france getting govt people to come and do laundrey for them was wild.
I live in canada and while we have slipped a little in the quality of care i now want to move to europe for even better care…

May 15th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Oh geez, does anybody even care about this self-righteous, self-important, smug little man? Oh, but he isn’t little, is he? He’s a fat, obnoxious slob. Does he have anything important to say? Possibly, and probably a lot of stuff I’d agree with, but I won’t listen to him. I don’t listen to these shrill political types like Moore or Limbaugh or any of that sort. When they act the way they act and present things the way they do, they lose any opportunity to be heard by me. FORM is just as important as CONTENT, people.

And an attack upon someone’s physique is supposed to prove what? That “bah” is a moron? Or what?

BTW, since “truth” is defined as “a fact that has been verified” or “conformity to reality or actuality,” what is the definition of a “half-truth” or “one sided truth?” Is this simply a truth that some do not like and therefore attempt to debase it or relegate it to something other than the absolute it is? Again…hmm.

And as far as the facts go, sometimes Mr. Bush and his administration have many times denied things they have said while the cameras were running. That “deer-in-the-headlights” look on Mr. Bush’s face as he realizes the magnitude of what has happened on the morning of Sept. 11th, 2001 is fact, and speaks volumes more than Mr. Moore ever has to personally say. Now watch me hit this drive.

I find it funny how you single out Michael Moore for this when its how the US has been making its laws for centuries now.
Vested interest groups such as the RIAA/MPAA pay their pet political monkeys to get legislation passed that steals from you all, I dont see listening to Michael costing any of you a cent thus far

… I know you could

Basing stories on half truths, and or one sided truths, to prove your points, does not make it completely true, or event a documentary. In fact, it just fuels the miss information among people, to better serve the creator’s wishes (which in this case is most likely a need for fame and fortune).

While there are many interesting points that are made in these films, there is a VERY vague line between what is FACT and what is just SPECULATION (DaVinci Code anyone?). Each of these types of films have incredible claims, which are then later proven false, only to offer a chance for the author or director to get more face time and promotion time in later documentaries across the world.

So, while these shows do get you to think about thinks that you might have overlooked, remember who’s raking in the cash when you buy into these theories.

Man loves a conspiracy, and hates a solved mystery, and will try as hard as possible to keep a mystery a mystery, even if it involves bending reality.

Just my two cents

In the same way that religious extremists “say something, and find a few scripture references to support their statements”, this guy likes to make grand claims, and use questionable “evidence” to support his claims.

I find it entertaining, but closer to a “Saturday Night Live” take on reality.

We’re so utilitarian in this respect that it’s sickening.

Perhaps history will repeat itself and Moore will prove, as he almost did in the first film, that the trade center attack was created by Bush (the great teacher of democary in Iraq?) to serve as an excuse to get some dirty hands on the the petroleum of Iraq and to protect the well connected (to the Bush family) Saudi monarchy (the other great teacher of democracy in the region?).

I’m already drooling.