Well considering the "artsy" community tends to be extremely liberal, or in that general mind set, this really doesn’t surprise me. However I can't see it winning nearly as much respect here in the states. This man is just the lefts answer to FOX news, equally as partisan and biased, but less good looking then many of FOX's reporters. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
just think it this way... One side or the other, almost everything is biased. You just have to judge yourself because you know the media is biased, censorship censors what they feel needs to be, your personal opinion influences everything, and of course a movie by someone like Michael Moor is also biased. Just know that it isn't lying much more than anything else people want you to believe...
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+May 26 2004, 08:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ May 26 2004, 08:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have zero respect for such a fat retard who lies through his movies to get ahead. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me ask you something: If he had lied, why is he not being sued for libel? Answer, as found in Moore's own rebuttle (linked in the first post, which you read acording to rule #6 right?): He didn't lie. He may have presented only the facts that backed his claims, and he may have used other such trickery, but he didn't outright lie.
<!--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-->Let me ask you something: If he had lied, why is he not being sued for libel?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He has been sued for libel. My Terry Nichol's brother. Im sure he has been sued by others that do not have as recognizable names. The fact is that he was insured by a company that will pay any settlement, so most cases that hold water are probably settled out of court.
It appears as if Cannes is playing politics, but only time will tell. If they were playing politics than they have devalued their award. Reading the synopsises of the feature films at cannes, f911 doesnt look like it was the best film.
OK, it's starting to tick even casual observes such as myself off: We have a rule against skiping posts around here, so stop pointing at the hardylaw link and forgetting everything else - the very first post of the topic included it, its rebuttal, and further going links. If you don't want to read, don't post.
Comments
Let me ask you something: If he had lied, why is he not being sued for libel? Answer, as found in Moore's own rebuttle (linked in the first post, which you read acording to rule #6 right?): He didn't lie. He may have presented only the facts that backed his claims, and he may have used other such trickery, but he didn't outright lie.
He has been sued for libel. My Terry Nichol's brother. Im sure he has been sued by others that do not have as recognizable names. The fact is that he was insured by a company that will pay any settlement, so most cases that hold water are probably settled out of court.
It appears as if Cannes is playing politics, but only time will tell. If they were playing politics than they have devalued their award. Reading the synopsises of the feature films at cannes, f911 doesnt look like it was the best film.
<a href='http://www.festival-cannes.com/films/index.php?langue=6002&categorie=lms&edition=2004' target='_blank'>Movie Synopsises</a>