>
>The author seems very upset that Michael Moore has a point of view. He
>says Moore distorts the facts in support of that point of view. It
>does seem to be generally accepted that some of this went on in
>Bowling for Columbine, which I have not seen. As opposed, let's say,
>to the Bush administration understating casualties. Not saying that
>one justifies the other, but uh, didn't Moore describe his film as an
>op-ed piece?
>
>We'll see. I have decided to go see it and see what he has to say.
>Talking to the kids reveals that they want to see a movie but not
>necessarily this one, so we will make those separate events.
>
>Hard to know what the point is about the Bin Ladens before I see the
>movie but I think the following: 1) perhaps it is true that they were
>not terribly safe in the US at that point and 2) If thousands of
>people were stranded and the entire town of Gander Newfoundland was
>enlisted to help out, why should the bin Ladens be so special?
You're mixing up the dates. US flights resumed on 9/14. The Bin Ladens flight was 9/20, six days after. So the whole conspiracy theory doesn't wash. The point is Moore knows this but doesn't tell you. It's not his "opinion" because he knows the facts. He's intentional misleading people. Kind of sad really, that he uses this trickery to try to get more people to hate Bush. That's what the author was saying and it happens all throughout the movie but this in particular was already being discussed here.
>
>::shrug::
>
>And by the way, I hope you weren't implying that I wouldn't bother to
>get back to this :) I said I would. But Albuquerque has been having
>wildfires in the middle of town, and the one the other day wasn't too
>far from my house. Had to go; it was time to go be around in case the
>wind shifted and they evacuated my kids and my dog. But they got the
>fire under control pretty fast.
>
Glad to here you're family and home are safe.
I wasn't addressing anyone in particular. I know that when I come across liberal articles I usually just read the first paragraph or gloss over the article. I figured a few of you would do same.
-sm
>Dana
>
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:36:08 -0400, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
