Slashdot Mirror

I don't even know how you'd collect that data.....ask the union representative of the National Collective of Home Invaders?

Basically, yes. They ask criminals who have been arrested. And yes, the rate of home invasions is much lower in the US, as the criminals say that it is because they are concerned about encountering an armed resident - because in the US, an invader is as likely to be shot as arrested.

The second amendment isn't ultimately about hunting. It is about the final defense of the American people against tyranny, whether from home or abroad.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. --- Noah Webster

The Swiss have that figured out as well.

In World War II, the Swiss had defenses no other country had. Let's begin with the rifle in every home combined with the Alpine terrain. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. Switzerland also had a decentralized, direct democracy which could not be surrendered to a foreign enemy by a political elite. Some governments surrendered to Hitler without resistance based on the decision of a king or dictator; this was institutionally impossible in Switzerland. If an ordinary Swiss citizen was told that the Federal President--a relatively powerless official--had surrendered the country, the citizen might not even know the president's name, and would have held any "surrender" order in contempt. -- Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook

While it's true that most if not all of the gun control laws between the Civil War and World War I were part of the 'Jim Crow' system of creating separate systems of "justice" delineated on race, it is, as the AC who responded to you notes, false to say the NRA was a 'civil rights organization' and indeed it had little political function until after the NFA. You overreach into fiction degrades the value of your facts.

I'm not sure I get your 'sarcasm'. I never said that a criminal will go out and do illegal things just for the hell of it. My point was that making something illegal will not suddenly make a criminal not want to do whatever is now illegal. You know, like carrying and selling drugs.

You'll either refrain from responding, or repeat it.

Eh, I'll go ahead and repeat it... a... little... more... slowly...

Drugs like cocaine are illegal to posses.

You can be arrested on the spot for having them.

Drug dealers carry them anyway.

So, why do you think making another item (guns) illegal will make criminals stop carrying that item?

If you could provide evidence that cops routinely arrest drug dealers with weapons that are actually illegal then you'd be able to prove me wrong.

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/japanese_gun_control.htm

Including the possession cases, there are about 600 handgun crimes a year and 900 long gun crimes

A small number of craftsmen specialise in converting toy and model guns into working handguns for criminals.

..illegal guns are usually smuggled from overseas (especially from the Philippines and the United States) by organised crime gangs

And this is in the most gun-controlled country in the world.

The answer under the current laws in most states: none. Why? Because by definition, a "normal person" follows the law, and the law prohibits them from carrying one inside. The presence of a gun inside is not the problem; the presence of a lunatic inside is the problem. sometimes the outcome is a lot better when responsible individuals are armed.

Alright, troll-- I'll bite.

In most protracted civil conflicts, the army as a whole doesn't take sides... or the conflict is already over. By the same token, a disciplined, professional army drawn from the population is unlikely to slaughter that population wholesale.

Most atrocities and civilian casualties in civil conflicts are committed by groups of lightly-armed and disorganized thugs. The .38 in Grandma's dresser won't stop an army, but it'll put holes in a jeep full of blackshirts looking for some quick rape and arson.

First they take your guns. Then they take whatever catches their fancy.

Sure, it's costly to have an armed populace. It's a lot more costly to have a disarmed populace.

I was under the impression that there were statutes that said so explicitly. But I didn't find any with a quick search.

Rather, what I am referring to may just be based on judicial procedure, and a (common) misinterpretation of it. It's so common, in fact, that I've been taught this by two different lawyers, and never really had any reason to doubt it. Basically, it is the rule that certain "questions of fact" are "for a jury to decide". This leads prosecutors (and even police) to mistakenly believe that their duty is just to collect evidence and pass it along to an eventual jury, instead of using any type of discretion. In actuality, of course, this rule only exists due to abuses like those of "Hanging Judge" Isaac C. Parker, who had a habit of denying defendants the right to a jury trial. The defendant has the right to have a jury decide the question, but it's not an absolute requirement like many apparently believe.

This is a good example:
http://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2007/06/self-defense-and-prosecutors.html

"The truth hurt me in this case," said Williams, who expressed no surprise at the verdict.

"They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. It's tough to put yourself in that guy's shoes and say he didn't act appropriately. It's really tough."

Ultimately, Williams said, the self-defense issue was one for the community, not prosecutors, to determine.

Sorry, kinda messed up some stats. It's every third house that has a gun, and Switzerland is said to be Europe's best-armed nation. Here's more:

The Swiss and Their Guns
* http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/the-swiss-and-their-guns-27329/

* http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/The-Swiss-and-their-Guns.htm (2 different articles)

Here's a good place to start.

I'll look forward to your lengthy, scholarly rebuttal that does not include an ad hominem dismissal of his points.

One? Try 59 in a single film. (Ok, some of those are not complete lies, just misleading half-truths.)

Most of them are being shipped south across the border. They need something to haul back after they sell all the drugs up here, after all.

You would make a great truck broker (booking loads for the return trip), but the weapons that the cartels are using are not readily available in the US. They are far easier to acquire from the Mexican army deserters and the southern border.

Actually, this is wrong. Mexican citizens are allowed to own various guns, just nothing in a "military" caliber. So, 9mm, .45ACP, .233 are all illegal, but weird rounds like .38 Super are allowed and popular.

It's the corruption thing again. Here's a reference on the subject. There's statute availability vs. actual availability.

However, the law doesn't seem to be very successful in keeping guns out of the hands of the cartels.

Naturally. Only the law-abiding citizens are disarmed, so they need to bend to the will of the cartels. It's their government disarming them, a government largely beholden to the Mexican drug cartels. That works out nicely for them.

because there's no real rule of law there, only an illusion of such

Again, try arming yourself to defend your village against the drug cartels, and the Rule of Law will become apparent.

The drug cartels are more powerful than the government. Mexico is about to become a failed state.

Agreed. If either the Mexican or US governments legalized the drugs this problem would reverse. They all know this, so it appears to be intentional.

Another good example is Somalia. No functioning government, and jihadists and warlords running amok.

That's actually a good counter-example. Somalia's economic activity is increasing at a higher rate, and poverty is declining faster than any other 'sub-Saharan-Africa' country. Check out the article in Harpers on this from this Spring.

Without a sufficiently strong (and uncorrupted) government, this is the result.

Aye, there's the rub. This is an open problem.

I do remember reading about sociologists Wright, Rossi, and Daly, who started researching gun control for the Carter administration. They set out to prove that gun control laws had reduced crime, but found no evidence of this. Perhaps GP was confusing John Lott with them?

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/hold_your_fire.htm

I give kudos to Wright, Rossi, and Daly for publishing anyway, after proving the opposite of what they had expected to prove.

No, they were thugs with machetes, for the most part. If the people had had guns, machete wielding militias would have been routed, but they weren't.

The lack of guns may not be the "cause", but the removal of guns removes a check on the government, as is seen in many instances cited in this paper (PDF).

Guns in private hands are much like nuclear weapons in government hands. Lots of people hate it when people or governments gain access to such armament, but the fact remains that there has never been a serious attempt at invasion of a nuclear armed state, nor has their been a genocide perpetrated against a heavily armed populace by non-military forces (ie people with access to far more advanced weaponry than rifles, ie the US in Iraq, or Vietnam). It might not be an end-all, but it sure makes people think twice about stealing your life's work, raping your nine year old daughter, or hacking your family to bits with a machete.

The weapons do NOT come from the US. What kind f*&king idiot trots across the border to a US gunshop and pays US values for a weapon, when he can buy a AK smuggled from Africa for 1/100 of that price? No one. Straw man.

MOST of all the automatic weapons used by Cartels are FROM THE MEXICAN MILITARY itself. BTW how many fully automatic weapons can you buy in a US GunShop? Please go try to do it yourself.

ARM the Civilians. Give them BOUNTIES for each cartel member. Mexico has very strict gun control.
http://www.davekopel.com/espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm

Apple's a major religion.

Most of these guys are the David Karash's of the tech world. Minus the whole FBI crashing the house party... yet.

Actually, that was the ATF.

I agree with most of what David Kopel says in this article:

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2003/Bowling-Truths.htm

He's an expert on the Second Amendment, and has researched the film extensively in an effort to undo what Michael Moore has done.

In many cases, Moore decieves while sticking to actual facts. Leaving out crucial facts is very deceptive, and is a great way to encourage confirmation bias.

Before you place too much stock in the supposed evidence that was in Fahrenheit 9/11 you really should take the time to read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11. A large part of that movie was a complete misrepresentation of fact, so much so that I wouldn't have faith in anything that Michael Moore puts out.

You should also read Truth about Bowling to see another case of how Michael Moore blatantly distorts the facts in his "documentaries".

In Pearl, federal, state and local laws helped Luke Woodham shoot nine students. The deer rifle had to be reloaded after every shot. To hit nine students, Woodham needed time. The moments it took Myrick to reach his gun are what allowed Woodham to continue shooting and almost escape. Gun laws, and nothing else, gave Woodham that time.

This is the same faulty reasoning that Handgun Controls and their ilk spread all over the news media when Florida began allowing concealed carry some years ago. They predicted a bloodbath in the streets, with gun owners shooting it out with each other, killing scores of innocent bystanders in the process.

Maybe I missed the headlines, but I don't recall hearing about anything even remotely close to this happening.

In fact, after the change, crime in Florida plummeted. In contrast, after DC, England, and Australia enacted new draconian gun control, crime INCREASED.

BTW, there are recent documented cases of school shootings that were STOPPED by armed individuals. The media somehow failed to point out these facts when reporting the story.

Here's one:
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.ht m

I used to think people who wanted to carry handguns were anti-social, lunatics. Then, I actually did my own research and looked at the FACTS, from a logical (not emotional) viewpoint. Needless to say, I am now a strong proponent of allowing responsible, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Would I do it myself? Probably not, but I would feel a lot safer knowing someone other than the criminals was armed.

"Can you point me in the direction of a single instance of Michael Moore lying or exagurating something bad that Bush has done?"

On the off-chance that you are serious about your request, I include this link found with a simple google search. Sorry that I didn't persevere to find a link to a SINGLE instance as requested.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Disclaimer: This post is meant to assist the google-challenged. I do not endorse the site linked above, or guarantee in any way the accuracy of the material presented there.

• http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2199/pub_de tail.asp
• http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Our human rights problems get noticed because we're bigger and have further to fall. That's fair. But all this hysteria makes me laugh. We're still, without question, the freest country on Earth. Period.

Didn't you see the congressman on Farenheit 911 state very plainly that for the most part they don't even get to read and analyze what bills they are voting in?

Oh, I thought you had something factual to contribute.

Yes, we've all seen that page. Moore doesn't address most of the major criticism of his films. See here and here.

I honestly don't care what someone's political beliefs are. If they believe a word of what Moore says, they're an idiot either way. Moore uses leftist politics for his own money-making agendas. I doubt he even believes everything he says--a lot of it is just too blatantly, verifiably false or exaggerated.

The speech actually comes from the October 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The 2000 event was the 55th annual dinner, which raises money for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves.

taking a month-long fucking vacation?

Please site your source, Fahrenheit 9/11 is not applicable.

From 59 Deceits in F911: Fahrenheit 9/11 states, "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time."

Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore failed to mention.

Tom McNamee, "Just the facts on 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Chicago Sun-Times, June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, "White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to Ranch for 'Working Vacation'," Washington Post, August 7, 2001 Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders. Since the Eisenhower administration, Presidents have usually spent many weekends at Camp David, which is fully equipped for Presidential work. Once the Camp David time is excluded, Bush's "vacation" time drops to 13 percent.

Much of that 13 percent was spent on Bush's ranch in Texas...

Interestingly, as detailed in Bill Clinton's autobiography My Life, in November 1995. when President Clinton learned that Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had been shot, Clinton went out to the White House lawn and hit golf balls while he waited to learn if Rabin would live. That Clinton played golf after learning of a terrible crime in Israel obviously does not mean that he did not care about the crime.


As per your quote, about the rain here is a more equivalent analogy:

"Somewhere in the United States it may rain in the near future."

Also, what should he have done about the memo? What could he possibly have done? (Well he shouldn't have gone on vacation for one thing is not an acceptable answer)

BTW, this is why it is a missile defense test, so that we can fix the issues before we go live. I don't see what the issue is here.

> He won't be eligible for an Oscar under the documentary category, but I guess he doesn't care.

There are some obvious reasons why F9/11 is ineligible for a best documentary Oscar. For one thing, he faked an article's headline in his "documentary" (among other things)?

People who claim "it doesn't matter" also probably dont think anything wrong with forging the CBS memos (alongwith a dead man's signature!) because "it was forged just like it _really_ was".

Why should we believe liars?

"Nobody has been able to shoot down a single fact in the movie." LOL ok here we go...

1. The Gore victory rally is not celebrating a Florida win. It was held before the polls had even opened.

2. Like all the other networks, Fox mistakenly said that Gore had won in Florida. The first network to retract the Florida mistake was CBS, not Fox.

3. A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.

4. Investigation by the Palm Beach Post and others shows that race was not a reason why election officials mistakenly disqualified some voters because they were incorrectly thought to have felony convictions.

5. Bush's Presidency before 9/11 was not in serious trouble. No commentator said that he looked like a lame-duck president. Congress had passed his #1 bill (the tax cut) and was
on the way to passing his #2 bill (the education bill). The scene at the end of the movie in which Bush tells a rich audience "I call you my base" was from an October 2000 charity fund-raiser. Both Gore and Bush spoke at the fund-raiser and, as is the custom at the fund-raiser, made fun of themselves.

and here is 54 more facts distorted
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The most balanced objective take on the file I've seen so far is the point by point list of deceits.

I don't think that it is possible to call something balanced objective when it was written by a columnist of National Review online, an Associate Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute, particularly when the subject matter is Fahrenheit 9/11. It's like asking Greenpeace to provide a balanced objective take on logging old growth, or the NRA to provied a balanced objective take on anti-gun legislation. Just the fact that you refer to it as a "list of deceipts" displays your own bias.

For a rebuttal of David Kopel's list, please check out Deception; Desperate Right Wing Attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11 or Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'

I hate Bush and his whole administration, but I cannot hold up Moore's film as anything other than highly misleading propoganda. He did way more than "put his own spin on things".

For example, he shows a clip of some politician claiming "and we've set up an 800 number so you can call us and complain," and inserts a little subtitle claiming "this isn't true." The truth is that the phone number was (and still is) a 1-888 number, which is just as toll-free as 1-800 numbers are. But because (int)888 != (int)800, Moore tells us that the "800 number" statement is false, and implies that the entire statement is a lie.

Another example: Moore makes a big stink over only one member of Congress with a child enlisted in the military in Iraq. What Moore carefully leaves out is all the Congresscritters with children deployed elsewhere, or not yet deployed, or -- this is the nice one -- serving as officers in Iraq. The latter don't count, see, because they're not enlisted. Moore deliberately relies on audience members to hear "enlisted in the military" and include all ranks and services at once.

The most balanced objective take on the file I've seen so far is the point by point list of deceits.

Two new films offer a rebuttal to the slanted views of Michael Moore. Michael Moore Hates America and FahrenHYPE 9/11 . Both are due to be released to DVD on October 5th to coincide with the DVD release of Fahrenheit 9/11. I have yet to see either of these films, but the trailers look compelling.

For an detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11 read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 .

Yes, the Saudi relationship is worthy of equal scorn. And that's why I say it is too late. However, the "7 percent" figure is false. See Reason 23 at http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm"According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, total foreign investment in the United States in 2003 was $10,515 billion dollars. This means that even if the figure that Unger "heard" about Saudis having $860 billion is correct, then the Saudis would only have about 8 percent of total foreign investment in the United States. Unless you believe that almost all American assets are owned by foreigners, then it cannot possibly be true that Saudis "own seven percent of America.""

I'll tell you why: We're crackwhores and Saudi Arabia is our pimp and dealer. We'll do anything to make sure the Saudis keep selling us that sweet, sweet liquid love (petroleum).

He's got answers, but most of his answers don't respond to the questions raised. In typical "Michael-Moore-Documentary" style, he evades, eludes and replies with answers that are fabricated by himself or others. That long winded expose on his site shows his concern that the movie is full of half-truths and outright fabrications!

To answer a challenge of a "fact" presented in his "Michael-Moore-Documentary" with an opinion , unsubstatiated allegation from another source is NOT AN ANSWER! However, most of these "answers" don't address the questions raised!

See David Kopel's excellent *NON-PARTISAN* run-down: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The reason he's not going for best documentary is that -- surprise -- even MM concedes its more Comedy than Documentary ('Did I mention it's a comedy?')

If it did come up for best documentary, that category would be forever tainted!

Fact is, Moore has come up with a formula of outrageous conspiracy theories that appeal to the cognitively challenged in society who also happen to have enough change in their pockets to buy a movie ticket.

I propose a new screen name: "Michael MooreMoney" He's finally got a way to fill his pockets -- something he's been unable to do on talent alone for the last 20+ years.

Actually, according to this source, Bush's statement was taken out of context in that he wasn't talking about al-Qaeda terrorists at all:

Tuesday night on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

The Fifty-nine Deceits site also fairly (in my opinion) points out that "Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course".

> > He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact.
> > He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts
> > for actual statements people make.
>
> Where?
>
Very well documented by the article mentioned by this slashdot story.

So the Bush administration wrongly got pleased with their "stop growing opium" edict and gave it money. Why don't you rather read and respond to Kopel's article? After all that's what we are discussing here.

lets rebold that shall we? [1] "an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view" [2] "a nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme" [3] "a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter" [4] "an eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects" [5] "factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view" read http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm and tell me Farenheit 9/11 is non-fiction.

Since so many people wish to argue "facts", this article does a fairly good job of it.

Sure, MM presented some facts, but the overall impression was not simply misleading, it was outright propoganda. To dignify this work as a "documentary" is outrageous.

I am neither left nor right, Democrat nor Republican, but I think people should have some sense of dignity when they make a film. They should be responsible and not willfully mislead people. This isn't always possible, but we can do better than Fahrenheit 9/11.

is that a joke ?

moore is wrong more than he's right, he makes shit up. period. he is a criminal. an enemy combatant. end of story.

inform yourself. take a look here:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

and finally, someone has stepped up and made a documentary exposing moore for what he is:

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

later
rob

http://www.robwestcott.com/

And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...

Actually, at least two are:

here

and here

Also: If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...

If this is so wrong, how come Moore or "someone" hasn't sued him? Therefore it must be correct by your "logic".

Politics is sad nowadays. I'm voting indy.

There is a link at the bottom of this comment that I think many would be interested in reading. At least it is a more objective source of "fact checking" than Michael Moore and his own website..

I'll agree that some of the movie has less spin than other parts of it. However, I would submit that since he enjoys twisting the truth in his movie, there is absolutely no reason to believe that he won't twist the truth again on his website.

You're not using additional sources to validate his claims. That's not corroborating evidence.

His movie is all about spin, and it's completely about influencing the election. He made back what it took to create the thing opening weekend. After that, he said he was cool with people posting it and sharing a copy on kazaa and bittorrent. Now he wants to air it on national TV the night before the election.

I have no problem with him having an agenda, nor do I expect him NOT to be biased. I'd like him not to be, but I don't expect it. He doesn't like Bush, and he wants him gone. He's using his position as a filmmaker to help with that goal. However, I just wish he'd be MORE up-front about his bias. But if he did that, then he wouldn't have as many sheep..

I don't like being lied to by our current administration. I don't like the whole "we never said there were definately WMD" game. I don't think the President is above a little stinging sarcasm or humor. Just don't pass off your propaganda as "the full truth" when it's really just an interesting movie with lots of creative editing and half truths. Michael Moore knows that the great majority of his viewers will NOT seek out additional information, nor validate his claims. He hopes they will presume that since he is not (currently) being sued out of his pants, what he says must be true.

He is very crafty at perfectly phrasing a response to any question. Read the site linked below, then watch him sometime on one of the many media shows he is currently whoring himself (and his viewpoint on). Watch how exquisitely careful he is to avoid direct and complete answers for many of the questions he is asked. I will give him some credit: He is a master of semantics.

Here's a more objective analysis of Farenheit. [ pdf]

Kopel is balanced. Read his summarizations of moore's responses

For eg:
[Moore response: On the Florida victory celebration, none. On the networks calls: provides citations for the early and incorrect Florida calls for Gore, around 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and for the late-evening network calls of Florida for Bush around 2:20 a.m. Doesn't mention the retraction of the Florida calls at 10 p.m., or that CBS led the retraction.]

David Kopel has been called into question by many, but his article illustrates there are problems with F/911.

Analysis from libertarians -- people who think Bush is a terrible President, and hate war -- has been critical of Moore. Search Lewrockwell.com for Michael Moore and Mises.og for Michael Moore.

Uh..perhaps you should read the links in the original post.

Everything there has already been debunked in the War Room. If you want to discuss specifics with me, don't just post a link, post a particular. If not, every time you point me to that site, I'll point you to the War Room.


No, the war room skirts around the issues. Read more closesly at Kopel's page, he includes counters of Michael's "War room" counter arguments. There is so much goddamn spin and sleight of hand in F911 that it's difficult for me to take seriously at all. It's not that he isn't mostly accurate factually, its that he implies so much bullshit that you begin to drown in it half way though.

Carefully read through kopels page, and then read Moore's counter arguments, before you come to a decision on just how good of fact check Moore's war room does.

Wait... is the best thing that you can come up with the fact that they got the date on an article wrong and changed the font? Seriously?

Um, no.

I'll explain.

He comes out with Fahrenheit 9/11. It's full of things. It's a very effective piece of propoganda. And there's almost nothing in it which is false or a lie.

It's been my experience that it's by and large intelligent people who go see his films. Think about it - it's the intelligent people who will give his work the time of day. It's been my experience that the people who say "he's a damn dirty liar and I won't support that" haven't done their research and are on the whole the ones who would rather not hear anything he has to say.

Consequently it's these same intelligent people who walk out of the theater saying "wow, that was pretty bad for Bush & Co. - but I bet it's only one side of the story". And it is.

Moore tells you about the VA Hospitals Bush closed down, but not about the ones he opened up.

Moore tells about the opinon piece that says Gore won, but he doesn't tell you about the dozen stories that say he lost.

Moore tells you about the judges Bush couldn't get appointed, but not about the ones he did.

People have made it their goal to point out the one-sided arguments in the film while others have pointed out the fallacies in those arguments against the film.

56% of Americans have either seen the film or plan to see the film. There's no way in hell that 56% of Americans are informed about politics. So they learn a lot from Fahrenheit 9/11. Then they learn a lot more from the people against F911. Then they learn even more from the people who are against the people who are against F911. And they decide for themselves who they want to believe more. Or more importantly they decide for themselves which information is important to them.

And then they're informed. In ways they never would have been before. I wouldn't know most of this stuff if I hadn't seen the film and then read all the debates. And I wouldn't have read the debates if it weren't for the Internet. Hell, Michael Moore used footage he got from the Internet to make the movie.

And that's why Michael Moore is a genius. Thanks to him there's a ton more informed voters out there, if for no other reason than people need to see the movie and get their ducks in order in order to hate Moore and his arguments. In many ways he's leveled the playing field.