Bowling for Columbine

Arrrrhhhh

We Are Trapped In A Never Ending Circle

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, I must have been reading messages in this thread by someone else called "Punky" then...

I have always tried to have been nice to you back in the face of such agressive sarcasm and derision. I do have a limit though. Also, I have never red repped or reported your post (and no, that isn't a dig at you from before).

Originally Posted by Graham

Objecting to a personal attack != Censorship.

I was just having a laugh, hence the wink.

Originally Posted by Graham

I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic of this at all. Just because he *doesn't* say something like "England is both a liberal and conservative country due to hisheavy multicultural mix" in the *same* chapter, but addresses different points in different chapters he is (as far as I can tell from what you're implying) contradicting himself.

This seems to me to be more like him not trying to confuse people by including too many points in one place.

These are polar points though. They are mostly mutually exclusive. Besides Moore has a long history of massaging the evidence to fit the thesis. Like the Heston speeches. And the bit with Heston at the end.

Originally Posted by Graham

But Moore has *NEVER* said *HE* "hates Americans"! This is something which *others* have said about him.

He says a lot of things. It is hard to find quotes without knowing the exact words. I know it was said in a speech in Germany but I can't find a transcript of it. One thing to bear in mind though, he never says it directly to Americans. I think even ardent Moore fans would be repulsed by Moore preaching anti-American hate to them directly.

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, I treated the stuff on Moorewatch with disdain because it is being written from a biased viewpoint. If you can post links from a credible, *impartial* source, I will be happy to read them.

Something coming from a biased or unbiased source doesn't dictate wether it is true or not. Merely the amount of spin. Most people have an agenda. Moore has an agenda, does that mean you aren't to trust him either?

Originally Posted by Graham

In which case it can't be that much of a "big thing", can it?

The trouble is with anti-Moore sites is they all seem to be run as a blog, so older stuff gets pushed to the bottom and harder to find. It doesn't help that I read a lot of stuff on lots of sites. Some sites push one point, others push another. It isn't all that organised. I do the best I can to find stuff to back up what I say. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter to me. I believe what I believe. If I was trying to recruit an army, i'd be more concerned about evidence. I'm not trying to brainwash anyone. I'll defend my beliefs, but never try and impose them on people.


[quote=Graham
No, that's your *opinion* of what *you* think Moore wants you to think.[/quote]
Yep. That is my intrepretation of it, and not just mine.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, I think it's irresponsible for a bank to be offering guns, full stop.

It is a fully licensed gun shop. It sounds weird because it is a bank, but they are perfectly legally entitled to sell/give away guns from that branch.

Originally Posted by Graham

And at the risk of sounding rude: BALDERDASH!!

Who was it who said in post #18 of this thread" "Why have principles when you can have money instead?"

Or in post #51 "If he hated America, he leave his rather nice $1.9m Manhatten apartment, and his $1.2m Michigan lakeside home, and move to Canada or Germany, or even to England, like he is always threatening. Or that is what he'd do if he had principals, which he doesn't."

Wilson and Moore aren't even in the same ballpark. Wilson is still producing the film he wants to, albeit even if he has to push another angle, he'd rather not. I mean this isn't a promo for MoveOn. I'm guessing the Wilson thinks the movie would have the desired effect, even if it isn't done with the desired method. There is a lot at stake for him as an aspiring film-maker. A bad movie could kill his career before it started. I doubt, based on that he'd release a film he wasn't happy with or he wanted on his reputation. I could even be wrong, it could just be a conincidence. Or maybe he always wanted to make an American feelgood movie, but pushed the Moore angle for publicity maybe.

Originally Posted by Graham

And I prefer someone to be honest and true enough to their principles to stick it out, not sacrifice their principles for money!

If Wilson produced a pro-Moore, or MoveOn movie i'd agree with you. It seems to be a movie of two halves. The first half is about Moore, the second seems to be debunking the myth that America is a bad place to live, especially Moore's point in SWM, when he said: "You'll never be rich. The chances of becoming a millionaire are about one in a million" (So there are 250 millionaries in the US? I don't think so. Virtally all doctors alone will be true millionaires after a few years work given their salaries).

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, now we're back with the "he started it" arguments...

Well of course Moore started it If he didn't we'd have nothing to talk about?


[quote=Graham
I hope the "you" you are referring to here is to *other* readers of this post, otherwise I would find the implication in this comment to be extremely offensive.[/quote]

Yeah, I was talking to others. I know you go to great lengths and effort to read and reply. I'd admire your tenacity if nothing else. I get the feeling that some/most people here just automatically skip our long arguments/discussions. I thought this was particularly bad and worthy of a special note.

Originally Posted by Graham

An interesting example. Now let's add a few more facts.

Joe Scarborough is a former Republican Congressman and is now a talk-show host on MSNBC. From some googling on his name it appears that his opinions are of the sort that George W Bush can do no wrong and Michael Moore is the Devil incarnate.

He is a former Congressman because he decided not to stand for re-election after his intern was found dead.

Now whilst I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial, this is a strange confluence of events.

He is also quoted from an interview:

* * * * *

SCARBOROUGH: When he has time for you, just tell him to stop going around calling me a murderer or I`m going to have to call my lawyers. Will you do that for me?

GOLDBERG: Well, I`m sure you can get to him yourself, Joe, but I appreciate you having me on. I really do.

* * * * *

Now *WHY* is he asking an *INTERVIEWER* to tell Michael Moore something? If he has been slandered by falsely accused of murder, why aren't his lawyer slapping injunctions on Moore left, right and centre?

For more about the story of her alledged murder (or, rather the lack of it...) see http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010808Klausutis.html

(I'm not sure, but that site does appear to have a Democratic bias, however it does make some interesting points anyway)



Well given the lack of reporting as detailed in the above link, it's not surprising he had to "dig and dig"

I kind of thought you'd bring up the fact he was a republican Congressman. Wether it was deliberate to try make people think of Gary Conduit and government conspiracies, I don't know. I didn't think it was relevent what his job was so I left it out. I didn't want anyone to prejudice him because he is was in office.

And anyway, what trial? The coroner signed the death as a heart attack. No inquest, no arrests. There was no evidence that the coroner had been influenced either. Although according to that site his reputation isn't that solid. Everyone seems to be happy, including her family. I'm sure if there was the case would have easily been re-opened.

Noone really reported it, because there was no story. It was a natural death. No foul play. People die all the time but we don't get to hear about them unless they are particularly suspicious or famous.

Originally Posted by Graham

Well that, too, seems somewhat open to question.

Well that is what the coroner said, and that makes it good enough for me. If someone has some credible evidence that the coroner may have been influenced by Scarbough, then by all means, i'll re-evaluate my thinking.

Originally Posted by Graham

And this is "proof"? It may be true, however it *could* also be a "Joe Job" by someone who wants to stitch Moore up.

Because I think he actually admitted it in the speeches he gave at the time. Besides, given how much Moore likes to sue people (He sued Mother Jones, then a struggling independent press magazine (not big like it is now), because of a disagreement of opinions, for $58,000, back before Roger & Me in the 80s), you'd think that would have traced and sued whoever owned it. It is also a crime to register a site with false information, so he'd have the law on his side too.

Originally Posted by Graham

But again I point out from the above link, that its *NOT JUST* Moore who is doing this.

Well, the site you gave me (only had time for a quick gloss over) seems just imply, in a pretty "safe" way that there may be some foul play at work that some people have overlooked. Questioning people isn't a bad thing, but directly (and falsely) accusing them of murder is something else.

Originally Posted by Graham

Pardon me if the following sounds like a personal attack, but that comment, to me, sounds like what is generally known as "a weasel".

If you meant "some Americans" or "one or two Americans taken together you should have said so or, at least, chosen your words with more care.

Err cheers for that. I've been called much worse, i'm not going to lose sleep over it. I don't have much free time on the computer, especially here. It is bad enough with these huge posts, but if you are going to scrutinise the semantics of everything I say that closely then i'm not going to bother to even engage it. I don't have time or the inclination to even proof read my posts, let alone worry about semantics. Remember what I said before, can we please debate Moore, not me?

Originally Posted by Graham

I wasn't talking about the *movie* title! I was talking about him standing up at an event Michael Moore was at and *saying* those words!

That is *not* a good way to start a debate.

I think he is trying anything to dodge him. The movie will tell us how hard he tried to contact Moore, but that bit at Moore's speech wasn't the first time he tried to talk to Moore.

Originally Posted by Graham

And you make another sweeping generalisation to finish. You pick *one* example (and a poor one for the reason above) and try to parlay it into a general case.

Not at all. He said he'd debate anyone. I'm desperately trying to find the quote where. I can even see the video in my head, he is on stage in a chair with like 4 other people.

I have an interesting post here to make about Moore. It'll suprise a few of you i'm sure. I'm just waiting for the webpage reference to go online, then i'll post it.

Please people.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

Please people.

Trust me, I know how you feel.

Wilson's an idiot. He is making a film glossing over the issues raised by moores films and producing a feel good movie. There is nothing to be learnt from that type of movie so to call it a documentary is stupid. He has already used editing in this trailer (the bit where moore says he doesn't appear in other peoples movies) to a far worse degree than moore has in his films.

I have some questions:

1) Why should moore have to speak to someone who attacks him in the title? Dont forget there is no proof moore hates the usa in fact i think he likes it moore than wilson. Moore raises important issues trying to improve the usa while Wilson trys to gloss over that

2) What is this crap about 'the american dream' that those people go on about in that trailer? Makes you wanna be sick

oh and before someone (not punky, he knows better) trys to say i am anti-American for expressing concerns about the foreign policy of the bush administration then they can get bent. I like the USA but I am allowed to express concerns. Funny how much people in the usa (aka fox news) love to claim free speech but condem people who uuse that right

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

Wilson's an idiot. He is making a film glossing over the issues raised by moores films and producing a feel good movie. There is nothing to be learnt from that type of movie so to call it a documentary is stupid. He has already used editing in this trailer (the bit where moore says he doesn't appear in other peoples movies) to a far worse degree than moore has in his films.

You might well be right. It is a bit presumptous though to judge the movie from the trailers.

Originally Posted by Damien

I have some questions:

1) Why should moore have to speak to someone who attacks him in the title? Dont forget there is no proof moore hates the usa in fact i think he likes it moore than wilson. Moore raises important issues trying to improve the usa while Wilson trys to gloss over that

He never had to, but it is the entertainment business where image is king. Moore made Roger Smith look like a monster by chasing an interview that Roger never wanted to give. It looks like Wilson is playing Moore at his own game, I can see Moore looking like Roger did.

Originally Posted by Damien

2) What is this crap about 'the american dream' that those people go on about in that trailer? Makes you wanna be sick

You ought to speak to my parents about that. 5 years ago, my mum was a bookkeeper, who also ran her own business; my dad was a copper in Holloway, North London. They were fed up with the way this country was being run so decided to emigrate to the place they loved to go. They have their own gripes with Floridians and America of course, but the obvious thing is that life over here is very good for them. They come back to England now and again to see me and sort things out, but it depresses the hell out of them. My dad's business has done very well (he has a property management company, and he is also realtor here). Not only do they earn far more money, it goes a lot further. It is much easier to have a higher quality of life out here. They are much happier. There is nothing wrong in wanting life better for yourself and trying to get it.

Originally Posted by Damien

oh and before someone (not punky, he knows better) trys to say i am anti-American for expressing concerns about the foreign policy of the bush administration then they can get bent. I like the USA but I am allowed to express concerns. Funny how much people in the usa (aka fox news) love to claim free speech but condem people who uuse that right

Your a (rather passionate) Moore fan. There's nothing wrong with that. I say i'm not trying to recruit anyone over to my "side", and it is true, but I always tell people to read the other evidence as well and decide for themselves. If they change their mind, great. If they don't, then that's also great. At least they read both sides. The way I think of it is this. Moore fans always say to anti-Moore folk. "Open your mind and accept that what he says is true". I'd add to that, "Open your mind a little further and accept what he says may not be true".

The film on which this topic is about has thhese issues:

Gun control
A media out of control
A culture of fear

THese are the 3 issues raised by moore, I admit he goes a bit far and uses editing to help prove a point but the points are real and true and deserved to be answered

Originally Posted by punky

I have always tried to have been nice to you back in the face of such agressive sarcasm and derision. I do have a limit though.

So do I. When someone says "it isn't my style." and "I'll just tut and shake my head, and move on." and then blatantly contradicts themselves, I'm going to point this out!

But Moore has *NEVER* said *HE* "hates Americans"! This is something which *others* have said about him.

I would have thought "Moore" and "I hate Americans" shouldn't be too hard to find (unless you're overwhelmed by all those sites that *claim* he says that when he may not actually done so!)

Something coming from a biased or unbiased source doesn't dictate wether it is true or not. Merely the amount of spin. Most people have an agenda. Moore has an agenda, does that mean you aren't to trust him either?

You are the one who said that "Moore has a long history of massaging the evidence to fit the thesis." but surely that doesn't dictate whether it's true or not either, does it?

I do the best I can to find stuff to back up what I say. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter to me.

Well pardon me if it *does* matter to me!

I believe what I believe.

Fine, that's your choice, but I'm not going to accept it just for that reason alone.

If I was trying to recruit an army, i'd be more concerned about evidence. I'm not trying to brainwash anyone.

Unlike, say, the Bush Administration? (Saddam has WMDs, Saddam has links to Al Qa'eda, Saddam has links to September 11th, Saddam is a threat to the USA...!)

I'll defend my beliefs, but never try and impose them on people.

Does Moore do this, though? He's stating an opinion. He's not putting a gun to people's heads and saying *this is how it is*!

He's also not calling people "unpatriotic" for questioning the Republican/ Conservative/ All-American/ Bush/ Mom's Apple Pie line...!

Wilson and Moore aren't even in the same ballpark. Wilson is still producing the film he wants to, albeit even if he has to push another angle, he'd rather not.

You're right, they're not in the same ballpark. Moore produced the film *he* wanted to without having to pander to someone else's idea of what should be in it!

Well of course Moore started it If he didn't we'd have nothing to talk about?

Now try reading that comment again *in context*

I kind of thought you'd bring up the fact he was a republican Congressman. Wether it was deliberate to try make people think of Gary Conduit and government conspiracies, I don't know. I didn't think it was relevent what his job was so I left it out. I didn't want anyone to prejudice him because he is was in office.

Of course I'm bringing up that point because it's more than a little relevant! It was not that he was "in office" it was that he was a *Republican* ie one of the people that Moore "attacks". As I also pointed out, it's a little more complicated than the somewhat simplistic view you presented which seemed to be "Moore has a go at this ordinary bloke because he said something criticising him".

And anyway, what trial?

That was a figure of speech! I just didn't want anyone jumping up and down and shouting "but that's not 'innocent until proven guilty' nyer, nyer, nyer!"

The coroner signed the death as a heart attack. No inquest, no arrests. There was no evidence that the coroner had been influenced either. Although according to that site his reputation isn't that solid.

"Isn't that solid" is being rather charitable, from my reading!

Everyone seems to be happy, including her family. I'm sure if there was the case would have easily been re-opened.

I don't think it's that easy to re-open such a case. There would be lots of objections and, IMO, possibly political pressure applied to deter such a thing from happening.

Well that is what the coroner said, and that makes it good enough for me. If someone has some credible evidence that the coroner may have been influenced by Scarbough, then by all means, i'll re-evaluate my thinking.

But there probably won't be such evidence. The point is that what the coroner said was questionable and the circumstances were dubious.

Whether this equates to "murder" or not, I don't know, but to me it's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to want to think.

Err cheers for that.

You're welcome.

if you are going to scrutinise the semantics of everything I say that closely then i'm not going to bother to even engage it. I don't have time or the inclination to even proof read my posts, let alone worry about semantics. Remember what I said before, can we please debate Moore, not me?

Again I point out that if you are going to engage in sweeping generalisations when you try to debate, I am going to point them out. If you are going to use careless wording (either accidentally or with deliberate intent to confuse or obfuscate) then I will point that out too.

He said he'd debate anyone. I'm desperately trying to find the quote where. I can even see the video in my head, he is on stage in a chair with like 4 other people.

And someone stands up and accuses him of "Hating America". Again I point out that this is hardly the way to start a resonable debate.

[punky]

Pardon my attitude in my post, but i've tried being nice to you, and asking you to do the same.

Originally Posted by Graham

So do I. When someone says "it isn't my style." and "I'll just tut and shake my head, and move on." and then blatantly contradicts themselves, I'm going to point this out!

I've already been through this. Furthermore could we, you know... Stick to the topic maybe?

Originally Posted by Graham

I would have thought "Moore" and "I hate Americans" shouldn't be too hard to find (unless you're overwhelmed by all those sites that *claim* he says that when he may not actually done so!)

It wouldn't be hard to find if I could remember some keywords from it.

Originally Posted by Graham

You are the one who said that "Moore has a long history of massaging the evidence to fit the thesis." but surely that doesn't dictate whether it's true or not either, does it?

Nice dodge. You took what I said, reworded it and said it back to me. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Graham

Well pardon me if it *does* matter to me!

I'm not going to tell you what to think. I'll defend my beliefs against criticism but i'm not hell bent on trying to convince everyone to believe what I believe. Now, can we get back on the topic of Moore and BFC and not me?

Originally Posted by Graham

Fine, that's your choice, but I'm not going to accept it just for that reason alone.

I'm not asking you to accept it. I don't give a monkey's either way to be frank. I'm not going to lie in bed worrying: "Graham doesn't believe me when I said X...". Now lets get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Graham

Unlike, say, the Bush Administration? (Saddam has WMDs, Saddam has links to Al Qa'eda, Saddam has links to September 11th, Saddam is a threat to the USA...!)

You know, staying on topic might not be a bad idea? Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Graham

Does Moore do this, though? He's stating an opinion. He's not putting a gun to people's heads and saying *this is how it is*!

He's also not calling people "unpatriotic" for questioning the Republican/ Conservative/ All-American/ Bush/ Mom's Apple Pie line...!

Where did I say Moore tries to do this? Cites?

Originally Posted by Graham

You're right, they're not in the same ballpark. Moore produced the film *he* wanted to without having to pander to someone else's idea of what should be in it!

Yeah, and having millions in corporate sponsership helps doesn't it? Wilson also doesn't have the luxury to sue a poor, struggling, independent magazine because he was a bad editor.

Wilson has never indicated he made the film anything other than what he wanted.


[quote=Graham
Of course I'm bringing up that point because it's more than a little relevant! It was not that he was "in office" it was that he was a *Republican* ie one of the people that Moore "attacks". As I also pointed out, it's a little more complicated than the somewhat simplistic view you presented which seemed to be "Moore has a go at this ordinary bloke because he said something criticising him".[/quote]

No, the fact that he is/was republican has no relevence on wether he killed his intern or not. And it isn't more complicated. Noone said anything until Moore did, which happened after Scarborough criticised him. Moore (rather childishly, I think) decided to discredit Scarborough because he dared criticise him. If he hadn't criticised Moore then Moore wouldn't have said anything.

Originally Posted by Graham

"Isn't that solid" is being rather charitable, from my reading!

This is off topic of course, (as is most of our posts, but nevermind). Either way, the case is closed, everyone is happy.

Originally Posted by Graham

I don't think it's that easy to re-open such a case. There would be lots of objections and, IMO, possibly political pressure applied to deter such a thing from happening.

I believe all it takes is a call to the cororoner's office, with one new piece of evidence or angle on the case. And given the coroners history, it shouldn't be too hard i'd think. Let's get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Graham

But there probably won't be such evidence. The point is that what the coroner said was questionable and the circumstances were dubious.

Whether this equates to "murder" or not, I don't know, but to me it's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to want to think.

Obviously not questionable enough to concern the deceased person's family. Or anyone in the coroners office. Or in the state (I think, although I could be wrong, you don't have to connected with a report to object to and and re-open it, so long as you have some valid evidence. Now let's get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Graham

Again I point out that if you are going to engage in sweeping generalisations when you try to debate, I am going to point them out. If you are going to use careless wording (either accidentally or with deliberate intent to confuse or obfuscate) then I will point that out too.

I've already said, can we discuss Moore and BFC, and not me?

Originally Posted by Graham

And someone stands up and accuses him of "Hating America". Again I point out that this is hardly the way to start a resonable debate.

He avoided Wilson long before Wilson said what the title of his movie would be.

Now I know i'm as bad as you for reciprocating it, but I think it's high time we start trying to keep these posts on topic. I've indicated what points you've made that are nothing to do with Moore directly or BFC. That includes: me, wether Scarbough is a murderer (but not what Moore said about him, or what he said about Moore), Wilson, unless it has some direct link with Moore, etc.

Also, that post I said i'll make, it doesn't look like the document I wanted to refer to will come online at all, but i'll make it anyway either tonight or tomorrow.

For gods sake moore is not that bad. I have just see the 9/11 movie and it was great, people clapped at the end.

Also one of the main points of the film was not the people who are treated the worst in a country (the people living in poor towns after closure of factory) are usually the first to defend the country. It was a really interesting point at the end of the film. I urge you to watch it and to stop attacking moore as his enemies are far worse

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

For gods sake moore is not that bad. I have just see the 9/11 movie and it was great, people clapped at the end.

Also one of the main points of the film was not the people who are treated the worst in a country (the people living in poor towns after closure of factory) are usually the first to defend the country. It was a really interesting point at the end of the film. I urge you to watch it and to stop attacking moore as his enemies are far worse

I have watched it. Although Moore will not admit it, he's learned a lot of lessons (or this war cabinet of his put their foot down), because this movie is much, much tighter (less ambiguity, etc). There are still errors in it though, but we'll see what happens with that. I don't attack Moore per se (pre-emtpively anyway), I just despise him. And if anyone asks me why, i'll tell them. I'd say there is a small but crucial difference.

Whatever you think of his politics you have to admit he is a excellent film maker. Also I dont see why you despise him?

This is funny

Letterman's Top Ten List: Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":


10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing
*
9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

Whatever you think of his politics you have to admit he is a excellent film maker. Also I dont see why you despise him?

See, it has nothing to do with his policies. I don't hate left-wingers or socalists. Being a punk, I hang out with lots of others and the vast majority subscribe to that point of view. Being independent/right leaning is very rare for punk culture.

Anyways, here is what I think. The thing I hate most about him, is his ethics or lack thereof. Even his fans and left-wingers think he could do with some improvement there. I was a bit disgusted he'd accuse someone of murder because he criticised him, but wether you view it that way or not is up to you. Also, remember that scene in BFC where he had the gall to comfort Kayleigh's teacher? I thought that was really rich considering he reduced her to tears in the first place. When I actually saw that, it said out aloud: "you b*****d", and actually wanted to hit him. Also, his hypocracy is well noted. He claims capitalism is evil and is a proponent for socialism, yet he has a $2m penthouse and a $1.3m Lake Michigan summer home. He earned it? Well fine, but he is against corporatism, yet he likes to use private jets, and yes, even SUVs when he is on tour. (see here) There is also this. He also said he'd donate Bush's tax break money to a democratic candidate, he hasn't. He tries to get people to fund the democratic party, yet his sole political donation is a $1000 to Hilary Clinton for Senator. (You can check that out here Don't ask me why every donation people make is listed on a government website, but it is. He is under Michael Moore, NY, Filmmaker. Apparently, he doesn't even vote all that much.

That is just him as a person, without mentioning his filming. I said he is a good filmmaker, and he is, in that he can use juxtaposition (filming effect where you make something seem better or worse than it actually is by comparing/sitting it next to something else. I.E. During the violence video montage in BFC, he used Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World" as a soundtrack) better than anyone. He knows how to invoke feelings and emotions. He is very powerful at that. Like I said he really needs to do anti-Drug commericals and stuff. That is good, but it works both ways (it is propaganda essientially). I could still like Moore if he was truely honest, but unethical. Unfortunately even Moore fans say he is a bit easy with the truth. What he should do, is video things and come to a conclusion. What he actually does is come to a conclusion and video some evidence to back it up. Also, he never, ever paints a picture in context. Not suprising considering it hurts his conclusion, but it hurts his image Bush ordered someone to do it. He never even mentioned the Miami voting scandal where dead people and felons manage to vote, which prompted getting Database Technologies getting involved. Also, he mentioned once that Bush circumvented his own campaign donation law, limiting donations to individuals to $2000 per person (To prevent companies "buying" influence in Washington). What he didn't tell you, was that Moore was talking about so called "Soft money donations", which are given to a party in general and not a person. The democrats actually earned more than the republicans. That is full and balanced video documentry making, not what he actually does.

I hope that explains it a bit better anyway.

First of all what is wrong with confronting the teacher? She had to agree to appear whats what those films are about is the effect on real people. What did you want? Why is he a *******? Talking to the person who was there? It is a powerful moment and there are news items and other things that show people crying! Why is he a ******* for doing it?

Also you go on about money but everyone makes money! You make money does that mean your points are any less valid? If you want to discredit someone then giving them a motive is a good thing to do.

Also he isnt the greatest fan of the democrats ever he said they where the best out of a bad bunch. Also you keep linkking to right wings sources who try to discredit moore and hence the issues are not talked about

Gun control is a problem
The media is a problem
The fact people didnt listain to the kids was a problem

The way the war was decided was a problem
The effects of war are true
The fact that bush proposed to cut soldiers wages and stuff was true
The election was a problem

The reason the right wingers try to personally attack moore is because they know they cannot defend these points. When they stop trying personal insults and talk about the issues and points is the time i will take notice of the anti-moore crowd