First Review of Bowling for Columbine DVD
07-25-03, 01:40 AM
#1
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
First Review of Bowling for Columbine DVD
ADMIN NOTE -- READ ME!
This thread is not about politics; this thread is about the Bowling for Columbine DVD. If you want to discuss Moore's politics, or what country is the "free"-est, then please do it in the Other Forum. Let's stick to the topic... thanks!
This thread is not about politics; this thread is about the Bowling for Columbine DVD. If you want to discuss Moore's politics, or what country is the "free"-est, then please do it in the Other Forum. Let's stick to the topic... thanks!
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/430/430335p1.html
07-25-03, 03:29 AM
#5
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
there is folks who will hate this because it's Micheal Moore.. but this guy seems to hate it because it wasn't made by Micheal Bay.
He mentions that Documentries are short and boring. WTF? which ones has he seen. Oh none other then this film.
IGN = not a decent reviewing crew.
Sorry, the Lighting crew was on their 15 minutes, the union was getting on his case about that so they really didn't get much of a chance to set up three point lighting on the people on camera.... not to mention that the make up department wasn't given their bottle of water that day so they weren't to nice with make up. Another note he might have missed in the commentary is that the stupid assitant messed up the rolls of film when he took it to telesync for the dailies so they were kind of winging it... 
it's a freak'n documentary it's mostly shot on the fly gorilla style. 
the guy sounds like he just found out santa doesn't exist. It's the magic of editing. he should look it up some time. Maybe next time when he see's bad boys II, he will see that the scenes are not shot all in one long shot in real time and some effects are done with the magic of editing.
over all the review sucks. if he was going to bash moore because he really doesn't see his views fine. It sounded like he was bashing moore for the simple reason that it's hip to do so.
He mentions that Documentries are short and boring. WTF? which ones has he seen. Oh none other then this film.
IGN = not a decent reviewing crew.
It's not remotely fair to compare this to a feature film. Much of the video is made up of newsreel clips, and no attempt was made to clean them up. The parts that Moore filmed are variable in quality. In the early scenes, when he's hanging around with the Michigan Militia, the video is below broadcast cable TV quality.
it's a freak'n documentary it's mostly shot on the fly gorilla style.
Except it's all fiction. Moore had to wait two weeks, while a legal background check was done as the Brady Law requires, and the gun was picked up at a separate location. The only guns in the bank are display props. So Moore went back after getting the gun and filmed himself to look like he walked out with a gun on the same day he applied for an account.
If that's how the film opens, how can you trust any of it?
If that's how the film opens, how can you trust any of it?
Maybe next time when he see's bad boys II, he will see that the scenes are not shot all in one long shot in real time and some effects are done with the magic of editing. over all the review sucks. if he was going to bash moore because he really doesn't see his views fine. It sounded like he was bashing moore for the simple reason that it's hip to do so.
07-25-03, 04:15 AM
#6
DVD Talk Hero
Reminds me why I stopped reading IGN in the first place.
07-25-03, 05:35 AM
#7
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Natchitoches, LA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Documentaries should be full of truth, not splicing together several different interviews from different times, then speaking like they are one interview.
I wish I could find the website that exposed all the untruth to this "documentary."
I wish I could find the website that exposed all the untruth to this "documentary."
07-25-03, 06:42 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I liked the review because he pointed out the film's problems. I don't care what the subject is, documentaries should not be made more "persuasive" by editing. They should simply show the things that go on. I thought Bowling was a great movie with a hell of a message until I found out how "non-documentary" it was. The review simply pointed out the fact that the film was twisted to show a more persuasive argument. While I do agree that IGN has gone to hell since Jeremy Conrad left, I think his review was just and his reasons were backed up.
Still, by all means, see the movie. I liked the movie when I first saw it. However, then do some homework about the subject and find all about how things really happened.
Here's the link:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Let's be honest though, it wasn't a terrible review. It just wasn't one that some people agreed with.
Still, by all means, see the movie. I liked the movie when I first saw it. However, then do some homework about the subject and find all about how things really happened.
Here's the link:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Let's be honest though, it wasn't a terrible review. It just wasn't one that some people agreed with.
Last edited by AdamComic2; 07-25-03 at 07:24 AM.
07-25-03, 06:50 AM
#9
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
It was linked in the review...
I just watched this tonight on my uncles *couch academy screener cough* and I thought it was pretty entertaining. Nothing shocking, nothing I didn't already know. I don't know how they couldn't think that cartoon in the middle was funny becaseu it was hillarious.
It was linked in the review...
I just watched this tonight on my uncles *couch academy screener cough* and I thought it was pretty entertaining. Nothing shocking, nothing I didn't already know. I don't know how they couldn't think that cartoon in the middle was funny becaseu it was hillarious.
07-25-03, 08:06 AM
#10
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Right Behind You
Posts: 4,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I thought I liked you Jack. One, Michael Moore is an @$$ to work with, please don't take his side when talking about crew work. Second, yes editing works movie magic it can trick the audience into believing two characters are having a conversation when they weren't even filmed the same week. My point is..heavy editing is for movies not documentaries where you're trying to get your point across and the only way to do is splice together every sound bit and image you have.
07-25-03, 09:05 AM
#11
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by lesterlong
And I thought I liked you Jack.
And I thought I liked you Jack.
The merits or lackthereof of the film have been discussed to death, but if people wish to continue, resurrect one of the threads in the movie forum. I don't see why every post offering info in the DVDtalk section has to turn into a bashing of the movie.
Edit: Instead of "bashing," I'll say "raging debate" (can't figure out how to do the line-through-the-word thingy) to be more fair. This will turn into a two page thread, with some people vehemently attacking the film, while others vehemently defend it, and then it will get locked. It's just been done so many times before. It sucks that people can't post info about the DVD on this site. I wish people could be a little more mature.
Last edited by Matt925; 07-25-03 at 09:35 AM.
07-25-03, 09:15 AM
#12
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DemonDan
Documentaries should be full of truth, not splicing together several different interviews from different times, then speaking like they are one interview.
I wish I could find the website that exposed all the untruth to this "documentary."
Documentaries should be full of truth, not splicing together several different interviews from different times, then speaking like they are one interview.
I wish I could find the website that exposed all the untruth to this "documentary."
haven't seen the film yet, but it looks interesting and it will be nice to see charleton [sic] heston exposed for what he is. i'll probably even buy this sight unseen.
07-25-03, 09:30 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by chess
i'm pretty sure it's either on www.ravingrightwingnazi.com or www.democratsareterrorists.com.
haven't seen the film yet, but it looks interesting and it will be nice to see charleton [sic] heston exposed for what he is. i'll probably even buy this sight unseen.
i'm pretty sure it's either on www.ravingrightwingnazi.com or www.democratsareterrorists.com.
haven't seen the film yet, but it looks interesting and it will be nice to see charleton [sic] heston exposed for what he is. i'll probably even buy this sight unseen.
You won't go wrong in getting this one. I saw this with 2 other couples and we talked about it for 2 hours after the movie. Whatever your opinion of Michael Moore (I love the guy), this film makes you think.
07-25-03, 10:09 AM
#14
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Count me in for a copy. Without Moore, Michigan would be a really boring place... and trust me, it's boring enough as is.
BTW: I wish they included the Q&A session he did locally at the Main Art Theatre in Royal Oak last year before Bowling came out. Very informative and very funny. It seems like an easy extra to throw in since they taped it with a DV camera. Oh well, you can't always get what you want.
BTW: I wish they included the Q&A session he did locally at the Main Art Theatre in Royal Oak last year before Bowling came out. Very informative and very funny. It seems like an easy extra to throw in since they taped it with a DV camera. Oh well, you can't always get what you want.
07-25-03, 03:59 PM
#15
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by lesterlong
And I thought I liked you Jack. One, Michael Moore is an @$$ to work with, please don't take his side when talking about crew work. Second, yes editing works movie magic it can trick the audience into believing two characters are having a conversation when they weren't even filmed the same week. My point is..heavy editing is for movies not documentaries where you're trying to get your point across and the only way to do is splice together every sound bit and image you have.
And I thought I liked you Jack. One, Michael Moore is an @$$ to work with, please don't take his side when talking about crew work. Second, yes editing works movie magic it can trick the audience into believing two characters are having a conversation when they weren't even filmed the same week. My point is..heavy editing is for movies not documentaries where you're trying to get your point across and the only way to do is splice together every sound bit and image you have.
Simple matter, yes the film takes some liberty in many aspects, but it's all to get a point across. I can't say the film is great, nor can I say the film sucked and was terrible. I enjoyed it for what it was and I'll watch my awful truth set in peace, aswell as my TV nation copies.
I enjoy Moores views just like I enjoy someone who opposes moore's views perspective. it's a simple matter of being open to a lot of things. This reviewer on the other hand seemed to bash on it for the simple reason that it is Micheal Moore and really got silly points across. either way i thought it wasn't a great review.
07-25-03, 07:09 PM
#16
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a letter I sent to the guy concerning that review - it may not be totally correct, but I think it's got some valid points
Andy,
Have you ever been interviewed for the news? You may or may not know this, but everyday news is edited to **** – truths are altered in retelling of a story – many truths are thus mangled in the process of editing, and I don’t see how Columbine can be slain for doing any different for the most part. Isn’t a documentary simply a recording of news or events in a factual, yet dramatic way? I don’t think it’s necessary to point out all the **** show that’s going on overseas, do I? How many media reports have given different reports on the threats of WMD’s during the war and have now begun retracting those statements or changing the subject?
While I agree that Lockheed Martin may not have been given the best treatment in the movie, the fact is that they’re not only contracted for media and information satellite, they’re also contracted for classified military devices. You can find this info on their main webpage, or simply have a look around the internet, and not just at the essays by the people against this film. I find it funny that the skeptics are linking to sites on free hosted pages for their factual information – when I’m able to go and sign up a free account and then put up a webpage that says the moon is actually made of processed cheese and not real cheese. Does this mean that information can be considered factual?
Everyone is up in arms about a bank that hands out guns, but here’s a little reasoning for you skeptics out there. I’ve done research and deduced that to get a gun from the bank mentioned in the film you now need to go in and fill out forms then wait up to two weeks for your firearm. But frankly I’ve yet to find any proof that this has always been the case. Apparently the clerk that worked for the bank at the time BFC was shot has been let-go, and there is now a customer service representative working the phones because they got so much press over the whole thing. Is it impossible to fathom that after the movie was released that they changed their process after word got out of the idiocy of it all from the film? Maybe, maybe not. Irregardless, does it not seem silly to you that a bank is handing out guns – do I visit the DMV for my hand grenades?
As for the NRA – set your facts straight. Look in the links below, you’ll see several links of people who were outright disgusted by the NRA’s actions during the period that the Columbine High School incident happened, there are links from the news at Columbine’s disgust with the timing of the visit, and I think it’s a damn disgusting display to deny that the acts of this gun lovers club simply didn’t happen. We see Heston saying in the film “they told us not to come,” and he was in fact referring to the whole issue of the NRA meeting in Colorado. Why could this even not have been postponed or relocated? Is there still denial that it didn’t happen?
The problem with Columbine is that everyone who saw it assumed that they were an expert from seeing it. I myself did not make this assumption, and recently (mainly after reading your biased review) put myself up to the task of researching some information from various sites along the way. The first thing I did was look at several different essays writing against the film. Before I go any further I should note that I don’t really have an opinion on guns. I don’t think people need them, but I don’t really see why that means they shouldn’t be able to own them, right? The first few essays I read were all written by good old fashioned Gun Loving Americans, so it’s obvious what point they’d take, non? One such essay however (which I’ve listed below) is intelligent enough to admit that procedure could very well have changed.
I myself am a skeptic of some of the information presented in the movie, but it’s not a great film because it has an accurate portrayal of the events in the film, rather it’s a great film because it sparks controversy and gets us thinking. I don’t know who to believe, but I’m a little more willing to believe things that Moore has said over the stewing of rumors on the Internet. What do you mean rumor and the interner? I though Nic Cage really was Superman, and there really are five endings to Burton’s Planet of The Apes, aren’t there? You really can’t trust a lick of anything you read on the internet guy, I’d assume that someone who runs a site where there is so much verbal soilure going in and coming out would have known that there is plenty of fiction out there, and I’m not just talking about in a Moore film per se.
I find that most reviewers, especially the bigger ones, don’t try and review a movie; rather they try and veer people away from it. You gave nods to the things that were done right, but ultimately your review was basically just a picking apart of the things that gun control haters have conjured up in retaliation to this movie. I certainly agree that Bowling for Columbine isn’t the know-all source for this information, but I think it’s a damn shame that you’d allow politics to overshadow your opinions. I’ve done a little research, not as much as I could have – but I’ve already found holes in the backlash that Moore and this film have received. I sincerely hope that you’ll visit some of the links below and rather than let the ineffectual politics of people who are so willing to accept everything that is presented to them, build a counter-argument that is worthy of a read.
For those of you who don’t just flip through the first few negative papers on top, you’ll find some of these sites useful. Some are news reports from your own American media mogul, others are just sites that prove statistics used were pretty accurate (I did not look up the statistics for other countries, but I certainly can if necessary). These were all done via searches on Google and Altavista. While my letters may focus on defending Columbine, I told you that I don’t necessarily agree that it was
Please keep in mind also that I don’t own the DVD. I run a far less popular DVD site, and frankly I don’t get anything for free out of it – but I do my best to make my opinions accurate by researching the materials before giving my point of view. I look forward to a response.
A little info on gun murders in the US from 1979-97
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd123099a.html
A critical look at both sides of the US gun debate
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=9
A letter about the NRA in Columbine
http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc266.html
News report on the NRA meeting in Colorado
http://www.jsonline.com/news/may99/0502nra.asp
A great essay against Columbine
http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.htm
The Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html
CNN Report on the NRA Coming to Littleton
http://www5.cnn.com/US/9904/30/school.shooting.01/
and
http://www5.cnn.com/US/9905/01/nra.protest.02/
Another essay against Columbine
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Andy,
Have you ever been interviewed for the news? You may or may not know this, but everyday news is edited to **** – truths are altered in retelling of a story – many truths are thus mangled in the process of editing, and I don’t see how Columbine can be slain for doing any different for the most part. Isn’t a documentary simply a recording of news or events in a factual, yet dramatic way? I don’t think it’s necessary to point out all the **** show that’s going on overseas, do I? How many media reports have given different reports on the threats of WMD’s during the war and have now begun retracting those statements or changing the subject?
While I agree that Lockheed Martin may not have been given the best treatment in the movie, the fact is that they’re not only contracted for media and information satellite, they’re also contracted for classified military devices. You can find this info on their main webpage, or simply have a look around the internet, and not just at the essays by the people against this film. I find it funny that the skeptics are linking to sites on free hosted pages for their factual information – when I’m able to go and sign up a free account and then put up a webpage that says the moon is actually made of processed cheese and not real cheese. Does this mean that information can be considered factual?
Everyone is up in arms about a bank that hands out guns, but here’s a little reasoning for you skeptics out there. I’ve done research and deduced that to get a gun from the bank mentioned in the film you now need to go in and fill out forms then wait up to two weeks for your firearm. But frankly I’ve yet to find any proof that this has always been the case. Apparently the clerk that worked for the bank at the time BFC was shot has been let-go, and there is now a customer service representative working the phones because they got so much press over the whole thing. Is it impossible to fathom that after the movie was released that they changed their process after word got out of the idiocy of it all from the film? Maybe, maybe not. Irregardless, does it not seem silly to you that a bank is handing out guns – do I visit the DMV for my hand grenades?
As for the NRA – set your facts straight. Look in the links below, you’ll see several links of people who were outright disgusted by the NRA’s actions during the period that the Columbine High School incident happened, there are links from the news at Columbine’s disgust with the timing of the visit, and I think it’s a damn disgusting display to deny that the acts of this gun lovers club simply didn’t happen. We see Heston saying in the film “they told us not to come,” and he was in fact referring to the whole issue of the NRA meeting in Colorado. Why could this even not have been postponed or relocated? Is there still denial that it didn’t happen?
The problem with Columbine is that everyone who saw it assumed that they were an expert from seeing it. I myself did not make this assumption, and recently (mainly after reading your biased review) put myself up to the task of researching some information from various sites along the way. The first thing I did was look at several different essays writing against the film. Before I go any further I should note that I don’t really have an opinion on guns. I don’t think people need them, but I don’t really see why that means they shouldn’t be able to own them, right? The first few essays I read were all written by good old fashioned Gun Loving Americans, so it’s obvious what point they’d take, non? One such essay however (which I’ve listed below) is intelligent enough to admit that procedure could very well have changed.
I myself am a skeptic of some of the information presented in the movie, but it’s not a great film because it has an accurate portrayal of the events in the film, rather it’s a great film because it sparks controversy and gets us thinking. I don’t know who to believe, but I’m a little more willing to believe things that Moore has said over the stewing of rumors on the Internet. What do you mean rumor and the interner? I though Nic Cage really was Superman, and there really are five endings to Burton’s Planet of The Apes, aren’t there? You really can’t trust a lick of anything you read on the internet guy, I’d assume that someone who runs a site where there is so much verbal soilure going in and coming out would have known that there is plenty of fiction out there, and I’m not just talking about in a Moore film per se.
I find that most reviewers, especially the bigger ones, don’t try and review a movie; rather they try and veer people away from it. You gave nods to the things that were done right, but ultimately your review was basically just a picking apart of the things that gun control haters have conjured up in retaliation to this movie. I certainly agree that Bowling for Columbine isn’t the know-all source for this information, but I think it’s a damn shame that you’d allow politics to overshadow your opinions. I’ve done a little research, not as much as I could have – but I’ve already found holes in the backlash that Moore and this film have received. I sincerely hope that you’ll visit some of the links below and rather than let the ineffectual politics of people who are so willing to accept everything that is presented to them, build a counter-argument that is worthy of a read.
For those of you who don’t just flip through the first few negative papers on top, you’ll find some of these sites useful. Some are news reports from your own American media mogul, others are just sites that prove statistics used were pretty accurate (I did not look up the statistics for other countries, but I certainly can if necessary). These were all done via searches on Google and Altavista. While my letters may focus on defending Columbine, I told you that I don’t necessarily agree that it was
Please keep in mind also that I don’t own the DVD. I run a far less popular DVD site, and frankly I don’t get anything for free out of it – but I do my best to make my opinions accurate by researching the materials before giving my point of view. I look forward to a response.
A little info on gun murders in the US from 1979-97
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd123099a.html
A critical look at both sides of the US gun debate
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=9
A letter about the NRA in Columbine
http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc266.html
News report on the NRA meeting in Colorado
http://www.jsonline.com/news/may99/0502nra.asp
A great essay against Columbine
http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.htm
The Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html
CNN Report on the NRA Coming to Littleton
http://www5.cnn.com/US/9904/30/school.shooting.01/
and
http://www5.cnn.com/US/9905/01/nra.protest.02/
Another essay against Columbine
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
07-25-03, 07:31 PM
#17
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Chrismcg,
Who did you vote for last presidential election? Some of those news sites you listed have a strong bias against the right to bear arms.
The NRA is doing what they should be doing: protecting our right to defend ourselves.
I haven't seen Bowling, however, I am willing to watch it.
Who did you vote for last presidential election? Some of those news sites you listed have a strong bias against the right to bear arms.
The NRA is doing what they should be doing: protecting our right to defend ourselves.
I haven't seen Bowling, however, I am willing to watch it.
Last edited by DavidH; 07-25-03 at 07:34 PM.
07-25-03, 08:24 PM
#20
New Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canada - the land of the free... yeah right!
chrismcg, you must be kidding... when was Canada the land of the free ??? Canada is almost as bad as the socialistic segments of Europe (read Sweden, Norway etc). If there is one country of the free it is of course the USA - way ahead of Canada and always will be! Get real!
07-25-03, 10:56 PM
#23
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Canada - the land of the free... yeah right!
Originally posted by lars158
chrismcg, you must be kidding... when was Canada the land of the free ??? Canada is almost as bad as the socialistic segments of Europe (read Sweden, Norway etc). If there is one country of the free it is of course the USA - way ahead of Canada and always will be! Get real!
chrismcg, you must be kidding... when was Canada the land of the free ??? Canada is almost as bad as the socialistic segments of Europe (read Sweden, Norway etc). If there is one country of the free it is of course the USA - way ahead of Canada and always will be! Get real!
07-25-03, 11:38 PM
#24
Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am wondering how many documentaries you people have seen that you feel are objective. Richard Schickel in Time Magazine recently said "Only the terminally stupid or the childishly innocent imagine that anyone making a documentary film aspires to objective truth." Documentaries have similar goals to fiction films, mainly to tell an interesting story to the audience. Not to search for some objective truth, but rather to tell a story from the perceptive of the filmmaker mostly through editing. Michael Moore's films may be doing this more obviously than Errol Morris' or Albert Maysles' but it's not because he wants to tell lies, it's because like any great filmmaker he wants you to see the world through his eyes. What is truly the difference between Michael Moore showing you America through his eyes and Peter Jackson showing you Middle Earth through his?
I argue that documentarians never have and have no business telling "the truth" even if that was possible. If they did we'd have 90 minute college papers passing for documentaries instead of the thriving, interesting films that I love.
Here are some other not very objective documentaries that I love
Hearts and Minds
Roger and Me (need I really list it)
Gimme Shelter
Salesman
Capturing the Friedmans
Night and Fog
Koyanisqatsi
The Thin Blue Line
Gates of Heaven
Vernon, Florida
I argue that documentarians never have and have no business telling "the truth" even if that was possible. If they did we'd have 90 minute college papers passing for documentaries instead of the thriving, interesting films that I love.
Here are some other not very objective documentaries that I love
Hearts and Minds
Roger and Me (need I really list it)
Gimme Shelter
Salesman
Capturing the Friedmans
Night and Fog
Koyanisqatsi
The Thin Blue Line
Gates of Heaven
Vernon, Florida
07-26-03, 12:21 AM
#25
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Canada - the land of the free... yeah right!
Originally posted by lars158
chrismcg, you must be kidding... when was Canada the land of the free ??? Canada is almost as bad as the socialistic segments of Europe (read Sweden, Norway etc). If there is one country of the free it is of course the USA - way ahead of Canada and always will be! Get real!
chrismcg, you must be kidding... when was Canada the land of the free ??? Canada is almost as bad as the socialistic segments of Europe (read Sweden, Norway etc). If there is one country of the free it is of course the USA - way ahead of Canada and always will be! Get real!
or 
So i'll settle for a good ole
