Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
Quote: Edame said: And I guess you're the one with all the facts right?
Im sure moore made his movie to get out all the correct facts.
I'm trying to get hold of the film again to take a look at this. Perhaps in the meantime you can actually point to a source that shows that the clips are from different campaigns.
Well im sorry but i dont have the resources to research and find campagin posters from 10+ years ago. But ask yourself if bush is losing the black minority vote why would he intentionly make that kind of postor statement. Just take a step back and see how ludacris it is. But of course that isnt "illegal" beacuse he was only showing both at both to conserve time....
Again, I wonder whether you actually read Moore's article at the beginning of this post. In it he admits (my emphasis):
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?, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).
So he's publically admitted to a typo, and taken the steps to correct it for the home release of his film. That seems to me like a pretty honest thing to do.
I wasent making my point about it being wrong i was saying how it is put in to make it look as though it is apart of the ad.
So which part of "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;" is a lie exactly? Regardless of whether it was required of Heston to go or not, what is incorrect about Moore's statement?
Moore portrays the events as if Heston rushed to denver to hold rallies for pro-gun. He intentionaly leaves out that the meeting had to occur. Also i wouldnt call what happened a "pro-gun rally" it was simply a meeting of the members from the surronding locations for structural matters withen the NRA. Moore is dishonest.
You seem to to contradicting yourself here. The shootings happened on April 20th 1999, the NRA convention started on April 30th (Edit: corrected typo) the same year ("Just ten days after the Columbine killings..."), and Heston gave this speech at that convention, hardly 8 months later. What I think you're referring to is Heston's 'from my cold dead hands' quote, which is not a speech, just a quote. If you'd bothered to read the post at the start of this thread, you would see what Moore wrote about this:
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?
Ugh you didnt read it correctly, i was refering to the demonstation he held at flint. Sorry if i confused you. "Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it" I am repulsed about how moore cut the speech to make it seem as though he said it at the columbine rally to further his own agenda.
I checked out the link from the page (I'm assuming) you copied this from, and nowhere does any official say that the buy "is either faked or illegal". It says that they asked Moore for clarification on whether he used ID or not (and he's a card-carrying member of the NRA don't forget). Who's using misleading info now?
Even if that is the case, again, what is incorrect about about "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." and "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."? He didn't claim he could buy ammo without a license did he?
For one i didnt copy it from that site. And obviously if you must present proper id to buy something and it is known you didnt, that would mean it was either faked or illegal. And it wasent what he said, it was that he filmed it and that shows what happened. Not a single question was asked, now if he just cut out the part where he showed his license or he had it set up that is either a lie or dishonesty.
He did cut the speech down though. Again, where is the viewer responsibility? I've read the complete Heston speech and it still makes him sound arrogant to me, edited or not.
Editing for time does not mean it is right to end in the middle of sentences while slapping them next to other partial sentences which in turn makes intirely new sentences.
The camera changes everything, etc., so in video there can be no truth or falsity. Sample: "tv and movies, newspapers or even documentaries *are* constructions, not "the truth" ("truth" is subjective personal opinion/experience, which would be impossible to commit to videotape or celluloid)."
Although i dont want to group you into any category this is what i fell the argument boils down to just as many others come to down ot simple semantics.
But anyway ive given up with this, everyone has their opinon and mine is he should have been nominated for an oscar.
And sorry for bumping up this since its sorta old. My house had an enormous power surge, causing it to almost burn down and leave me with no power since sunday.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 4,878 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]