by coffee_black 24 Replies latest jw friends
Again, why are you bent out of shape over film-makers using some of the same techniques politicians have succesfully used to decieve an entire nation in order to highlight the damage caused by those politicians? Which is worst, can you answer that? How's the camel tasting? IP: N0q0Isx4+7dYJad0
Depends on which one you love the most..... a moore lover likes his obvious decieving technique......The Bush lover likes the Bush techinque ......that's the way the world spins
RachelHall
Where did I say I love Moore?
And your phrasing is a big give away;
Depends on which one you love the most..... a moore lover likes his obvious decieving technique......The Bush lover likes the Bush techinque......that's the way the world spins
Nice to know in the interests of impartiality you've concluded Moore is obvious and Bush isn't.
But why don't you deal with the actual criticisms applied to Bush instead of attacking those who make them or put such attacks in context?
Just in case anyone missed it, my earlier post showed that Michael Moore did NOT use this mans interview out of context. Whether Damon is for the war, or against the war, or changed his mind about the war (and his actions would give one reason to be confused about that), is irrelevant to the point being made in the film.
I am shocked, shocked I say, that Moore would misrepresent people to prove his point.
Then again, Larry Elder, in his film Michael & Me, should over and over how Moore misrepresented facts in Bowling for Columbine.
So continue to hitch up to this bloviated ignoramous, and go down with the ship.
*cough*
XJW4EVR, as I pointed out, with transcript and context, Michael Moore did not misrepresent Sgt. Peter Damon. Hint: Crying about dishonesty seems much sincere when the crier actually shows evidence that he or she actually gives a damn about accuracy.
