Just saw Bowling for Columbine

[Scrooge2]

Well I saw Farenheit 9/11 and I thought it was a pretty innovative piece of work. Afterwards I regretted nevet seeing Bowling for Columbine so I borrowed it and watched it today. Just like Farenheit, I thought it was pretty good work. I wonder why Bowling didn't get the same kind of media coverage as Farenheit did?

 

[conjur]

Because Bowling for Columbine was complete and utter propaganda while Fahrenheit 9/11 is largely truthful.

 

[Scrooge2]

Why do you say that? I thought both works expressed very liberal viwpoints, how can one be propoganda and the other not?

 

[thuper]

Originally posted by: conjur
Because Bowling for Columbine was complete and utter propaganda while Fahrenheit 9/11 is largely truthful.

What kind of propaganda is BFC pushing?

 

[conjur]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html


And, search the ATOT archived messages for Bowling or Columbine and you'll find MANY threads on the topic.

 

[TuxDave]

I say yes. It won't turn republicans into democrats but I betcha it'll make people who don't normally vote, vote democratic.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I say yes. It won't turn republicans into democrats but I betcha it'll make people who don't normally vote, vote democratic.

Yep. Swing voters and new voters it will affect big time.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: thuper

Originally posted by: conjur
Because Bowling for Columbine was complete and utter propaganda while Fahrenheit 9/11 is largely truthful.

What kind of propaganda is BFC pushing?

Yeah, after seeing BFC I had the feeling that the media was largely to blame for gun violence in the US. He pretty much proved to me that gun control isn't really a solution.

If that was the idea, it turned me from pro-gun control to somewhat anti-gun control.

Honestly, I think that was the true point of the film, and its detractors either haven't seen it, or didn't understand it.

 

[thuper]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Yeah, after seeing BFC I had the feeling that the media was largely to blame for gun violence in the US. He pretty much proved to me that gun control isn't really a solution.

If that was the idea, it turned me from pro-gun control to somewhat anti-gun control.

Honestly, I think that was the true point of the film, and its detractors either haven't seen it, or didn't understand it.

And what do you think "gun control" means? This term just gets thrown around and people think it means the Democrats want to take away the guns. Why would they even want to do that? All that Gore wanted in 2000 is for every gun to have to be registered. That's it.

 

[AcidicFury]

It might impact the election, but only for swing voters and perhaps the youth. Other than that, most people won't change their opinions.

 

[sandorski]

It's a definite Maybe.

 

[Gaard]

I can say truthfully that I know for a fact that this movie will have an influence on how people will vote. Enough to affect the election? Don't know.

 

[XZeroII]

Moore is a Rhetorician, and a very good one. His goal is to effect the election, and yes, he is doing it. If you don't know what a Rhetorician is, look up Rhetoric in the dictionary. A Rhetorician is a person who practices Rhetoric.