Moore sued for misrepresenting vet in farrenheit 911

[Mama Dragon]

Is it any wonder that I'm anti-social?

[bwohlgemuth]

Listen to what you are saying....

As far as Farenheit 9/11 goes, if even only 10% of the major points of that movie are true, then there is still some messed up stuff going on behind 9/11. Even if it's all fabricated, there is still some messed up stuff behind the Bush administration and 9/11.

So, if one side is giving you 10% factual information, you support them? No wonder Moore makes money hand over fist from the loony left. Man, I've got some killer equipment to sell, as long as 10% of what I tell you is accurate.

[bassjones]

for Michael Moore 10% accuracy is considered adequate, for President Bush, 90% accuracy is considered inadequate... how does that work out in your feeble mind exactly?

[Massage...Bored]

for Michael Moore 10% accuracy is considered adequate, for President Bush, 90% accuracy is considered inadequate... how does that work out in your feeble mind exactly?

"We are invading Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction and we need to get them before they get us." (Roughly quoted)

100% inaccurate!!! (Roughly calculated)

[bassjones]

Not exactly. We have not found wmd's themselves, but we have found ample evidence that Iraq was developing weapons. If nothing else we stopped Hussein before he had them developed to the point he could hit us with them.

[Massage...Bored]

Not exactly. We have not found wmd's themselves, but we have found ample evidence that Iraq was developing weapons. If nothing else we stopped Hussein before he had them developed to the point he could hit us with them.

Oh, I'm sorry, so they had the "idea" of having WMDs. And Michael Moore had some "ideas" about 9/11. Okay, I'll give you 98% inaccurate.

[Morphine Child]

for Michael Moore 10% accuracy is considered adequate, for President Bush, 90% accuracy is considered inadequate... how does that work out in your feeble mind exactly?

Feeble mind. haha

Well, let's see. Say Michael Moore is only hypothetically 10% correct about what he said concerning GW, and the war, and hypothetically 90% of the stuff he said is bullsh*t. What's the outcome? Michael Moore has a film that may either be correct or incorrect that makes millions of dollars.

So Michael Moore's hypothetical 90% incorrect facts hurts no one. Bush's hypothetical 10% inaccuracy costs us 5.5 billion dollars a month as a nation, and thus far over 2000 US lives, and over 20,000 Iraq lives. And if they were 90% sure that there were weapons in Iraq, I will jump over to the Republican party.

Now...Do I give a sh*t if the stuff Moore was saying about the soldiers supporting the war, is true? No, I don't. Is it really important that Bush vacationed a lot? No, it isn't. Is it important that Bush ignored important data coming to him that could have warned about the 9/11 attacks? I would think so. Is it important that congress is signing a document called "The Patriot Act" without getting the full gist of it? I would think so again. So what I'm trying to say is sure, some of the movie was probably twisted a bit to sell tickets. That does not discount everything that the movie was saying. The fact that some of it was twisted or fabricated does not make the other parts of it bunkum.

[Morphine Child]

Not exactly. We have not found wmd's themselves, but we have found ample evidence that Iraq was developing weapons. If nothing else we stopped Hussein before he had them developed to the point he could hit us with them.

Read "Hegemony or Survival". Noam Chomsky is a great libertarian.

[sharkmansix]

However, Peter Damon appeared with Senator Edward Kennedy on January 14, 2004 for a speech by Kennedy criticizing the war

from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit ... amon_scene