Cannes' Palme D'or Goes To Michael Moore
SkulkBait
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
in Discussions
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Palme d'Or of this 57th edition of the Festival de Cannes was presented by Charlize Theron to Michael Moore for his film, Fahrenheit 9/11.
"I can't begin to express my appreciation and my gratitude to the jury, the Festival, to Gilles Jacob, Thierry Frémaux, Bob and Harvey at Miramax, to all of the crew who worked on the film. [...] I have a sneaking suspicion that what you have done here and the response from everyone at the festival, you will assure that the American people will see this film. I can't thank you enough for that. You've put a huge light on this and many people want the truth and many want to put it in the closet, just walk away. There was a great Republican president who once said, if you just give the people the truth, the republicans, the Americans will be saved. [...] I dedicate this Palme d'Or to my daughter, to the children of Americans and to Iraq and to all those in the world who suffer from our actions. "<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.festival-cannes.org/news_archive.php?langue=6002&actu=2821&retour=index.php
Since this involves Michael Moore, I'll save everyone some time and do some pre-emptive linking:
Critisism: <a href='http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html' target='_blank'>http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html</a>
Defense by Moore: <a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/' target='_blank'>http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/</a>
Defense by Eloquence on K5: <a href='http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607' target='_blank'>http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607</a>
And some interesting stuff about the film which won the award: <a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-05-04' target='_blank'>http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...Date=2004-05-04</a>
"I can't begin to express my appreciation and my gratitude to the jury, the Festival, to Gilles Jacob, Thierry Frémaux, Bob and Harvey at Miramax, to all of the crew who worked on the film. [...] I have a sneaking suspicion that what you have done here and the response from everyone at the festival, you will assure that the American people will see this film. I can't thank you enough for that. You've put a huge light on this and many people want the truth and many want to put it in the closet, just walk away. There was a great Republican president who once said, if you just give the people the truth, the republicans, the Americans will be saved. [...] I dedicate this Palme d'Or to my daughter, to the children of Americans and to Iraq and to all those in the world who suffer from our actions. "<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.festival-cannes.org/news_archive.php?langue=6002&actu=2821&retour=index.php
Since this involves Michael Moore, I'll save everyone some time and do some pre-emptive linking:
Critisism: <a href='http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html' target='_blank'>http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html</a>
Defense by Moore: <a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/' target='_blank'>http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/</a>
Defense by Eloquence on K5: <a href='http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607' target='_blank'>http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607</a>
And some interesting stuff about the film which won the award: <a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-05-04' target='_blank'>http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...Date=2004-05-04</a>
Comments
Here is a nice quote from the <a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5039229/' target='_blank'>MSNBC</a> article:
"'You have to understand, the last time I was on an awards stage, in Hollywood, all hell broke loose,' Moore said."
This, of course, is in regaurds to his little speech about "fictitous times" etc. which, most can agree, has NO bearing on an award's speech at all.
This is Michael Moore. 'Nuff said.
Um... no, rather he is calling those who accuse him of being a liar wackos.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and then makes a big thing about a company refusing to publish a controversial movie after a year's fair warning.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know this isn't the discssion forum, but evidance would be nice anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Here is a nice quote from the <a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5039229/' target='_blank'>MSNBC</a> article:
"'You have to understand, the last time I was on an awards stage, in Hollywood, all hell broke loose,' Moore said."
This, of course, is in regaurds to his little speech about "fictitous times" etc. which, most can agree, has NO bearing on an award's speech at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I don't agree. "Bowling for Columbine" was a political comentary, and so speaking about polotics after winning an award for it doesn't seem all that strange to me. What if his film had been about the disapearance of rainforests or somesuch, would it have been surprising to hear him talk about it after recieving an award?
Um... no, rather he is calling those who accuse him of being a liar wackos.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If i remember right, when you disagree with someone it implies that they are wrong, and that means they are lying.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know this isn't the discssion forum, but evidance would be nice anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119182,00.html' target='_blank'>"They had told my agent last year - Eisner himself told my agent, Ari Emanuel - that there was no way they were going to release this film...</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well I don't agree. "Bowling for Columbine" was a political comentary, and so speaking about polotics after winning an award for it doesn't seem all that strange to me. What if his film had been about the disapearance of rainforests or somesuch, would it have been surprising to hear him talk about it after recieving an award?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I know, anyway, saying that a President was wrongly elected and that our entire being (if I'm getting the phrase "ficticious times" right, as it's so ubiquitous) is false, has nothing to do with this little commentary on violence, or any variation of such which can still be included in a movie with a title of "Bowling for <b>Columbine</b>"
Um... no, rather he is calling those who accuse him of being a liar wackos.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If i remember right, when you disagree with someone it implies that they are wrong, and that means they are lying. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not nessesarily. I can disagree with you on say, the best way to deal with problems in the third world, but it doesn't mean that I'm accusing you of lying about the facts you use to back up your argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as I know, anyway, saying that a President was wrongly elected and that our entire being (if I'm getting the phrase "ficticious times" right, as it's so ubiquitous) is false, has nothing to do with this little commentary on violence, or any variation of such which can still be included in a movie with a title of "Bowling for Columbine"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps. I suppose its a matter of opinion but I don't think that it was inapropriate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"They had told my agent last year - Eisner himself told my agent, Ari Emanuel - that there was no way they were going to release this film...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's pretty hard to misrepot direct quotes... what does everybody have against FoxNews, anyway? I see no problem with it...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But the right-wing media -- FOX News, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the Journal editorial page, talk radio -- are "biased," the book declares. They have "an agenda." They are "not interested in conveying the truth." They "concoct an inflammatory story that serves their political goals."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been hearing this a lot personally, don't know how much is true.
RARRR CONSERVATIVE MEDIA PROPAGANDA!!!!
It all becomes so much easier once you understand that everyone involved with politics is a dirty, lying, scumbag, piece of dirt who has an agenda to fulfill, which probably does not involve anything positive on your end, regardless of their position on the political spectrum.
That being said, I did enjoy Bowling for Columbine, and like Michael Moore.
RARRR CONSERVATIVE MEDIA PROPAGANDA!!!!
It all becomes so much easier once you understand that everyone involved with politics is a dirty, lying, scumbag, piece of dirt who has an agenda to fulfill, which probably does not involve anything positive on your end, regardless of their position on the political spectrum.
That being said, I did enjoy Bowling for Columbine, and like Michael Moore. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hear Hear!
Anyways, about Fox news, heres some links i dug up in about 3 seconds:
<a href='http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html' target='_blank'>http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html</a>
<a href='http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm</a>
<a href='http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:B7hYQ0Ipn1sJ:www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/6918170.htm+FOX++site:philly.com&hl=en' target='_blank'>http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:B7hYQ...hilly.com&hl=en</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fox went to court over the issue of whether a news organization had the right to lie or distort news stories under the First Amendment. Fox won in the end, at the third or fourth attempt. This blew up over a reporter Jane Akre, who argued that her bosses at Fox had pressured her to change a story about the effect of some hormone treatment on cattle - her report was to say that milk from these cows was dangerous for humans. There is a link to the story here [http://www.foxbghsuit.com/]. This is why people say that Fox isn't about news.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--Some slashdot poster
Not that Fox is the only such "News" organization. US News in general is considered to be mostly sensationalist bull.
Easy answer: Thinking is hard. Its easy to let other people do it for us.
Easy answer: Thinking is hard. Its easy to let other people do it for us. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. Its the American Way anyway. We go to public schools for about 10 years being fed crap from books, being told everything in there is right, never going outside the box. And... wait... I'm starting to think on my own. I'll just let you guys finish this rant.
RARRR CONSERVATIVE MEDIA PROPAGANDA!!!!
It all becomes so much easier once you understand that everyone involved with politics is a dirty, lying, scumbag, piece of dirt who has an agenda to fulfill, which probably does not involve anything positive on your end, regardless of their position on the political spectrum.
That being said, I did enjoy Bowling for Columbine, and like Michael Moore. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Duff-Man for teh win!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But this powerful film's most disturbing scene is one in which a couple of marine recruiting officers, in full dress uniform, prowl the parking lot of a shopping mall in a working-class district looking for unemployed youths who might be persuaded to fight for their country. It's sobering stuff.....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had to read that three times before I realised the author was serious. What sort of a tard criticises military officers for going into an area full of unemployed young people to recruit? Shame on these vicious military thugs for trying to offer those without income a character building, honourable profession of serving their country! Where did America lose its way?
I consider Micheal Moore to simply be the antithesis of Fox News. Fox news has shocking right wing bias - Micheal Moore has shocking left wing bias. The truth that is there is sharply twisted depending upon who you are listening too - its plain hypocracy for either side to accuse the other of "deceitfulness".
Oh, and I realise that this isnt the discussion forum - but it is INCREDIBLY poor form to take shots at someones news sources. To quote Nem from the Discussion forum rules
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources.
It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again.
Don't ever try that.
Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That said, I can't see why people praise Michael Moore. I don't find any of his films insightful and he twists the truth to whatever the hell he wants it to be.
There was a site once and If I recall correctly, it shows a quote (I think) which Michael edited to hell. It then shows both the correct quote, and the one Michael used out of context.
I wish I could remember the site >_<
EDIT: Well hell... it's the first link in the first post. There you go.
If you fall for any of his propoganist films... yeah well...
This, O-T. That, Discussion. By now, you should know what kind of reaction a Michael Moore - related topic provoces and where it should thus go. On that note, I applaud everyone for keeping this almost completely up to the best standards of discussion so far.
Hard answer: because in the end, you have to trust someone. While it would be nice to observe and witness all the news-worthy events in the world personally in an objective manner, I would find that hard. As would most people, I'd imagine.
And, more often than not, those who report the news have their bias. There's nothing you can do except look at the story from all sides.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats sort of the point, isn't it? Micheal Moore has the unenviable job of making his work as "interesting" as (read: sensationalist) as the right wing propoganda just to get attention. That being said, you can still gain an insight into the US's problems through it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I had to read that three times before I realised the author was serious. What sort of a tard criticises military officers for going into an area full of unemployed young people to recruit? Shame on these vicious military thugs for trying to offer those without income a character building, honourable profession of serving their country! Where did America lose its way?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps there is more to the scene then is being described in that quote. Hoever, it is just some military guys trying to recruit people in an honest fasion then I can see your point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html I thought this was fairly insightful.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought so too. I also thought
<a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/' target='_blank'>http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/</a>
and <a href='http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607' target='_blank'>http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607</a>
were equally interesting, thats why they are all there in the first post.
His TV show (I havn't seen his first, just The Awful Truth) was absouletly great, because he didn't have to stretch out each topic. He presented each short in very simple terms, and when dealing with so many issues, it's hard NOT to be entertaining. The variety of his topics was really the great part of the TV series, he had bits on every luberal topic imagianable. HMOs, Unions, Afghanistan (his show taught me where the place even was, and this was in 2000), plus he had a sodom-mobile. Then we come to Stupid White Men, also funny, but very much on the ranty side, because he had something to rant about. It was basically half about the 2000 election (a very easy subject to write about) and half about the concept of suberbia, which he of course decided to explore more in Bowling For columbine. The book was funny, and those two topics were big enough to fill and entire book.
Now we come to the "modern" Mike, which is quite the problem for his fans. BFC is a movie he's caught a lot of flack for, and rightly so. Anyone who knows anything about films can see some of the obvious butchering going on, and some of his facts are sketchy. It does succeed in being entertaining at least, the people he interviews are insightful, the beginning of the movie as a documentary on Coumbine is solid (he also gets in a few shots on Clinton, which is always good), then we can see him stretching for content. The bit where he brings the kids into KMart headquarters is obviously stretched out, the peice where he interviews Heston is mangled beyond beleif. And frankly this hurts the beginning of his film, which is much more a continuation of Stupid White Men than most people realise.
Then he released his newest book, Dude Where's My Country. One word: BAD. The book was obviously written in haste, some chapters are padded out to the point that they are painful to read, and he often comes off as trying to be Al Franken (and when someone who's at least decently liberal like Moore starts to emulate an admitted Democrat like Franken, something is wrong). It's not even very informative, I didn't get much out of it I didn't already know. I can't name a single fact I got from it, and the things he does give info on are rather moderate topics for him, once again going the Franken route and shying towards the middle. His main problem is that he is trying to hard, getting things out too fast, and this movie coming so close on the heals of BFC suggests he is doing the same thing. I think Mike should take a breather, take some time off to get some material, let Franken fever die down (I find Franken to be very funny, but his politics beyond pointing out the lies/inepritudes of the GW administration are a joke and an insult to liberals everywhere), then take his time with his work again. Or he could start making straight-forward comedies again. Canadian Bacon was hilarious.
And there's my two cents, hopefully my knowledge as a fan can give those of you with only a passing knowledge of his work some better understanding. and remember: I'm only open on Mondays and Tuesdays. And Wednesdays and Thursdays and Fridays. Saturdays and Sundays I'm closed.
And here we have the basis for religion <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'll see Farienhiet (man why does that have to be hard to spell) 911 when it comes out. I'll probably enjoy it as I liked Bowling for Columbine.
On a side note, I am amazed as Nem was that this topic hasn't suffered the fate of all other Moore topics and filled with imflammatory flameing. Yet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As a man who is studying for a Bachelor of Science with hopes for transfering into veterinary science, who reads all he can on religion and philosophy, both for and against his personal views, who continuously struggles with moral and ethical problems inherent in his own beliefs and who holds his own religion in the highest regard, you will doubtlessly understand my intense urge to strangle you with your mouse cord. But you'd probably have wireless just to annoy me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I too will see this latest Moore "documentary" - nothing improves your understanding and appreciation of your own hardline rightwing views like hearing criticism of them and being able to defend them.
That's why Fox News is so popular you know.
(cept replace right with left)
That's why Fox News is so popular you know.
(cept replace right with left) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I trust fox news pretty much like I trust Michael Moore - with one eyebrow permanently raised.
Ah that takes me back. To the hallowed days of 2003, when you and I clashed in religion threads and Monse roamed these lands like a vengeful deity. Those were the days. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Good luck with veterinary btw; I've heard the course is an absolute female dog.
Now I'm off to write an essay on Japanese invasion plans for Australia during WWII.
RARRR CONSERVATIVE MEDIA PROPAGANDA!!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as the whole media bias is concerned, it's almost impossible to talk about since it's all relative. If you're Michael Moore, all media is right-wing. But if you're Sean Hannity, all media is left-wing. Since it's almost unfathomable anybody could be more extreme than these 2 nutballs, they regard everyone else as 'biased'.
That however is obvious. What's a lot more tricky is determing what 'benchmark' to determine what shall be 'left' and 'right'. Unfortunately it's impossible to 'average' out the sum total of all American political views.
That said here's what I know: Virtually all Republicans view mainstream media as liberally biased, and about half of all Democrats <b> agree with them</b>. CBS (especially Dan Rather), CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC, The Gaurdian, The New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times are generally regarded by republicans as left-biased. We also know that 80-90% of TV news reporters/casters are democrats.
However, Fox News, the Washington Post, the Wall-street journal, and almost all of talk-radio is right-wing.
However none of that is proof, and in the end it doesn't matter. All of these different news sources are catering to the demand of the public. The people at Fox News are geniuses for targeted hardline right wingers that have long been ridden to audio-only news sources. Similarly, BBC positioned themselves as the alternative media, the "one true" news source that leftist University students and environmentalists love.
Personally, I get CNN, CBC, and The Globe and Mail here in Canada. I find none of the biases people like Ann Coulter and Al Franken rant about. The problem with their criticisms is they isolate specific 'biased' reports. But when you look at the whole picture, the number of left and right biased stories practically cancels one another out.
That said, I would say that the sum total of all news media is slightly left-biased.
As for Michael Moore, I have no doubt the movie will released with lukewarm reviews in states, mostly because it will be such an outrageous conspiracy theory. Bowling for Columbine was good because it was funny. I suspect F-911 will be funny as well, but for all the wrong reasons. It's no secret the Cannes film festival has a statisically higher proportion of liberals. In the end they weren't cheering for Moore, they were cheering against Bush.
The sad part is that movies that are of truly good quality will go unnoticed, and F-911 will be forgotten as soon as the election is over (especially if Kerry wins).
edit: Skulkbait that 'rebuttal' by Moore was very disappointing, especially since the "Truth about Bowling" targeted numerous points, and he defended very few in his 'wacko' article. I've yet to see a more thorough rebuttal.
I agree, however I didn't feel right linking the rebuttal by Eloquence on K5 without also linking Moore's own rebutle. Speaking of which, have you read Eloquence's rebuttal? I found it to be more thurough than Moore's.
RARRR CONSERVATIVE MEDIA PROPAGANDA!!!!
It all becomes so much easier once you understand that everyone involved with politics is a dirty, lying, scumbag, piece of dirt who has an agenda to fulfill, which probably does not involve anything positive on your end, regardless of their position on the political spectrum.
That being said, I did enjoy Bowling for Columbine, and like Michael Moore. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How could anyone enjoy bowling for columbine when the movie was complete <a href='http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html' target='_blank'>bullcrap?</a>
I have zero respect for such a fat retard who lies through his movies to get ahead.