It's a pretty good gauge of his character and integrity. He's like all democrats (ghetto pimps), talk a big talk, but haven't got the faintest idea how to even attempt the walk! He's Jesse Jackson with straight hair.
So here we have him coddling all the "poorest" American's and after he's off the stage or off camera, it's "Let Them Eat Cake!"
The richest guys in this race are democrats and the Cheapest and most stingy and uncaring are democrats too!
part of the movie.
The 2 previous attempts were unsubstantiated and proven to be wrong by sdstud.
But then again, how can I expect any of the uptight righties to know if they refuse to open their minds (and wallets) to Moore's interpretation of the fiasco that Bush & admin. have turned the USA into.
instead of complaining something doesn't exist, try google.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Of course, with an ideology based on emotion...what else can we expect?
If you saw the film, you'd realize, that the overwhelming majority of what he claims, Moore never actually stated in the film. Kopel's article is riddled with outright lies, as well as claims that Moore "gives the impression that...." when in fact, Moore never actually stated any such thing in the film.
Moore's demonstrably (and demonstrated, in the article) fals "interpretations" are above reproach, while those of his critics are just "interpretations," to be attacked as such.
The hypocrisy of Moore's defenders is nearly as tragi-comical as the big fat stupid liar himself.
ideology based on emotion-?
Your ideology of screwing the poor and non-christian peoples of the earth? That is based on cold hard what exactly.
I think there is precious little ideology on either side. Expedience is king.
Just when I was starting to think that you gave your comments some thought!
What was your opinion of the Clinton's Administrations handling of the Rwanda genocide? Or the estimated 5,000,000 Sudanese who were exterminated during Bill's eight years? Or the spread of AIDS to epidemic proportions in Africa during the same time period, and Bill did nothing?
Oh yea, I fucking forgot, "He Felt Their Pain!", while dampening his cigar in Monica's pussy. What a fucking humanitarian!
That hateful Bush is sending medicine to Africa to help fight AIDS and is doing everything diplomatically possible about the civil war in Sudan. But somehow, to you, on your planet, that is the sign of someone who doesn't care about poor and non-Christian people of the Earth.
time, do we get to talk about Nixon?
Does this sound like a compassionate man to you? Not even a couple of bucks to the NAACP or Pimp Jackson's PUSH from the Kerry's! His fuzzy wuzzy wife did give a shitload to militant eco-terrorist groups. Not one abused women's shelter, or Boy's & Girls Club, or Church, or hospital, or VFW, or (you fill in the blank)!
Even with only Kerry's $145,000 Senate salary that is just .0010% of his salary, not including the income from his wifes $500,000,000.00 in assest or income from Heinz. This from a guy who flies around (even before the campaign) in a private Gulf Stream Two to his several million dollar homes around the country!
Kerry wouldn't however have any problems forcing you to give to whatever the fuck social program he can think up and taking it from you with the help of the IRS.
And what would you think that Kerry would do that Clinton didn't? As far as Nixon is concerned, that was 30 years ago, Clinton's administration is a much more recent and viable example of expectations from a Kerry Administration. Not that Kerry has given us any idea of what he would do, all he is about is class envy, raising taxes and berating Bush - nothing about what he would do. Although he did vote to go to war, now he's against it, he's a wimp, lacking any resemblance of a backbone. Not only a wimp, but he represents the best the democrats could come up with, pathetic.
Kerry is rich - definitely true. So are plenty of people who are capable of compassion.
Where do you get the idea that studying Clinton will tell you what Kerry will do?
It's a pretty good gauge of his character and integrity. He's like all democrats (ghetto pimps), talk a big talk, but haven't got the faintest idea how to even attempt the walk! He's Jesse Jackson with straight hair.
So here we have him coddling all the "poorest" American's and after he's off the stage or off camera, it's "Let Them Eat Cake!"
The richest guys in this race are democrats and the Cheapest and most stingy and uncaring are democrats too!
Hey Johnny Reb... Didn't you guys start a Civil War based on emotion? Never thought the South was a bastion of Reason.
Kopel's article is littered with the phrase: "Moore gave the impression that", as opposed to "Moore states"
Well, Bush GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT Saddam Hussein was about to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. But, of course, nobody in the Bush Administration actually said that. Kopel's article is extraordinarily imprecise with language, while in fact, Moore's film is VERY precise with language, and in particular, he studiously avoids making such false charges. He may put images in the background that set a mood, and he may show Bush administration officials looking stupid while having their makeup applied, but everyone knows those are just cinematic devices. What he explicitly states, is actually stuff that happenned.
After reading Kopel's article, I did not see a SINGLE significant factual claim of flasehood that addresses Moore's primary thesis, which he DID state: Prior to and just after 9/11, The Bush Administration was driven by it's Iraq myopia and so deeply in the pocket of the Saudi Ruling Family, that it was derelect in it's duty to protect the U.S. from Al Qaida, because it put the Saudi's interests, and it's anti-Iraq, pro-oil interests ahead of the U.S. Population's interests. And secondly, Bush was so interested in attacking Iraq to overthrow Saddam, that major efforts were made, without any factual basis, to link Saddam to Al Qaida and 9/11, and to continue to foster an atmosphere of fear in the general public about Iraq representing an imminent threat to the U.S.
That is what Moore's film says. And nothing in Kopel's article in any way shows any falsehood in the information that Moore has presented in the film to make that case. Period.
Well I caught him in one mis-catch of a Moore "deceit". Moore says the Afghan situstion now is very unsettle and unfinished. This guy claims its going fine.
If you watch BBC or ITN, Deutche Vella or non-American news- you can tell its a total balls up. Little Security- lots of politial and some actual in-fighting. So Moore is not wrong there.
So this not game set match- totally. I think this guy is an admin apoliogist- as much as Moore is a total lefty idealogue.
I think the real truth is out there- somewhere in the middle. Does anyone go to a Moore film and expect a balanced view? But he is funny- and he brings up good points- for one to verify and investigate later on one's own.
Only the goofy right takes the media seriously. The rest of us know not to trust...
I was not complaining, I was merely asking the people that said the movie was full of lies to bring up 1 lie that Moore told in his movie. They countered with 2 separate things that were not lies at all from Moore, but distorted by the right it seemed as though they were.
Here is a quick one for you, about the flights out of the country and how the current admin. lied about it.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml
you're just not paying attention. The deceits of Michael Moore are well-documented, as are his shadings, in the article referenced by another poster. The only one who needs to open his mind here, PP, is you. It would require first that you open your eyes.
But frankly, how would you even know this, since you never saw the film in question? You actually don't know what the fuck you're talking to on this subject, as by your own admission, you've not seen the film.
If the author of the article is lying, then Moore should sue him, as he has threatened to do.
Of course, any attorney worth a damn knows that truth is an absolute defense to charges of libel or slander, so I won't hold my breath to see such a suit filed.
Which was, that Moore NEVER actually said what Kopel claims he said, just as the Bush Administration never actually accused Saddam of having responsibility for 9/11. Moore might have laid out alot of circumstantial evidence that implied certain things, just as Cheney and Bush lay out alot of circumstantial claims about Saddam - Al Qaida links, but so long as Moore did NOT specifically make the claim, you can't rightly accuse him of it. Just as I never accused Bush/Cheney of actually claiming Saddam had responsibility for 9/11, even though they often alluded to this, they stopped short of making the actual false claim. As does Moore in his film. It's simply a case of effective advocacy for his overall thesis. Which, BTW, you still don't actually know what his thesis is, because you never saw the film, and I know you don't believe me when I tell you what it is.
Moore is the son of Lucifer!! He learned from his dad!
Moore is fat and needs to loose weight!
It was aimed at someone who can think for themself.
-- Modified on 7/9/2004 4:53:04 PM
It was a bad movie documentary with a bad story, tainted with lies and deceit and directed by a fat director who was hailed by all the left wing liberal Bush hater bastards!!
Yet you continue to call Michael Moore a liar. As far as it being a bad movie, you are entitled to your opinion (as hateful as it is).
Yes, we all know he is fat, so are Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney. Fat is something you can loose, ignorant opinions & closed mindedness evidently are not as has been proven by Rush. It is only an issue to those that cannot provide substance to what they spew forth.