Michael Moore's Oscar-contender documentary, Bowling for Columbine, pokes fun at corporate creeps and hypocrites in his crusade to figure out who is to blame for the gun-related violence in America. But we've found Moore's facts a little slippery.

TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.
ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.

MISSILES: Moore wonders whether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of the "weapons of mass destruction" made in Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Littleton. Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.
ACTUALLY: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him.
ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns.

BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, "if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun." He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.
ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.

Good Americans gave the ultimate sacrfice,so this fat **** can spew this crap and get rich? Get the F out you sissy punk!

Perhaps if we accept the suggestion that Moore lives in a "fictious" country in a "fictious" state and makes movies in a "fictious" place (even Disneyland isn't as fictious as Hollywood) it is easier to understand how he can be sooooo screwed up. But I suppose we should be thankful since if he didn't work in Hollywood he would be on the dole collecting "fictious" welfare. Or maybe working in the real world screwing things up for others to fix.

John

yes charlie "there should be limits to freedom"
your leader gwb.

"slobs like him"
"moron" directed at michael moore
"Fat Micheal Moore"
"A$$Hole" directed at michael moore, i presume.
"fat ****"

in light of these enlightning arguments, i may have to rethink my position.

I fully support this oblivious jerk's right to speak his mind. However, it is readily apparent that he has absolutely no sensibility, discretion, or sensitivity.

i do agree he isn't tactful, i take the bad with the good.

Yes, we have sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears to acheive our freedom. Our fore fathers used their voices and actions to overthrow the British, our country was built on opposition to a ruling government. And the great thing about it is that they created a system that allowed for political dissent. No matter how wrong a person is, they have that right to express their views.

And yes, our freedom is given by our government. And our government gave Michael Moore and everyone in this great nation a right to voice an opinion. And lack of tact is not a crime.

I do not like Michael Moore, but I have to say what I feel because I love this nation and what is stands for.

Stregth to out troops,
choner

Sedition Act, 1918
From The United States Statutes at Large, V. 40. (April 1917-March 1919). Washington: Government Printing Office, 1919. 553-554.

Sec. 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service. . . .

It's people like Michael Moore who have the innate ability to push the "hot" buttons...or is it that we allow ourselves through our own weakness and knee-jerk reactions to give these comments more time than necessary? It is very difficult not to respond emphatically and emotionally to someone like him - especially, since he used the Oscars as his bully pulpit (For once, let's all agree that Bush won the electoral vote. Dems and Repubs need to get beyond this. He is the prez and will be for another coupla years.).

I wonder if the real reason why many Hollywood "stars" are against the war is because they feel it will keep people out of the theatres and from channel surfing TV? Surely, their motives are more substantive.

If nothing else, Moore's comments initiate more reflection on our part about what it is to live in America, and how we all are very fortunate to basically come and go as we please while saying mostly whatever we want.

Donutboy2000 - Isn't the sedition act only for Government officials or employees? They're the only ones punishable by it based on your quote. Therefore, Moore has no constraints on his freedom of speach based on the sedition act since he is neither an official nor an employee of the US.

I believe that cwilhelmi is correct on that acute observation ...

" ... shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: ***PROVIDED***, that any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service ..."

... 'provided', being the key word here!

http://ncnc.essortment.com/espionagehistor_rago.htm . Numerous non-government employees have been prosecuted.

Donutboy2000 – I think The Sedition Act doesn’t apply given the security risk involved with Moore’s statements, coupled with the most recent failed applications of the Act.

(excerpt (link below))
…But the Court's willingness to indulge limits on the First Amendment during wartime has tended to vary considerably depending upon the apparent nature of the conflict. For example, in response to the perceived threat of "anarchists" and "communists" within the U.S., the Court continued to adopt a wartime view of the First Amendment even after World War I ended. The Court upheld a state sedition law in Gilbert v. Minnesota (1920), and later upheld a state criminal syndicalism law in Whitney v. California (1927).
By contrast, when the security threat has been remote and does not threaten U.S. shores, the Court has been far more vigorous in protecting First Amendment boundaries. During the Vietnam War, for example, the Court rejected claims of "national security" to justify prior restraint of the publication of the Pentagon Papers. New York Times v. United States (1971). Likewise, the Vietnam era Court refused to enforce laws that prohibited speech condemning the draft and the rights of religious objectors. Cohen v. California (1971); Gillette v. United States (1971). Indeed, it was at the height of Vietnam and of the Cold War when the Court finally overruled Whitney, rejecting the old criminal syndicalism laws and permitting government to punish those who advocate illegal action only if their speech is intended to and is likely to produce "imminent lawless action." Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

http://www.osbar.org/2practice/bulletin/01nov/war.htm 

There were several issues in play with the posts on Mr. Mooron: The main two I saw were;

1. His right to be an a$$. People don't like it, and have tried to make cases why he actually does not or should not have the right to self a$$crimination, but the bottom line is, he has the right.

2. There was some question as to whether or not he was bashing “the troops.” I believe he was, even though it was not stated, it was inferred by me personally and by many others who were so outraged by his behavior. While "technically" one could argue that by the letter of his rant, he did not say “specifically” that he did not support the troops, he most certainly did not say he did support them, wish them well, safe return, God speed, etc... And the listener could easily construe the opposite based on his feckless and reckless remarks.

For God’s sake! I just saw a news clip where Satan incarnate (Bill Clinton) was interviewed for his position on Iraq. I though to myself, oh $hit! Here it comes… I clenched my teeth, stared at the TV, and he said (paraphrasing) “I think it’s time that we support our president and our troops”. Mouth fell open. I must say, he surprised me. If Bill Clinton who is one of the most violently partisan democrats there is, can put his dukes down while our troops are in harms way, I think anyone can set aside their personal feelings until this thing is settled.