Yeah, in the land of the free, where freedom of speech, and freedom of movement are enshrined in the constitution, a president should be allowed to trample all over an individuals rights. Or does the constitution only protect right wingers and gun nuts?
Thats because they get sucked into playing his game his way. I could prove him wrong in a matter of seconds. Attack the base of all his arguments, they all rely on the false assumption that human rights are worth a shit. No they aren't. There, he's been proven wrong. Blue collar guy got laid off - tough shit sucker iraqis got bombed for no reason- boo hoo, eat a dick iraqis etc etc He just ACTS like he is revealing objective truths, in reality he's just wording how he wants the world to be in a way that makes it seem like it couldn't be any other way without being wrong. Springer does it all the time in his final thoughts, and if you can't think for yourself you're like "damn, good call jerry, you're a smart guy", but no, that guy wanted to fuck his sister's boyfriend, deal with it jerry.
I think you are missing the point. Any democrat allowing Michael Moore to sidle up next to him is committing political suicide. Don't believe me? How many states did Wesley Clark win after Michael Moore stood onstage with him and called the sitting president a deserter? I'm no fan of W. but I do think the sitting President should be treated respectfully by his opponents as well as his allies.
I didn't realize Kerry was a President? President of the Botox Club for Men? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Umm, you couldn't have completely missed my point anymore than you apparently did.
"Intelligent" people know the difference between FACT and ASSUMPTION. Conclusion based on ASSUMPTION. FACT. (you have not proven him wrong) Iraqis got bombed = FACT (you have not proven him wrong). "For No Reason" = ASSUMPTION. If you take Bowling For Columbine for example, Moore very seldomly (or never)made conclusions. He presented FACTS and he interviewed people with different OPINIONS. The viewer was given the right to draw his own conclusion from the who, what , when, wheres Moore presented.
IMHO many of Moores topics are perfectly interesting in their own right. They don't have to be part of a twisted narrative to be worth consideration. Take the Bush family relationship with the Bin Laden tribe. How can that not be worth examination? I can draw my own conclusions and so can all of you. Dee cee
Dr Lou.. I would be intrested to hear your points against Micheal Moore in a more complete answer. I understand, that you were probly rushed, had to go meet someone and simpley didnt give a good answer. I honestly do wish to listen, because alltough, I do belive alot of what Micehal Moore says, I do have some issues with him other than every time I read his books I want to smack him for acting stupid at times, but allso I do see alot of lack of certain aspects of evidence, esspicaly when linking one pice to another.
Its kind of funny how I agree more with Lou Natic. Despite his rudimentary language, he conveys more wisdom then Mr. Moore (notice I said wisdom, not truth). I agree with the overall opinion here that Moore has some very good points (his work on gun-violence is particularily good) but for the most part Michael works only to build up the anti-white, anti-conservative sentiment that left a hole in the American heart in the first place, the kind of hole ripe for the aimless materialism that drives people to turn their schools to Swiss cheese.
