The 9/11 report nuked any of Moore's arguments.
As far as the crowd you were with... most hate Bush no matter what. The blind leading the blind!
Heaven help us all.
If Gore won the election, like many dems claim, and should have been President, then why isn't he the shoo in nominee? This election should have been a cake walk for him. Where is he now?
Perhaps it was Gore who tried to steal the election... hhhmmmmmmmm....
This is one of the best summaries of Moore's libel that I've seen. Too bad it was not in a US paper.
BOLOGNA!
That one gets my vote.
Wow ... I don't have to go see this piece of trash now ... this review gave me an excellent run-down of the excrement it contains.
Each new generation of voters is a new page ready to be imprinted with the arguments of those who know history.
Moore is following a prescription to deceive the young before they can think for themselves.
Those that know the truth do not have the apparatus of Hollywood that Moore is given. Whose fault is that?
If Moore is successful in turning in 3-4% of votes to the left, he and his backers may take the credit for swinging the election. Yet there is nothing to significantly counter Moore in the media. Whose fault is that?
Summed up very well. Thanks for posting.
Bingo!
I think most of the people who are seeing this film were already koolaid drinkers.
Heaven help us if slanderers like Moore are successful in deluding enough people to defeat Bush in November.
The tragically hilarious thing about Moore's crockumentary is that every one of his main anti-Bush "arguments" has been refuted. Supposedly Moore bragged that his evidence was irrefutable and was echoed by his lackeys in the press and Big Media. Upon further examination it is found all his allegations were absurd. Only total fools would believe his garbage...or liberals.
What it does it legitimatize what the crapweasels dems have been doing for years and finally creates a label we can all use.
To the dems, there has always been truth, lies and that spin area where they rationalize something in one of the first two categories and claim that, therefore, it is part of the other. Now, they call that area of truth/lie ambiguity "documentary."
And, we should all be OK with that. When I tell you that a trusted member of Clinton's personal staff (to be named later) met with a Colonel from the Iraqi Intelligence Service and one of Osama's key advisors (and sx of his Saudi bodyguards) in a restaurant in Damascus on a Thursday afternoon, in August, 1997 and accepted a small brief case full of used US $100 bills (total= $1.5 million) as payment for missing Osama twice in the past and once more in the future, you do not need to know the source, only that it is part of a documentary.
I am convinced that this Jabba the Hutt brouhaha only underscores the dire need for two major reforms in American politics.
1. The stupid and ignorant will be tolerated, but any major damage to another will mean jail time.
2. Anyone with an IQ of under 50 will not be allowed to vote under any circumstances
"Let's now look at the "facts" behind Moore's Big Lie."
Thanks for the article – one of the most comprehensive I’ve seen. I do have one question, though – where are your sources? I can argue with my liberal friends until I’m blue in the face, but unless I give them some “solid sources” (AKA – not an “opinion piece from a conservative website”) they wont even consider my arguments.
Bump.