I bet in the future Michael Moore is looked back on as a paragon of truth, from some future where people no longer defend the conservatives opinions of the time (which I feel will wither away with the passage of time) as new generations become more accepting and understanding, at least long enough to ensure the generation after them will be more so. It'll take a while, but it'll happen, believe you me.
Farenheit 9/11
lol I'll take that bet, because we're more likely to harvest cybernetic cows than for something like that to happen.
Why not? He's definetly a politically significant figure, he'll certainly be remembered (however by what degree of notority has yet to be determined) and assuming humanity does not destroy itself first they'll HAVE to look back on these days sooner or later and think something of them, and my opinion is that they'll look back from a (hopefully) unbiased standpoint and say things like "During this time, fringe investigative journalists and documentarists came to the fore, trying to prove the disastrous results of the era to the masses, but were met with stiff resistance."
I'd bet any money I've got that this is so, so long as humanity isn't wiped out or under the foot of some super-oppressive regime.
I'd bet any money I've got that this is so, so long as humanity isn't wiped out or under the foot of some super-oppressive regime.
IMO the chances of this world making it to a Star Trek kind of utopia are smaller than the chances that the big bang occurred.
Eg: a mathematical impossibility.
Eg: a mathematical impossibility.
I can't speak for F-9/11, but he played all the shell game shenanigans of a circus sideshow with Bowling for Columbine. The man can't tell a straight truth to save his life. His "truth" is only that in which it can be defended by a thread in court as "legal".
Why he won for "Best Documentary" and not "Best Editing" in the Academy, I'll never know.
And as for your "magical time of hand-holding lefist unipartisanship", keep in mind that this country's had the bipartisan bug all the way back to the time that the ink was fresh on the Constitution. I think its fairly safe to bet it'll continue quite a bit after we're dead at the very least.
Why he won for "Best Documentary" and not "Best Editing" in the Academy, I'll never know.
And as for your "magical time of hand-holding lefist unipartisanship", keep in mind that this country's had the bipartisan bug all the way back to the time that the ink was fresh on the Constitution. I think its fairly safe to bet it'll continue quite a bit after we're dead at the very least.
I guess it comes down to your sense of morals then. If you think taking what people say, and twisting it to say what you want it to say, then I guess what Moore did is fine and dandy. I won't be trusting what you say anytime in the future though.
I'll try not to step on you when I get into power, Dolash.
Firstly, Michael Moore is actually none-partisan. He has said some piercing things about the Democrats and has often reffered to them as spinless cowards who have failed Americans, but he has also said that he'd rather them in power then the Republicans, because the Democrats are at least the lesser of two evils.
And for the love of god(s), provide some EVIDENCE as to why he is lying. If I said "Bush is a liar, everything he says is bullshit and can't be believed" and then provided no evidence to back me up whatsover (I don't count the same warmed-over links as evidence, because most of them are speculation and the few which use facts rely on rather meaningless facts like using From My Cold Dead Hands - the motto of Charlton - to introduce him.)
Well if you're already so dead-set against the evidence against BFC, then you're not worth speaking to on the subject. I'm only going to spend time with people open-minded enough to discuss it.
I've already gone over the evidence with you at least once. Probably more like three times. Since you don't consider his 'creative editing' to be a lie, it's rather pointless to discuss it again, Dolash.