in control of the Beatles catalog, but I would assume she'd have some sort of influence... or perhaps pay the tab for using it?

Ok... I just googled it. Here's the deal. I assume that since this if from Fox News that it's fair and balanced.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65194,00.html#2

 

Well, Fox did blow the cover off those alien autopsies. Not to mention those eye-opening exposes on "When Animals Attack."

 

Maybe we should stick with the major networks for news since they have shows like Fear Factor, Big Brother, etc. No, let's go with Jayson Blair and the NY Times. I'm sure they're fair and unbalanced.



mud-

 

I just wish media outlets that wanted to have a ideological spin on things claimed that very fact. Fox News is definitely partisan, is the New York Times really all that liberal?? They seem more pro-status quo than anything.

In Britain, media outlets are unabashedly partisan, and you know what you're getting. No one over there is claiming the mantle of "fair and balanced"

Back on the topic, I just got through watching BWC on DVD and I have to say it is a pretty strong cultural indictment. The high school kid from Canada with the blue hair got it right -- when we don't like someone, we just -- oh go watch the movie!

 

This thread has been the victim of serious thread drift. It started with a simple request and question. We've been all over the place here. Obviously people have views of the film, Moore, guns, Canada, Grant and Jamie moving there, and the media and no one is going to change anyone's mind. I believe AKA's question was answered a LONG time ago.

mud-