Michael Moore Owns Haliburton!

[Montgomery Burns]

theloniusfleabag:

I only suggest that people who are derogatory, derisive and post false (for the purposes of 'flaming') information be disciplined/banned.

From TLFB below:

You are a 'DU reject', (by your own admission) for being an asshole, no one believes your bullshit about it being over the word 'why'. The sooner you fuck off the better. No forum should be subjected to assholes like you.

Typical retort from a typical hypocrite.

If Greg has a problem with me, I'm sure he'll say something.

We'll see.

However, you seem to have proven my point, that you only post imflammatory rhetoric against those you disagree with, and never contribute to debate. (Well, mostly never. I have, in the past, noted some 2-3% of you posts actually had something to do with a topic, 95% is ad hom attacks.

Translation: I can outdebate you 2-3% of the time, but 95% of the time you kick my ass. That's why I going blubbering to Greg demanding that you be banned. I was furious that you pointed that it was regretable that I didn't know that natural resources belong to the provinces, not the feds. So now anything you post, I deride it as being bogus, derogatory, derisive, false, and disingenuous. I also accuse you of flaming by calling you an asshole, say you are bullshitting, and that you should fuck off...all in a non-inflammatory way, of course.

I'm merely showing that famous leftwing tolerance. That's why I have been following you for months and hurling little but insults and snide suggestions after nearly everything you post.

Unfortunately, Greg appears to recognize the rank partisanship of my banning suggestion. Damn that free speech! I hate it, I hate it, I HATE IT!!! :angry:

Again, another post with 100% rubbish content. Perhaps I will give Greg a miss this time.

No. Don't give him a pass. Go stomp your feet and throw another temper tantrum.

You are a 'DU reject', (by your own admission) for being an asshole, no one believes your bullshit about it being over the word 'why'. The sooner you fuck off the better. No forum should be subjected to assholes like you.

I got booted from the DU for typing one word:

Why?...which was in response to the topic that said that the US should have national healthcare because it is a "right".

I could just FEEL that leftwing tolerance at the DU.

You dishonestly post that by my own admission that I am an asshole. Now wonder you can't honestly debate anyone on this forum.

If the moderator shall find issue with this post, no problem. My only hope is that he reviews your posts also, and takes the appropriate action that is best for everyone.

Ha ha. He has reviewed my posts many times because you are constantly whining that I be banned.

Extremists like you are frightening. You would just love to throw all righties in re-education internment camps, like your leftist brethren so love to do. That's why us righties watch you and fight you everyway we can--all in the name of personal freedom.

[Montgomery Burns]

Michael Moore and factual argument do not belong in the same sentence.  You can't possibly be this foolish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here you go:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f9...index.php?id=16

Care to debunk?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let the debunking begin: 59 deceits in Fahrenheit 9-11

But I do hope that Michael Moore puts out some more agitprop masquerading as a "documentary". He sure energized the Republican base in 2004.

[newbie]

Monty, I'm not suprised you'd use this right-wing approach. I was hoping (too much I'm afraid) for a little non-partisan and objective critique. This line from the preface made it pretty clear that little objectivity, and hence credibility, would be found in the report.

Whether or not you agree with me on every single item, I think you will agree that the evidence is undeniable that Fahrenheit 9/11 is filled with deceit.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

Thank you Mr. Kopel for making up my mind for me.

I did manage to read through it, but was not totally impressed given the excessive right wing ranting. Aside from poetic license, I think Mr. Moore's movie does accomplish what it intended; to make some of us think about the abuses of power. If anything is undeniable, it is that.

[Montgomery Burns]

Newbie:

Monty, I'm not suprised you'd use this right-wing approach. I was hoping (too much I'm afraid) for a little non-partisan and objective critique.

You linked to the deceitful Michael Moore; I didn't.

If you can come up with 59 deceits from Dave Koppel, I would like to hear it.

*crickets chirping*

[theloniusfleabag]

Burns,

I was furious that you pointed that it was regretable that I didn't know that natural resources belong to the provinces, not the feds

To the best of my recollection, and searching the answer, I did say later "I stand corrected". However, that issue has never been 'put to the test', as the separation of Quebec might foment.

Regardless,

That's why I have been following you for months and hurling little but insults and snide suggestions after nearly everything you post.

with this you admit to breaking the forum rules, for an extended period of time with your worthless

'hurling little but insults and snide suggestions

that spawn no debate but aim to disrupt, and yet you can claim that there was another reason for me to call for administrative discipline?

I shall report this post Greg myself, I do hope he reads it.

For a forum administrator to discuss the content of reports, or posts in question, with other posters that should rightly be held 'in confidence' is appalling. Certainly, it should be for him to judge what or what is not acceptable. However, what has transpired here I find truly disgusting.

[newbie]

Newbie:

Monty, I'm not suprised you'd use this right-wing approach. I was hoping (too much I'm afraid) for a little non-partisan and objective critique.

You linked to the deceitful Michael Moore; I didn't.

If you can come up with 59 deceits from Dave Koppel, I would like to hear it.

*crickets chirping*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I linked because Michael Moore is the topic of this thread. I didn't say Kopel was deceitful, just too right leaning to present an impartial presentation of his "facts."

[tml12]

Newbie:

Monty, I'm not suprised you'd use this right-wing approach. I was hoping (too much I'm afraid) for a little non-partisan and objective critique.

You linked to the deceitful Michael Moore; I didn't.

If you can come up with 59 deceits from Dave Koppel, I would like to hear it.

*crickets chirping*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I linked because Michael Moore is the topic of this thread. I didn't say Kopel was deceitful, just too right leaning to present an impartial presentation of his "facts."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, we are seeing that more and more...everyone has a view which we cannot deny them even though we may wish we could...

[Slavik44]

But I do hope that Michael Moore puts out some more agitprop masquerading as a "documentary".  He sure energized the Republican base in 2004. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what your saying is Moore doesn't always tell the truth???? No shit eh???? Michael Moore really isn't the God of the democrats, the democrats like him because he draws a crowd, the youth like him because he is funny. He really isn't a central figure in the policy making of the democrats I think more or less he strikes the ire of republicans because he beats Pat Robertson hands down.

[Toro]

I think he's hilarious and brilliant at satire, and I dont' agree with him very much.

However, he helps more than hurts the GOP.

[Montgomery Burns]

theloniusfleabag:

with this you admit to breaking the forum rules, for an extended period of time with your worthless 'hurling little but insults and snide suggestions that spawn no debate but aim to disrupt, and yet you can claim that there was another reason for me to call for administrative discipline?

Can you possibly be more dishonest? I said that it is YOU that is following me around this forum hurling insults.

I shall report this post Greg myself, I do hope he reads it.

For a forum administrator to discuss the content of reports, or posts in question, with other posters that should rightly be held 'in confidence' is appalling. Certainly, it should be for him to judge what or what is not acceptable. However, what has transpired here I find truly disgusting.

I have not complained once to Greg about your constant breaking of the "no flaming" rules on this site, but I have had enough of your disgusting antics and I will be reporting your barrage of insults to the moderator. You have gotten completely out of hand.

[Montgomery Burns]

Slavik44:

Michael Moore really isn't the God of the democrats,...

Yep. That's why he had a prize seat beside an ex-president of the US at the DNC and that is why much of the Democrat leadership went to the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit 9-11 and gushed to the press about how good it was.

[sarcasm]Yep. Moore is actually someone on the fringes of the Democrat Party--unlike Pat Robertson, who is constantly lauded by rightwingers.[/sarcasm]

[Slavik44]

Slavik44:

Michael Moore really isn't the God of the democrats,...

Yep. That's why he had a prize seat beside an ex-president of the US at the DNC and that is why much of the Democrat leadership went to the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit 9-11 and gushed to the press about how good it was.

[sarcasm]Yep. Moore is actually someone on the fringes of the Democrat Party--unlike Pat Robertson, who is constantly lauded by rightwingers.[/sarcasm]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

come on man it is just getting lame now. I never denied that Moore was popular and all you have shown is that he is popular in the democratic party. You know as well as I do that it takes more than popularity to be the god of anything from the chess club to the democratic party.

Logicaly speaking it makes sense that democrats are going to praise farenhiet 9-11 it was a 100 million dollar revenue machine. Generally speaking you pay money to have political advertisments aired not the other way around. Infact the movie itself earned about half of what the democrats spent leading up to the election, and it probabley recieved more air time. You would be stupid not to give it the thumbs up if it benifieted you.

Michael moore is an attention grabber so you want to make sure this guy shows up at your political rallies and campaigns because the guy is just as recognizable as John Kerry. Ensuring he comes to your meetings and conventions and gets a good seat, is like free publicity, you would be stupid not to take it.

I also never said more was on the fringes of the democratic party, but he is on the fringes as far as policy is concerned, unless I am mistaken. But I don't know any central policy to the democratic party that moore introduced. He is popular within the democratic party and with youth, but he certainly isn't the central figure of the agenda of the democratic party, he is the messenger and a damn good one at that. But a good messenger is not God, maybe he is "John the Baptist" of the democratic party.

[Montgomery Burns]

Slavik, you don't endorse a disengenous filmmaker who is disliked by the majority of Americans.

Fahrenheit 9-11 was not a successful film no matter how much the MSM said it was. Hollywood and Cannes can bestow as many awards on it as they like, but the fact is that is finished in 228th place. The only places it did well in America was in the bluest of the blue states.

You don't give a choice seat--beside an ex-prez--at the DNC to a dishonest American-hating person like Michael Moore. You do realize that that energized the Republican base.

It was stupid for the Democrats to publically embrace a kook like him. One thing I have noticed is that rightwingers generally shun or ignore their kooks. While leftists bring up Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, I know few, if any, righties who support or stick up for people of that ilk. But the lefties support or stick up for Michael Moore. We have even seen this on MapleLeafWeb.

Rightwing bigots like David Duke are shunned and attacked by rightwingers, yet Robert Byrd (D-KKK) is often dubbed "the conscience of the Senate" by Democrats.

[Slavik44]

Slavik, you don't endorse a disengenous filmmaker who is disliked by the majority of Americans. 

That has never been prooven as a fact, your assuming it is a fact. And yes you do endorse a 2 hour political campaign ad, its free to do.

Fahrenheit 9-11 was not a successful film no matter how much the MSM said it was. Fahrenheit 9-11 was not a successful film no matter how much the MSM said it was.  Hollywood and Cannes can bestow as many awards on it as they like, but the fact is that is finished in 228th place.  The only places it did well in America was in the bluest of the blue states.

16 Van Helsing Uni. $120,177,084 3,580 $51,748,040 3,575 5/7 8/26

17 Fahrenheit 9/11 Lions $119,194,771 2,011 $23,920,637 868 6/23 10/28

Wasn't succesfull the 17th highest grossing domestic film of the year was not a success???? It had a Worldwide grossing of $222,446,320. While costing only 21 million to make, produce, and market. Van helsing on the other hand cost 210 million.

You don't give a choice seat--beside an ex-prez--at the DNC to a dishonest American-hating person like Michael Moore.  You do realize that that energized the Republican base.

Given the cynical view of politics that choice seat was going to go to a dishonest person in the eyes of the public, maybe they coudl have given it to howard dean???

anyways enough with this you have still failed to proove michael moore is their God, all you really have offered is that he got a choice seat...your bassign your whole arguement ont he fact he got a seat...which in the end doesn't conclusively mean anything.

As well don't preach to me about the flaws of the democratic party I have never been a stringent supporter of them, Infact in thsi very old thread, http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...7&hl=bush&st=15, I stated that no one shoudl replace bush because he is the best man for the job, so please don't tell me the democrats have flaws I know that.

[Darth Buddha]

So Moore is a loudmouthed hypocrite. So what?

Yeah, so what if one of the biggest icons of the left is a lying hypocrite? Sure, he had a prize seat beside an ex-president at the DNC. Sure, many of the top leaders of the DNC went to the premiere of the disgusting agitprop known as Fahrenheit 9-11, and gleefully pronounced that the movie spoke the truth.

And Bush lauded Ken Lay as a great executive at fundraisers.

Politicians as a lot associate with demagogues, robber barons, and lobbyists who shower them with acceptable "gifts" to curry favor. Moreover, most of the INFORMATION that Moore provided WAS true: what HE did was draw conclusions that weren't supported.

Watch the film, and if you can actually THINK rather than fume, then you'll probably be able to see exactly what Moore is: a demagogue who presents a few legitimate facts but slips in fallacy and smears in place of logical conclusion.

That's the kind of reasoning you are presenting, by the way.

But sooo what? Who cares if he is anti-gun but his bodyguard gets arrested on gun charges.

Safety and security for me but not for thee--the very definition of a hypocrite.

I see.

By that reasoning any country that wanted to see a reduction in nuclear arms by treaty but yet wouldn't reduce them unilaterally was a hippocrite. By that reasoning, I as a legal gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms but with better safegaurds for ownership, registration, and even mandatory insurance (like, say, automobiles) is a hippocrite? I can't own a gun because I'd like to IMPROVE the current world of laissez-faire wild west of illegal guns that make owning a gun with THAT kind of world outside my front door is a logical move?

Poppycock. In country where guns are in the hands of criminals and/or neoconservative extremists and their even more extreme kin such as various militias and white supremacists, I'd think Moore would be an IDIOT if he didn't have armed bodygaurds.

He'd be a HIPPOCRITE if the laws he supports were enacted and he STILL insisted on armed bodygaurds.

Seems that subtle difference went right over your head

Does that make his factual arguments any less valid, or are you actually fool enough to think that an ad hominem attack in leiu of rebuttal is valid? I go to his film but I verify the facts with a bit of reading afterwards. But even when he's exaggerating, he's still funny.

Michael Moore and factual argument do not belong in the same sentence. You can't possibly be this foolish.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, Monty. I've supported probably a third of Bush policies, and I even support SOME of the demands of the religious right for EQUAL treatment under the law (as in, say, the case where a school refused to sell billboard advertising to a church just the same as the local hardware store, or in the manner that state scholarships are fine for philosophy majors but not religious studies majors, etc.). Moore has a few points where he DOESN'T play fast and loose. If you watch Farenheit 911 (don't rent it, download it - after all, Moore ENCOURAGED folks to see it via P2P) and THINK you'll see that Moore almost always presents a series of TRUE facts, but then jumps to a conclusion that isn't supported or uses a smear instead of a legitimate argument.

Sounds a bit like your current arguments. Same tactics, but different orientation. You can do better than Michael Moore, and still nail him for what he is with the specific times he plays fast and loose with conclusions. He's a demagogue. Responding to HIM with demagoguery is just legitimizing his tactics.

What kind of fool are you to denounce Moore when you are far bigger a hypocrite?

Are you saying that she should only own union resorts, restaraunts, and vineyards? Why do you think that makes any sense whatsoever? Just how many resorts, restaraunts, and vineyards ARE union?

Why not? Wouldn't it be hypocritical not to? Are you telling us that there are no restaurants that are unionized? What nonsense. KFC in BC has over 50 unionized restaurants.

As an aside, if you want to eat at KFC, more power to you. It'd make me ill, both literally and figuratively (could put me in the hospital for a few days). I'm in favor of unions WHERE THE EMPLOYEES VOTE TO UNIONIZE. I'm in favor of employers who pay their employees well enough to forstall any such developments. Costco, the makers of SAS, and others. Having dated a few waitresses and even a chef's assistant in college (and coincidentally at some of the better restaurants I dined in back then), I know that the high end restaraunt employees are well compensated when you figure in tips. One girl had a brother washing dishes in the back, and even HE did fairly well.

Sounds to me like those employees didn't NEED a union, so why should I only eat there if they chose to form a union they didn't need? That'd be anticompetitive. Hell, it'd be anti-American! Hipocrisy would be me choosing to shop at Sam's Club when better treated employees at Costco give me the same savings. Hipocrisy would be me choosing to buy a non-union product when an equivalent union product at the same price was available (often, it is - you can find clothes that don't use child or prison labor that's just as good and no more expensive - if you look).

So no it isn't hipocrisy. Just because one is pro labor doesn't mean that one has to rule out non-union outfits. Nor does it mean that one has to invest in a failing heavily union-shop (say, GM) when less unionized outfits are turning a profit. Perhaps unionized without all the stupid rules that get in the way , for example - like the rule that said I couldn't move an analytical instrument today but had to wait for a unionized porter to do it for me next week. Unionized intelligently without that silliness but providing an ombudsman who could intervene if employees were being harassed by rogue supervisors, for example.

Being Pro-Union doesn't mean I can't also be anti-stupid.

You really need to take a remedial vocabulary course: you use hypocrite without grasping the meaning. I guess in THAT way you aren't a hypocrite, you're just ignorant and feel the need to share that fact with everyone.

You have no point, and even as a smear this isn't up to muster.

Pot, meet the kettle.

Nope. Reasoned fact based thought meets unthinking sloganism and smears, omission of relevant facts, and downright lies. All this even when there are legitimate facts and arguments at hand if you did a bit more reading and actually THOUGHT: read both the liberals and conservatives, for example, and you realize that neither tells the whole truth. Read the WSJ, which is very much results oriented but yet cites more liberal sources than most liberal newspapers do (I think the study of this was done in Michigan, but I don't have research library access at the moment).

So it's rational man meet ignorant liar.

Just how is THAT possible... given his employment and writing history, that rings fasle on its face. LINK.

Chomsky did work for the DoD on translating computer languages; MIT gets money from the US military. Do you read anything other than leftwing news sources?[/b]

I read the liberals and the conservatives and laugh at their lies. Then I read Reuters and the WSJ to see if there were any lies that I missed. I haven't seen you present proof, and when you detail that even if you ARE correct, it was just translating computer languages, there's no hypocrisy at all. I could make kevlar jackets for our troops, for example, and not be a hypocrite if I argue against the Iraqi (but not the Afgani) War. I could make rifles, I could make tanks. I probably would be a hypocrite if I made nerve gas or maybe napalm, but I'd bet that napalm HAS had some legitimate uses. Pour it into a bunker, for example, and I'm not going to bat an eyelash.

Moreover, I've done research at universities that receive DoD monies (even to departments whose classes were in my degree path). That doesn't make me a hypocrite. Monies came from some pretty conservative groups too, and there were also donations from very liberal causes. If I they fund WORK that I think is important, then I can say I agree with them in that instance and not another.

So yet again you cry hypocrisy on the level of a child's reasoning, but not an adult one. I'd say open your eyes, but your impediment is apparently in your gray matter.

And I am not going to even get into Chomsky's anti-Semitism.]

RIGHT. He supported a one state solution for years and flopped to two-state around the time that Israeli war heroes like Barak and Sharon decided it was the only way. He TALKED to Hezbollah in hopes of getting a civilized response in return that would grow (it didn't). Bottom line is, he's a ZIONIST. Just not ZIONIST enough for the extremists. You know, like the conservatives in the German legislature weren't conservative or authoritarian enough for the National-Socialist German Workers Party.

Sort of the way LIBERALS call me a Nazi because I like W.I.C as a model for basic socialist safety nets (you can have Cheerios but not Fruit Loops, you can have lean hamburger but not fillet mignon) for a more intelligent way of spending food assistance, health care, and other dollars (while liberals think that's violating recipient "rights" rather than actually giving them OPTIONS and FREEDOM they wouldn't have without such programs existence). Just as CONSERVATIVES think I'm a liberal because I support W.I.C. in the first place. That's the kind of anti-semite that Chomsky is.

And Wikipedia? Get real. Anyone can write anything on that site. You DO know that, don't you?

You DO know that individual facts and paragraphs that are factually and rationally disputed get labeled "Disputed" don't you? Get one of your coherent friends to do the disputing on Wikipedia, though. You clearly lack the means to do factual or rational.

Wikipedia uses a very democratic (lower case 'd' before you go off on another half-baked tangent based on your failure to understand words of more than two syllables) approach which suprisingly leads to getting things right more often than not. Probably not to your liking, though, as it isn't really a servant of any specific dogma. There's lots in there for liberals not to like too.

Again, so one proponent of environmentalism doesn't live up to her ideals... I can find a laundry list of consevatives who lobby for exceptions to get around the limitations of the free market, who succeed in getting corporate welfare for their pet interests, and a variety of other hypocritical endeavors.

I think you are confused. From the WND article:

"Those who believe that the rich need to pay more in taxes proved especially adept at avoiding taxes themselves. Critics of capitalism and corporate enterprise frequently invested in the very companies they denounced. Those who espouse strict environmental regulations worked vigorously to sidestep them when it came to their own businesses and properties. Those who advocate steep inheritance taxes to promote fairer income distribution hid their investments in trusts or exotic overseas locales to reduce their own tax liability. Those who are strong proponents of affirmative action rarely practiced it themselves, and some had abysmal records when it came to hiring minorities. Those who proclaim themselves champions of civil liberties when it comes to criminal or terrorist cases went to extraordinary lengths to curtail the civil liberties of others when they felt threatened or just inconvenienced. Advocates of gun control had no problem making sure that an arsenal of weapons was available to protect them from dangerous criminals."

Right. So if I am in favor of the environment, I have to spend ten times the price for low impact foods (when simply giving organic food producers (thereby pesticide and chemical fertilizer free - clearly lower impact) a tax break would do just fine.

If I'm in favor of higher taxes, I have to GIVE money to the government that I don't owe by the current rules? If I were pro-affirmative action (I'm not) I'd have to hire a less qualified minority when I've got a better qualified white applicant even when the law didn't say I HAD to?

Nope. You can support changing the rules, but you don't have to play by those rules and screw yourself by being the only one to play by said rules until they are implemented. A civilized man amongst cannibals will be supper if he subscribes to Tiffany Etiquette. A nuclear power doesn't have to give up or reduce nukes unilaterally without agreement of the opposing nation to also give up (or reduce) nukes.

MORE IMPORTANTLY: I still don't see any specific examples in your quoted ad hominem tirade. The quote you posted is as lacking in substance as YOU are. All I see is unsupported generalized smears. If that's seriously your idea of "proof" then you probably belong in one of those nice white coats with sleeves that tie in the back.

I can also point out a variety of highly immoral, unethical, and dastardly religious fundamentalists. So what? It wouldn't prove one side or the other more "valid" either way.

Okay. You point out the "variety of highly immoral, unethical, and dastardly religious fundamentalists", and I will point out the variety of highly immoral, unethical, and dastardly secular fundamentalists of the left.

Examples: Pat Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson. If you want me to itemize their shenanigans, just say so.

But the bottom line is, if Jimmy Swaggart presents a policy idea that is FACTUALLY a good idea with arguments of merit, I should still listen to it. I don't like Bush, but I support him in Afganistan. I'm in favor of about three quarters of the Patriot Act and in wanting to streamline wiretaps of FOREIGN calls if not his clearly illegal domestic intelligence gathering. I am impressed by his rational argument that LIMITED and PRINCIPLED amnesty (say, a one time only guest worker offer that could allow them to become U.S. citizens no faster than foreigners applying at the same time through the legitimate channels, with adjustments up and down based on family members here, by family members who are U.S. CITIZENS, or for people who can prove they've been here a decade or more) to deal with a simultaneous (and intelligent) move to strict enforcement of illegal immigrant laws AFTER the amnesty is in place. I'm in favor of SOME demands of the religious right: say that they have the same right to buy ad space at the school football field as the hardware store has. Or that if state scholarships can apply to philosophy majors then they should also apply to religious study majors.

If I ignore a valid point that somebody who I usually don't agree with automatically, I'd be pro-stupid. I prefer good arguments and facts. I even know of some arguments to SUPPORT some of your contentions. I won't embarass you by spoon feeding them to you unless I absolutely have to; far better for YOU to present them so I can prove I will agree with you when YOU'VE use legitimate arguments and facts.

Let's see who can come up with the most examples.

Then again, maybe not.

You puling coward. You offer to pony up then again chicken out when proof time arrives.

So yet again, no specifics. I can rattle about a half dozen EXTREME examples on the left off the top of my head, just as I can rack up a bunch on the right. I provided the religious nuts above and I'll detail their idiocy if needed. Go ahead and provide a few liberal nuts. Start with Moore and download the movie (after all, Moore encouraged it) to pinpoint exactly what his shenanigans are. You'll have SO much more heft in your arguments when they are specific thought based on specific facts (Moore's specific specious arguments) rather than generalized smear.

All I see from you is the lies and smears of a coward who can't back up his words with reason or fact. You misrepresent my arguments, omitting more than HALF of a premised argument with caveats, so you can belittle the bits and parts you want. Playing Chinese Menu doesn't wash, Monty. Arguments aren't Garanimals, you have to address them as stated: if you clip the context, presented caveats, or need to omit central points of the argument, that makes you a liar, not clever.

[BubberMiley]

Wasn't succesfull the 17th highest grossing domestic film of the year was not a success????

Monty likes to lie, and when you call him on it, he disappears. What did Stephen Colbert say? "Reality has an obvious liberal bias."

[Darth Buddha]

Typical political lies: lies of omission, lies unsupported or fallacious conclusions, and substitution of ad hominem arguments for actual reason.

Sounds like Michael Moore to me!

(I can't see where I'm screwing up my qutoes: are embedded quotes supported on this forum?)

[gc1765]

It was stupid for the Democrats to publically embrace a kook like him. One thing I have noticed is that rightwingers generally shun or ignore their kooks. While leftists bring up Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, I know few, if any, righties who support or stick up for people of that ilk. But the lefties support or stick up for Michael Moore. We have even seen this on MapleLeafWeb.

That is probably because, unlike Michael Moore, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have been known to make blatantly anti-feminist, homophobic, anti-everything except christianity comments, call for the murder of hugo chavez and support charles taylor (now indicted for war crimes). How could anyone support them? You can say what you want about Michael Moore, but he is no Robertson/Falwell.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Darth Buddha,

(I can't see where I'm screwing up my qutoes: are embedded quotes supported on this forum?)

You can't use the

'quote'

more than 10 times in a post or none of them will register.

[Darth Buddha]

Thanks. I changed quotes to different text styles instead.

[Canuck E Stan]

Michael Moore unmasked

Filmmaker Michael Moore, director and star of successful films such as "Roger & Me," "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," has become the unwilling subject of a new documentary that raises questions about the credibility of his work and describes a "disturbing pattern of fact-fudging and misrepresentation," reports the London Sunday Times.

While Moore has long been a favorite target of those on the political right, this new documentary – "Manufacturing Dissent" – comes from two left-leaning Canadian filmmakers who were once fans and who began their project expecting to tell a positive story.

Their first disillusionment came in Flint, Mich., where Moore had portrayed his efforts to interview Roger Smith, the former chief executive of General Motors, about the company's policies that led to closure of the city's auto manufacturing plants. In "Roger & Me," Moore failed to get Smith to talk to him. In reality, said Caine and Melnyk, Moore secured two on-camera interviews, but the scenes were left out, apparently for dramatic effect.

Poor Lefties,more liers and deciet coming from their ranks.

Who next? Al Gore? .......Oh wait he's on the list too.

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

[Figleaf]

Of course you don't. because if you accept the truth, that Michael Moore owns Haliburton stock, your head would explode. You're just part of the culture of hypocrisy that exists on the left.

Why would I care? If true, all that it would show is that hypocrisy is a human trait and not the sole domain of right wingers.

Hey! Credit where it's due ... the right may not own hypocrisy, but they've made it what it is today.