I can only look forwards with worry to two futures, veering off from some event in an undetermined future:

Future one is one where true liberals, socialist types, finally reveal the scary lair of old, outdated, and vicious social conservatism for what it is, and even people like Kas will see, and there is a measure of peace and harmony.

Future two is portrayed in 1984.

Kind of off-topic, but still within the usual Left vs. Right perameters of any conversation with Moore in it.

1984 would be the one.

It's a well established fact that Moore has problems keeping the truth straight, Isstal. I wish you would actually read some of the links I give you.

No. It's a well-established fact that a number of Conservatives accuse Michael Moore of making up what you say because they disagree with him.

Here's the thing: I have red those links, and many more, and the claims they make are the same laughable claims they always make.

The first and foremost, and this I absolutely love, is that everything these sites say they expect us to believe on principle. For example:

[font=Arial]

[font=Arial]Comparing U.S. gun-death totals with Canada's, Moore offers a U.S. total that includes death by legal intervention (i.e., a violent felon being shot by a police officer) which is totally dishonest to the argument he's making. But what is more important to this distortion is that he omits this same category from the Canadian total to further stack the deck in his favor. -Not very honest.[/font]

No backup. No links to statistics that confirm this, no websites that back this claim up. Just "this is what Moore did."

And of course, Conservatives who are looking for a reason to hate Moore latch onto this and believe it at face value. On the other hand, Moore's written work is always backed up, not only by sources, but by (mostly) reliable sources. Like National Newspapers and TIME Magazine.


The next step to making Moore look like a bad guy is to willfully ignore the point he is putting forward. Again, an example:
[/font][font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]

[font=Arial]The rest of Canada isn't so diverse. In places like British Columbia for example, there are virtually no blacks. In fact, pretty much anywhere outside of the province of Ontario, Canada has barely any significant black population. But this isn't the impression we were given, because Moore only visited ONE part of the country during this part of the movie and judged the entire nation on it.[/font]

Now, aside from no backup source being presented for these figures (though they are fairily accurate, according to StatsCan), they willfully ignore the point Moore is making in order to scewer your perception. America's largest minority is (or was) Blacks (this may have shifted to Mexicans or Asians, I am not certain). But certainly they are the most "known" minority, yes?

Canada, not taking slaves the way America did, obviouisly will have a significantly smaller Black population.

However, Moore's point is that Canada is diverse. The Asian population of Canada is, for example, is 2 319 325, which is 8% of our population. And despite our diversity, there are less killings than in the United States (even per capita).

From there, let's move to the insulting and the really really fucked up:

[font=Arial]

[font=Arial]One such example is when Moore interviews three Canadian foreign policy experts skipping high school in front of a Taco Bell. The scene suggests there are more people being talked to, but perhaps not intelligent enough to get on camera. The anti-social looking high schoolers shows us their brilliant assessment of American geopolitics as the blue headed one observes:[/font]

[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]The italics are mine, where the writer wisely proves his point by... insulting people. That's right. These kids are in a movie giving their opinion... and they get insulted. Conservative politics at work.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]Next:[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]

[font=Arial]It is true that Canada is a nation that fought in WWI for three years before the USA entered that conflict and Canadians were fighting WWII for a full two years before Pearl Harbor forced the USA to get involved. During WWII those peaceful 'lets negotiate instead of fight' Canadians put a million men under arms, one tenth of their population at the time, and provided one-fifth of the force that carried out Operation Overlord.[/font]

This, Kas, puts even you to shame! Let's prove that Canada isn't peaceful by... bringing up the two World Wars! You know... the one where they put millions of lives on the line to keep HITLER from taking over the world? Evidently, a war 50 years ago where Canada joined a massive campaign to keep the world free from tryanny is proof enough that they're not peaceful.

That paragraph actually disgusts me.

[/font][font=Arial]

[font=Arial]The ignorantly insulting distortion equates the use of force with the eager rush to force. It's the same 'rush to war' in Iraq that took 12 years of negotiating and 6 months of heavy threatening in the face of complete disregard for international law by Saddam Hussein. [/font]

Umm... yeah. What he means to say, of course, is "12 months of dropping bombs on them on a weekly basis, following a war, all the while refusing to let food, medicine, and aid enter their country, followed by lies about weapons of mass destruction, links to Al-Queda, and the "imminent threat" posed by a man found living off rats." Yeah. That's a good way to show that America is peaceful.

Another example of willfully ignoring not only the point, but common sense:

[/font][font=Arial]

[font=Arial]A.) Nonsense: The question also relies on the Columbine shooters being psychic. Since Clinton dropped 'more bombs on Kosovo than at any other time' while the kids were mowing down the students of Columbine - they would have to had somehow metaphysically foreseen this event for it to influence their actions that day. Does Moore actually think that they had earpieces feeding live news reports when they went to school that day? -I checked...they didn't...[/font]

That's in reference to the Manson interview. Manson says "the president was shooting bombs overseas". The author responds by saying that the kids would have had to be physcic to know that that particular day he shot more bombs than on any other day.

This is actually an example of what you seem to think Moore does. The author puts this forth as if this was the only day there were bombings... obviously, it was not. Moore's point is that the bombing had been on TV for several days or weeks at this point, and the kids had seen it and said "hey, the President solves his problems with violence..."

[/font][font=Arial]

[font=Arial]B.) Double Nonsense: The argument that the president bombing a foreign nation in the interests of America or American allies equates in no conceivable form to personal first hand random murder like those perpetrated at Columbine. This connection is insulting to America besides being ludacris.[/font]

Again, an example of ignoring the point. The point being that Clinton solved a problem with violence, and (maybe) the killers got a lesson from this.

[/font][font=Arial]

[font=Arial]C.) Uninformed: But facts and details aside -- even the very premise (if presented consistently or honestly) is ludacris. Moore has the incredibly delusional notion that young people today respect and emulate government policy issues that they don't even know about, but that it's silly to think they would emulate the glamorizing violence popular pop culture music sexifies and espouses.[/font]

More! Though this may seem somewhat logical at first, it is another example of insults and twisting. First off, the author assumes that no teenager, anywhere, cares or knows about government policy. It is, however, somewhat true. Many teenagers do not respect or emulate government policy, but the author "[/font][font=Arial]has the incredibly delusional notion" that no teenager knows about said policy.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]

[font=Arial]Clever way to dodge the question. Also interesting seeing as 'what they had to say' would have no doubt been a violent anti-social vent, consisting much of Manson's music lyrics. Fans of Manson's work or not - looks at quotes and writings by the Columbine boys compared to Manson's lyrics - appears as though they shared a writer.[/font]

Clever way to try and discredit Manson. To bad they ignore the important part of Manson's line - "[/font][font=Arial]That's what no one did."[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]Yes, certainly what they had to say may have been a "violent anti-social vent"... but the act of listening to them may have averted the crisis. That's what's important.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]See, Kas? Sites like "Truth about Bowling" and "Bowling for Truth" use some techniques that they critizise Moore for (supposedly) using, in order to convince the ignorant that they are right. They ignore what doesn't fit into their equation, mishandle points, take things out of context, and generally distort reality and/or the message/point of the film to convince you that they are right.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]And it works. Because Moore disagrees with you, you're expected to not like him. You're already susicious of him, and so you don't take the time to examine what these people are saying.[/font]
[/font]

Now that, is one impressive argument, Drayson.

I wouldn't know, I put Trinity on my ignore list after he ignored a request I stated three times.

Now you're just being a sore loser.

Maybe. I don't have time for bricks.

helLO OMY NAWEM IS BILL OrEILLY AdnTI A SAY CUT THIOAST MAN"S IICROPHONE1KO!!!! HAHAHAhahaaAHAAHAHhhaahAAHAHAHAHAHAH!11111!!! i anhave BPUT adDMIRAL DRAOYnsoON ON YM NLOCKCB LIK1J@iu209 LIKE2@(@(@ LIST!!!!!HAHAHAHAH LTEHELLO INTERNEST!!!!K!11300340331~~~~~~~!

I AMk AS CKATta AND Itihnk ethat #THEVL NOYL OTFUCK THE ONLY MIsNOTIRITY RTHAT EX ITSTS Is blakcS!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHahahahaahAHAAhaahahahahaahahhaahahhaHA

I wouldn't know, I put Trinity on my ignore list

I don't even need to offer a translation for this one.