Bowling for Columbine is a work of FICTION
#26
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
It's actually even funnier that some believe the dvd was pushed back because they are trying to revoke the oscar... Baw-hahahahahahaha. they are just squeezing more out of it with a wider release.
#27
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: (formerly known as Inglenook Hampendick) Fairbanks, Alaska!
Posts: 17,295
Received 504 Likes
on
349 Posts
@ all of this. Tarantino was pretty darn close in that Oscars are meaningless except as marketing tools and that this particular film of Moore's sucked hard (especially when compared to his early stuff, IMO). I couldn't care less about the man's politics, but his filmmaking skills are fading.
Originally posted by Tarantino
I hated the movie, but not because Moore did it. He can keep his Oscar for all I care, they mean nothing. What does mean something is that this movie is 'fiction' and that it really isn't very good to begin with.
I hated the movie, but not because Moore did it. He can keep his Oscar for all I care, they mean nothing. What does mean something is that this movie is 'fiction' and that it really isn't very good to begin with.
#28
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
Originally posted by TheAllPurposeNothing
Before another person declares BfC as a non-documentary again, let me say this again.
Without a doubt, BfC is a documentary.
I quote acclaimed documentary filmmaker Errol Morris:
"I believe cinema verite set back documentary filmmaking twenty or thirty years. It sees documentary as a subspecies of journalism... There's no reason why documentaries can't be as personal as fiction filmmaking and bear the imprint of those who made them. Truth isn't guaranteed by style or expression. It isn't guaranteed by anything."
Before another person declares BfC as a non-documentary again, let me say this again.
Without a doubt, BfC is a documentary.
I quote acclaimed documentary filmmaker Errol Morris:
"I believe cinema verite set back documentary filmmaking twenty or thirty years. It sees documentary as a subspecies of journalism... There's no reason why documentaries can't be as personal as fiction filmmaking and bear the imprint of those who made them. Truth isn't guaranteed by style or expression. It isn't guaranteed by anything."
I just personally find it funny that most of the complaints about the validity of the film as documentary come from people who have willingly seen at most maybe 2 or 3 documentaries in their lives (reality tv not included), while those who have seen many more are more open to it.
And that these doubters also view news stories on CNN or Fox News as "truth," when as the recent brou-ha about the falling of the statue of Hussein or the rescuing of Lynch shows, they are just as subjective and manipulative.
And that these doubters also view news stories on CNN or Fox News as "truth," when as the recent brou-ha about the falling of the statue of Hussein or the rescuing of Lynch shows, they are just as subjective and manipulative.
Or is this statement a completely erroneous assumption right out of your rectal orifice?
#29
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
1. BFC sucks
2. Oscars mean nothing.
3. People are bent out of shape because they see the Oscar as somehow ratifying BFC.
The fact that BFC won an Oscar doesn't mean it is great nor does it mean it will stand for the ages. Likewise, taking the Oscar away will not return it to a status of "AWFUL"
There's always a lot of talk on here like, "How can Oscar overlook Punch Drunk Love?!!?" or whatever. People's tone seems to be, "I need my favorite film of the year to win because it vindicates me in my conviction that my favorite is best."
F all that people! Pick your favorites. If they win, they win. If they lose, they lose.
My favorite film and doc of the year didn't even get nominated. I don't cry. I rest at night w/ the self satisfaction that MY picks for best film and doc are films that speak to ME and are important to ME and that people who liked Chicago and BFC are wasting their precious lives on stinker films.
By the way the best films last year were: Punch Drunk Love and The Kid Stays in the Picture
2. Oscars mean nothing.
3. People are bent out of shape because they see the Oscar as somehow ratifying BFC.
The fact that BFC won an Oscar doesn't mean it is great nor does it mean it will stand for the ages. Likewise, taking the Oscar away will not return it to a status of "AWFUL"
There's always a lot of talk on here like, "How can Oscar overlook Punch Drunk Love?!!?" or whatever. People's tone seems to be, "I need my favorite film of the year to win because it vindicates me in my conviction that my favorite is best."
F all that people! Pick your favorites. If they win, they win. If they lose, they lose.
My favorite film and doc of the year didn't even get nominated. I don't cry. I rest at night w/ the self satisfaction that MY picks for best film and doc are films that speak to ME and are important to ME and that people who liked Chicago and BFC are wasting their precious lives on stinker films.
By the way the best films last year were: Punch Drunk Love and The Kid Stays in the Picture
#30
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JustinS
So Morris habitually and intentionally edits together different statements from the same person so as to change their meaning, stages scenes and presents them as real, and intentionally distorts facts? While I must admit I have only seen three of Errol's films, this comes as somewhat of a shock to me.
So Morris habitually and intentionally edits together different statements from the same person so as to change their meaning, stages scenes and presents them as real, and intentionally distorts facts? While I must admit I have only seen three of Errol's films, this comes as somewhat of a shock to me.
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TheAllPurposeNothing
I quote acclaimed documentary filmmaker Errol Morris:
"I believe cinema verite set back documentary filmmaking twenty or thirty years. It sees documentary as a subspecies of journalism... There's no reason why documentaries can't be as personal as fiction filmmaking and bear the imprint of those who made them. Truth isn't guaranteed by style or expression. It isn't guaranteed by anything."
I quote acclaimed documentary filmmaker Errol Morris:
"I believe cinema verite set back documentary filmmaking twenty or thirty years. It sees documentary as a subspecies of journalism... There's no reason why documentaries can't be as personal as fiction filmmaking and bear the imprint of those who made them. Truth isn't guaranteed by style or expression. It isn't guaranteed by anything."
"I believe documentaries can't bear the imprint of those who made them. Truth is guaranteed."
Yep, editing doesn't matter when you are documenting something...
Last edited by jim_cook87; 04-21-03 at 03:02 PM.
#32
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Pants
My favorite film and doc of the year didn't even get nominated. I don't cry. I rest at night w/ the self satisfaction that MY picks for best film and doc are films that speak to ME and are important to ME and that people who liked Chicago and BFC are wasting their precious lives on stinker films.
My favorite film and doc of the year didn't even get nominated. I don't cry. I rest at night w/ the self satisfaction that MY picks for best film and doc are films that speak to ME and are important to ME and that people who liked Chicago and BFC are wasting their precious lives on stinker films.
#33
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by eXcentris
Well, I agreed with you until the "and that people..." part. So let's see, you don't need your choices validated by Oscars but you feel the need to bash people who like films you don't. Sounds like your "tastes" do require validation after all...
Well, I agreed with you until the "and that people..." part. So let's see, you don't need your choices validated by Oscars but you feel the need to bash people who like films you don't. Sounds like your "tastes" do require validation after all...
Bottom Line for those of you who still don't "get" Pants: I'M TRYING TO BE AN ASS HOLE.
There's more to it then that (as you know if you've read my intelligent/insightful posts) but I do enjoy injecting some angry/cynical/obvoxious comments just to rile people up. Oh and Chicago and BFC do suck
#34
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
Yes, Pants is the thinking man's ***hole.
#35
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
Pants is really a push over in real life. I took him to see some singing in the rain thingy in hollywood and he was just such a sweetie.
#37
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally posted by JustinS
So Morris habitually and intentionally edits together different statements from the same person so as to change their meaning, stages scenes and presents them as real, and intentionally distorts facts? While I must admit I have only seen three of Errol's films, this comes as somewhat of a shock to me.
Actually, Morris does present recreations in "The Thin Blue Line." But Morris' quote is not meant strictly as a defense of his films..it was intended as a general statement about documentaries. If you would like, I'll find the bibliographic source of the quote. I took it from my class notes.
To be honest, I'm not sure if the editing of the Heston quotes would really change their meaning. When it comes out on video, I"ll give it another look as compared to original transcripts and see if that much changes.
Personally, I'm still waiting for Moore's promised rebuttal regarding the "distorting" of facts. Just because someone on a webpage claims something as false does not prove it so. Just as someone claiming something in a documentary does not make it so. For instance, two versions of the bank giveaway have surfaced. Moore claims that there was little to no forewarning given other than that needed for clearance to film in the bank. The bank claims otherwise. So who do I believe? More likely Moore. The bank has a reputation to uphold and this kind of publicity couldn't have helped. Unless the bank can document the "staging" of the scene, I'm a bit more skeptical to their story. Moore has provided a link to a news story about the bank's offer, to back up his side of the story. What has the bank offered other than a cry of "no fair?"
This is an amazing conclusion you have drawn. I must have missed the BfC thread where everyone was required to list their documentary viewing history and a precis of their TV news viewing habits before they could post about the film.
Or is this statement a completely erroneous assumption right out of your rectal orifice?
So Morris habitually and intentionally edits together different statements from the same person so as to change their meaning, stages scenes and presents them as real, and intentionally distorts facts? While I must admit I have only seen three of Errol's films, this comes as somewhat of a shock to me.
Actually, Morris does present recreations in "The Thin Blue Line." But Morris' quote is not meant strictly as a defense of his films..it was intended as a general statement about documentaries. If you would like, I'll find the bibliographic source of the quote. I took it from my class notes.
To be honest, I'm not sure if the editing of the Heston quotes would really change their meaning. When it comes out on video, I"ll give it another look as compared to original transcripts and see if that much changes.
Personally, I'm still waiting for Moore's promised rebuttal regarding the "distorting" of facts. Just because someone on a webpage claims something as false does not prove it so. Just as someone claiming something in a documentary does not make it so. For instance, two versions of the bank giveaway have surfaced. Moore claims that there was little to no forewarning given other than that needed for clearance to film in the bank. The bank claims otherwise. So who do I believe? More likely Moore. The bank has a reputation to uphold and this kind of publicity couldn't have helped. Unless the bank can document the "staging" of the scene, I'm a bit more skeptical to their story. Moore has provided a link to a news story about the bank's offer, to back up his side of the story. What has the bank offered other than a cry of "no fair?"
This is an amazing conclusion you have drawn. I must have missed the BfC thread where everyone was required to list their documentary viewing history and a precis of their TV news viewing habits before they could post about the film.
Or is this statement a completely erroneous assumption right out of your rectal orifice?
There is a whole world of doc. filmmaking that goes almost entirely unseen or unnoticed unless a lot of press follows it. And those that receive a lot of press, usually end up questioned. For instance, without looking, name 2 other docs. nominated this year alongside BfC. It is a largely neglected form of film. Almost no financial backing or distribution. Documentary film has many genres and subgenres, like fiction filmmaking. And Moore's films do count as documentaries. They are largely post-modern, as are Morris' works, but that does not discount them. They just do not fall into the same genre as, let's say, the Maylses films do. Hell, even most of Brakhage's short films could be considered documentaries, as visually manipulated as they are.
I just find it funny that too many people are convinced that documentaries are about "truth," when they often have little to do with truth. As if the concept is even possible, once selections on framing, editing, sound, etc. are made. Even being present as an eyewitness does not make one a source for "truth." It just makes one another story to tell.
#38
DVD Talk Legend
These threads crack me up....if ever there were a validation that Moore was on to something, it is the never ending vitriol that conservatives send his way. Anyone who can rile up the right the way he does must be doing something right, must be pushing some deep-seeded buttons, and must actually be speaking from the heart in a truthful and open way. You people really need to get over it. The man made a great film, asked serious questions that are meant to challenge and provoke you, and did more than anyone else i can think of to address that unnamable something that manifestly plagues this country through violence. It is not about gun control, it is not about politics, and it is not about bashing conservatives. It is about looking inward and trying to figure out why we can't stop killing each other at rates far greater than any other "civilized" nation on earth. If you watch the film, which i know many of you who bash it haven't by your own admittance, you'll see that the topic is not 'guns are bad'....it is, why are they used for bad to such an appalling degree in America?
The whole revoke the oscar campaign is a perfect validation that Moore is saying things that go straight to the heart of the cadre of citizens in the U.S. that will not tolerate any negative comments or characterizations of gun ownership. They are afraid of his message in BfC becuase ultimately, whether they want to admit it or not (NOT), he is on to something. It hurts, I know, but admitting it is the first step to recovery.....
flame away my close-minded friends.....
The whole revoke the oscar campaign is a perfect validation that Moore is saying things that go straight to the heart of the cadre of citizens in the U.S. that will not tolerate any negative comments or characterizations of gun ownership. They are afraid of his message in BfC becuase ultimately, whether they want to admit it or not (NOT), he is on to something. It hurts, I know, but admitting it is the first step to recovery.....
flame away my close-minded friends.....
#39
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
look, you've got the entire AM radio dial with the exception of NPR, you've got most of the media outlets including a full fledged 24 hour propaganda channel...isn't it enough? must you work so hard to silence anybody who disagrees with you?
it's just one little documentary that means pretty much zero in the big scheme of things, so take a deep breath. if we could just harness the raw energy of this conservative obsession with stamping out any opinion that doesn't fit in with their narrow little vision of the world, we might actually get something done. instead it's just a constant dose of much ado about nothing.
what i'm trying to say is: take a deep breath, get over it, and use your energy for something constructive...or barring that, just keep it to yourself.
great, now i'm whining about whining...will it ever end?
it's just one little documentary that means pretty much zero in the big scheme of things, so take a deep breath. if we could just harness the raw energy of this conservative obsession with stamping out any opinion that doesn't fit in with their narrow little vision of the world, we might actually get something done. instead it's just a constant dose of much ado about nothing.
what i'm trying to say is: take a deep breath, get over it, and use your energy for something constructive...or barring that, just keep it to yourself.
great, now i'm whining about whining...will it ever end?
#40
DVD Talk Hero
The left finally has their Limbaugh -- a chubby, duplicitous, sanctimonious, populist propaganda mouthpiece all their own.
Deal with it, folks.
Deal with it, folks.
#41
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: John "57 Varieties" Kerry represents me in the US Senate.
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edit: Point taken about my need to "calm down." I'm editing this to, er, make it less worthy of my username.
Another way this argument ("logical fallacy"?) can be used is to defend Mr. Moral Majority. I'll substitute "Falwell" for "Moore," "liberals" for "conservatives," and "left" for "right" [except when it's "right" as in "correct"; then I'll leave it alone] - to assemble a bulletproof case that everybody's favorite Christian Fundamentalist is a Swell Guy.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you asked kvrdave for permission to quote him in your sig. Now, may I request the honor of concluding my posts with this gem you've blessed us with here?
Wild idea: Wouldn't it be wonderful, given that roughly half of Americans who voted chose Bush (yeah, I know "Gore won the popular vote"), if approximately half of college professors in the humanities / social sciences were also Bush supporters? Can you produce some studies for me debunking the "myth" of Liberal Academia, since you evidently believe the Liberal Media is a fantasy as well?
It's always humorous to see lefties posturing as being "anti-Establishment" and "questioning Authority." Sorry. A few decades ago, that might have been convincing. Not any more.
Gadzooks! My "vision of the world" has been denounced as "narrow." On the other hand, when Michael Moore writes a book called Stupid White Men! And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, he's apparently demonstrating his "open-minded vision of the world." Not to mention engaging in Free Speech! Yet when people exercise their (First Amendment?) rights to criticize Moore, we're "stamping out" Free Speech.
Actually, never mind that. It seems the more sophisticated, enlightened among us have been employing this "conservative speech is an assault on free speech" schtick pretty consistently recently whenever somebody on the right disses someone on the left. It must be my "close-mindedness" coupled with my "narrow little vision of the world" that renders me incapable of understanding the near-equivalence of "bashing what someone says" and "wanting to repeal his right to say it."
What I'm most interested in is talk of the "conservative obsession with stamping out any opinion that doesn't fit in with their narrow little vision of the world" - and how it seems entirely out of place coming just before this:
"Keep it to yourself."
Amazing.
If I didn't know better, I could *swear* you were trying to "stamp out any opinion that doesn't fit in with your broad-minded, tolerant vision of the world."
Oops! I forgot: Only conservatives try to silence people.
brizz informs us:
These threads crack me up....if ever there were a validation that Moore was on to something, it is the never ending vitriol that conservatives send his way. Anyone who can rile up the right the way he does must be doing something right, must be pushing some deep-seeded buttons, and must actually be speaking from the heart in a truthful and open way.
These threads crack me up....if ever there were a validation that Moore was on to something, it is the never ending vitriol that conservatives send his way. Anyone who can rile up the right the way he does must be doing something right, must be pushing some deep-seeded buttons, and must actually be speaking from the heart in a truthful and open way.
flame away my close-minded friends.....
Witnessing the Slimy Tentacles of Conservatism everywhere, chess wonders:
look, you've got the entire AM radio dial with the exception of NPR, you've got most of the media outlets including a full fledged 24 hour propaganda channel...isn't it enough? must you work so hard to silence anybody who disagrees with you?
look, you've got the entire AM radio dial with the exception of NPR, you've got most of the media outlets including a full fledged 24 hour propaganda channel...isn't it enough? must you work so hard to silence anybody who disagrees with you?
It's always humorous to see lefties posturing as being "anti-Establishment" and "questioning Authority." Sorry. A few decades ago, that might have been convincing. Not any more.
if we could just harness the raw energy of this conservative obsession with stamping out any opinion that doesn't fit in with their narrow little vision of the world, we might actually get something done. instead it's just a constant dose of much ado about nothing.
Actually, never mind that. It seems the more sophisticated, enlightened among us have been employing this "conservative speech is an assault on free speech" schtick pretty consistently recently whenever somebody on the right disses someone on the left. It must be my "close-mindedness" coupled with my "narrow little vision of the world" that renders me incapable of understanding the near-equivalence of "bashing what someone says" and "wanting to repeal his right to say it."
What I'm most interested in is talk of the "conservative obsession with stamping out any opinion that doesn't fit in with their narrow little vision of the world" - and how it seems entirely out of place coming just before this:
what i'm trying to say is: take a deep breath, get over it, and use your energy for something constructive...or barring that, just keep it to yourself.
Amazing.
If I didn't know better, I could *swear* you were trying to "stamp out any opinion that doesn't fit in with your broad-minded, tolerant vision of the world."
Oops! I forgot: Only conservatives try to silence people.
Last edited by inVectiVe; 04-22-03 at 11:34 PM.
#42
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
^^ Whoa, calm down, man. Take a deep breath and count to 50. ^^
#43
DVD Talk Special Edition
Although I liked BFC, The Big One, and Roger & Me, I seriously doubt the ability of a man who thought Oscar audience members were "boo-ing the boo-ers" to shape my socio-political values.
#44
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by funkyryno
^^ Whoa, calm down, man. Take a deep breath and count to 50. ^^
^^ Whoa, calm down, man. Take a deep breath and count to 50. ^^
#45
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by inVectiVe
Edit: Point taken about my need to "calm down." I'm editing this to, er, make it less worthy of my username.
Another way this argument ("logical fallacy"?) can be used is to defend Mr. Moral Majority. I'll substitute "Falwell" for "Moore," "liberals" for "conservatives," and "left" for "right" [except when it's "right" as in "correct"; then I'll leave it alone] - to assemble a bulletproof case that everybody's favorite Christian Fundamentalist is a Swell Guy.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you asked kvrdave for permission to quote him in your sig. Now, may I request the honor of concluding my posts with this gem you've blessed us with here?
Wild idea: Wouldn't it be wonderful, given that roughly half of Americans who voted chose Bush (yeah, I know "Gore won the popular vote"), if approximately half of college professors in the humanities / social sciences were also Bush supporters? Can you produce some studies for me debunking the "myth" of Liberal Academia, since you evidently believe the Liberal Media is a fantasy as well?
It's always humorous to see lefties posturing as being "anti-Establishment" and "questioning Authority." Sorry. A few decades ago, that might have been convincing. Not any more.
Gadzooks! My "vision of the world" has been denounced as "narrow." On the other hand, when Michael Moore writes a book called Stupid White Men! And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, he's apparently demonstrating his "open-minded vision of the world." Not to mention engaging in Free Speech! Yet when people exercise their (First Amendment?) rights to criticize Moore, we're "stamping out" Free Speech.
Actually, never mind that. It seems the more sophisticated, enlightened among us have been employing this "conservative speech is an assault on free speech" schtick pretty consistently recently whenever somebody on the right disses someone on the left. It must be my "close-mindedness" coupled with my "narrow little vision of the world" that renders me incapable of understanding the near-equivalence of "bashing what someone says" and "wanting to repeal his right to say it."
What I'm most interested in is talk of the "conservative obsession with stamping out any opinion that doesn't fit in with their narrow little vision of the world" - and how it seems entirely out of place coming just before this:
"Keep it to yourself."
Amazing.
If I didn't know better, I could *swear* you were trying to "stamp out any opinion that doesn't fit in with your broad-minded, tolerant vision of the world."
Oops! I forgot: Only conservatives try to silence people.
Edit: Point taken about my need to "calm down." I'm editing this to, er, make it less worthy of my username.
Another way this argument ("logical fallacy"?) can be used is to defend Mr. Moral Majority. I'll substitute "Falwell" for "Moore," "liberals" for "conservatives," and "left" for "right" [except when it's "right" as in "correct"; then I'll leave it alone] - to assemble a bulletproof case that everybody's favorite Christian Fundamentalist is a Swell Guy.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you asked kvrdave for permission to quote him in your sig. Now, may I request the honor of concluding my posts with this gem you've blessed us with here?
Wild idea: Wouldn't it be wonderful, given that roughly half of Americans who voted chose Bush (yeah, I know "Gore won the popular vote"), if approximately half of college professors in the humanities / social sciences were also Bush supporters? Can you produce some studies for me debunking the "myth" of Liberal Academia, since you evidently believe the Liberal Media is a fantasy as well?
It's always humorous to see lefties posturing as being "anti-Establishment" and "questioning Authority." Sorry. A few decades ago, that might have been convincing. Not any more.
Gadzooks! My "vision of the world" has been denounced as "narrow." On the other hand, when Michael Moore writes a book called Stupid White Men! And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, he's apparently demonstrating his "open-minded vision of the world." Not to mention engaging in Free Speech! Yet when people exercise their (First Amendment?) rights to criticize Moore, we're "stamping out" Free Speech.
Actually, never mind that. It seems the more sophisticated, enlightened among us have been employing this "conservative speech is an assault on free speech" schtick pretty consistently recently whenever somebody on the right disses someone on the left. It must be my "close-mindedness" coupled with my "narrow little vision of the world" that renders me incapable of understanding the near-equivalence of "bashing what someone says" and "wanting to repeal his right to say it."
What I'm most interested in is talk of the "conservative obsession with stamping out any opinion that doesn't fit in with their narrow little vision of the world" - and how it seems entirely out of place coming just before this:
"Keep it to yourself."
Amazing.
If I didn't know better, I could *swear* you were trying to "stamp out any opinion that doesn't fit in with your broad-minded, tolerant vision of the world."
Oops! I forgot: Only conservatives try to silence people.
anyway, certainly nothing against you personally or any other conservative for that matter. i'm just bothered of late by the return of what looks to me like mccarthyism in which anybody who disagrees with the administration is labled as unpatriotic.
for example, you don't hear a cry from the left to boycott conservative actors like bruce willis or arnold swarzenegger, but any time an actor expresses a liberal view, the fascists just come out of the woodwork calling for boycotts and whatnot. it's just lame and i'm embarrassed that it's happening in the country i defend. in fact, it's the sort of thing that makes me question my very profession.
and if you have any doubt that the corporate media hasn't moved to the right and isn't driven more by ratings than they are by seeking the truth, then i have a bridge to sell you.
look, you're free to think and say whatever comes to your mind UNTIL it infringes on somebody elses right to the same. if i can accept the existance of rush limbaugh and his ilk and can stomach fox news without whining, then i'd like to think that you would be adult enough to accept Moore (who even left wing wackos think is a left wing wacko) and his reltatively insignificant documentarys.
narrow view? let's ask webster:
liberal: 1. support civil liberties, democratic reforms and the use of govt power to promote social progress 2. supporting the freedom of individuals to express themselves as they choose. 5. tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others
conservative: 1. tending to oppose change; favoring traditional rules and values (translated by chess as "close minded")
stupid white men? i haven't read that book, but i already agree with the premise. if it quacks like a duck, walks, acts, and smells like a duck...it might just be a duck.
Last edited by chess; 04-23-03 at 11:02 AM.