The money that is collectively earned by your friendly "corporation" should avoid all taxes, yes. But when that corporation actually gives the money to you and your friends individually, you'd individually have to pay taxes on it.
Any why should a corporation pay any taxes. A corporation is a fictitious entity that allows a group of people to get together, produce a product or a service, and the profits of those earnings are then paid to them in salary and to their investors in dividends--both of which are taxed. The corporation just acts as a "pass-thru" entity.
So why, exactly, do you think that a fictitious pass-thru entity such as a corporation should pay taxes which reduce the amount that it can pay in wages and dividends which, at the end of the day, are taxed anyway? Unless you approve of double-taxation and prefer the government gets your company's money instead of you, as an employee or investor, your complaint makes little sense.
What I'd really like (and it may already exist, but I haven't been able to find it) is a totally hardware, totally internal VoIP solution.
That is... We have a main office and I'm in a remote location (another country). I want to be able to buy a piece of hardware I can just connect to my remote location's LAN (which is connected to the Internet) and buy a piece of hardware that connects to the LAN at my main office. The hardware at my remote location would just connect to a normal phone while the hardware at my main office would just connect to a phone line (or extension of a PBX). When the line/extension rings, it goes over the Internet and rings my phone at my remote location. If I want to make a call, I pick up my phone and I'm given a dial-tone from my main office.
But what I want is a pure hardware solution. I want to pay for the hardware and be done with it. There should be no monthly fee since once I have the hardware I'm not using anyone elses resources.
Likewise, I should be able to make free phone calls to others that use the same hardware as long as my phone knows their IP address (or there is a free/cheap service that maps their number to their current dynamic IP address).
Is there something like this? In theory the hadware ought to be dirt cheap since all it really would require is a network card, an ADC/DAC, and a microcontroller to perform the logic. Such a device could probably be built for less than $30, so it ought to be availble to the public for less than $100 for each location.
12-digit UPC-A codes are automatically EAN-13 codes. When EAN-13 was deployed, they essentially pulled a Microsoft... they "embraced and extended" UPC-A. All UPC-A codes can be scanned by EAN-13 scanners because the EAN-13 is an extension of UPC-A. However, not all UPC-A scanners can automatically understand the extended EAN-13 barcodes.
This has meant that UPC-A barcodes can be scanned worldwide but EAN-13 barcodes produced in other countries could not be scanned in the U.S. because U.S. POS systems didn't understand the "extended" version (EAN-13). This meant that manufacturers outside the U.S. had to have an EAN-13 barcode for the "rest of the world" and a UPC-A barcode for the U.S.--U.S. manufacturers only needed a UPC-A barcode because it works worldwide.
The only thing that is changing here is a requirement that U.S. retailers use POS systems that are able to read an EAN-13 barcode and that their database support it (i.e. the code field must support 13 digits rather than just 12). This is so that a barcode produced in other parts of the world can be scanned in the U.S.
Thus it's not that UPC-A is being "retired"--it's just that U.S. retailers will be expected to be able to handle foreign barcodes.
For some reason I can't login to Scottrade with Opera. Well, I can, but the main window gets displayed as HTML source code instead of the rendered page. Works fine under Mozilla, though.
Any reason for this? The Scottrade page is being produced by an ASP that dumps its source to my window rather than producing an HTML page, but I've connected to many other ASP-based sites that render just fine.
The problem isn't the message, the problem is the method.
The problem is actually both, usually, and my concern isn't that spam is reduced (that'd be a good thing!)--my concern is that the same international/U.N.-sponsored laws that are used to attack spam could be used to control other aspects of communications... including the message.
In other words, you contruct international agreements and laws that permit action being taken regarding how people send messages and all it takes is a decision to use those same agreements to control content and suddenly we're in a very bad place.
Making yourself comepetive with the services offered by others in your field is what it's all about. If you won't pay for them, someone else might - and then they will be able to provide more feature-rich service than you.
Being competitive doesn't mean nor does it require that you enslave yourself to your job more than someone else. If the only thing that differentiates you from others in the job market is your willingness to "take shit", you're going to end up taking more and more of it until you are either fed up or someone else is willing to do the same for even less.
Everyone must do what it takes to remain valuable and differentiate themselves. Someone that can fix a problem in 5 minutes is far more valuable than someone that is available 24 hours a day but takes 6 hours to fix a problem. Demonstrate your usefulness on a daily basis while you are at work and it's far less likely you'll be competing with others on terms as lowly as who is willing to pay for a cell phone or who is willing to be paid the least.
I agree. I'm paid to work and if want to get ahold of me outside of normal hours the least they can do is pay for the tools to do that. I would never pay for the tools that they would use to bother me out of normal business hours, probably asking me to do work that I will not be paid overtime to do.
And, yes, this is realistic. You have to make sure you are valuable enough that they don't just replace you with some other droid. But you need to do that anyway. You need to be so damn good that they can't or won't replace you and will pay for the tools you need to get the job done. If your skillset is so identical and your work ethic such that you aren't in any way different from the hundreds of others that want your job then you're going to eventually get replaced whether you pay for your tools or not. Differentiate yourself, make yourself valuable, and you will have job security and won't have to pay for your own tools.
I personally have been waiting to get an MP3 player until I find one that I like, and that is solid state. I have no concern about a hard drive in an MP3 player in terms of durability, but I just prefer to have no moving parts. It's one less thing that can break and generally will consume much less battery power.
Great, just what we want... an international organization imposing its views of what is and isn't considered permissible to send via email.
The goals are great, but quite frankly I'm very concerned about where this could take us. It's scary enough when the U.S. Congress tries to make things better by deciding what can and can't be sent via email--having this decided by an international organization just makes me shudder. Today it's just spam, but what happens when that international organization decides that discussion of terrorist planning can't be conducted via email... and what happens when the definition of "terrorist" starts expanding.
I'm all for getting rid of spam, but we need to watch this very carefully.
What do you think would happen if there were 2-3 million more soldiers (plus unreal amount of equipment) available in Western Europe at the time of D-Day? (besides the fact that D-Day would, probably, never happen).
And what do you think would have happened to the Russians if Germany hadn't had to defend its coast from the UK and the US? It's a given that we (the allies) had them tied up on both fronts and that was hell for them--Hitler was over-extended. Saying that the Russians "won the war" because they were busy on the Eastern front is just absurd as saying that we won the war because we were keeping them busy on the western front.
Crediting any participant for having "won the whole war" is less than accurate. Crediting the US and UK for liberating western Europe, however, is accurate since the alternative would have been western Europe being freed from one dictator only to be occupied by a new one.
And now Michael Moore comes along, a provocative slob with a keen wit and an unblinking camera. The results are just fascinating; the only people who seem surprised by the public's response are the pundits. If any of them had bothered to go to the caucuses in Washington State last February, they would have been stunned by the huge reservoir of contempt for W that has built up inexorably over the past three years.
That a bunch of liberals are out craving Bush blood and are lapping up inaccurate conspiracy garbage produced by someone with as little credibility as Moore is not surprising--that doesn't make a single thing he said accurate, though, just popular.
If you take the time and effort to research the matter, most sources agree that Russia was the power that won WW2 for the "allies". America's help was welcome and very important to the United Kingdom, but without Russia drawing troops away from the Atlantic defenses, D-Day would have failed catastrophically.
So Russia "won" the war by keeping Germany "busy" on their Eastern front? That's twisted logic. Russia spent most of the war getting their butts kicked and subsequently retaking the Soviet cities which had previoiusly fallen to the Germans. They had to scorch their own territory to keep the Germans at bay. To suggest that they "won" the war is silly.
By the same logic, the U.S. won WWII because if it wasn't for us (and the UK), Hitler could have concentrated more of his forces on the Eastern front and overwhelmed the Russians.
Just because the Russians engaged the Nazis on the eastern front doesn't mean they "won" the war for the allies.
It means nothing else of interest was released the same weekend. And while it was #1 for one week, it only made about, what, $24 million that week? Good for a documentary, but low using the standard of a typical summer release. Assuming $8 a ticket, that means only 3 million people went to see it. That's just a fraction of the Democratic party base.
I'd also like to see the audience breakdown from the first week. I haven't seen that yet. I saw it plastered around that the movie was packed even in "Republican strongholds." Well, of course. Even in Republican strongholds you have at least thousands of Democrats, and when you have the film showing on only a few screens it doesn't take many Democrats eager to see a "slam Bush" movie to fill the theater. It would be interesting to see if someone went on opening weekend and polled the peopl in line for their party affiliation. That would be a lot more interesting than "soldout shows in Republican strongholds" which is nothing more than a sound-byte.
If anyone has a link to that kind of poll, please let me know. I'd be interested in seeing it.
Word has some features I still have not found in Open Office, and photoshop is miles above GIMP.
I'd have to disagree with you about OpenOffice. Well, sort of. I'm sure there are "some" features that are still not in Open Office, but are they features most people need? I'd bet not. I'll bet upwards of 95% of the people could use Open Office for their at-home or in-office needs. And I'll bet that (picking random number out of the air) easily more than 70% of MS Office users could use Open Office to do their work without so much as a training course. Sure, if you want to do it pretty-like and make the transition official you could spend some money on a training course for OO... but I'll bet if you remove MSWord and install OO Write, the vast majority of the users would still be able to write their memo, report, or essay with virtually no problems.
I'm now on OpenOffice 100% and I haven't found a single thing that I need that was missing... And I'm about to publish a book.
GIMP/Photoshop is another story. I've never used Photoshop but I still run Win4Lin to use PaintShop Pro instead of using GIMP. GIMP probably has a lot of features but the GUI of that thing just goes so far out of the realm of normality as to unusable except by the authors and the GIMP purists that are about to flame me.:)
Jun 2004 17084 = 573/day
May 2004 17327 = 559/day
Apr 2004 17764 = 592/day
Mar 2004 14119 = 455/day
Feb 2004 11848 = 409/day
Jan 2004 9910 = 320/day
Dec 2003 10002 = 323/day
Nov 2003 8423 = 281/day
This includes viruses that my Bayesian filter is catching, but since most of those viruses are probably to install spam-viruses that's probably a fair classification. Anyway, I can't say that I've seen things drop off this month. Seems to be holding steady the last 3 months...
Maybe we can make comments like Congress... "We've seen a reduction in the rate of increase of spam.":)
Don't pay taxes - simply donate to a non-profit that you support and take the tax credit.
Tax credit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but donations to non-profits result in taxable income deductions, not tax credits, don't they? If they are tax credits then if you have a $1000 tax bill you can pay zero by donating $1000 to a non-profit. If it's a deduction then if you have a $1000 tax bill on $10,000 taxable income, a $1000 deduction makes your taxable income $9000 on which you still have to pay $900.
Unfortunately, I don't think you can get out of paying taxes by giving it to a non-profit instead. If you could I think most of us would opt out of paying taxes and just give it all to some local charity we approve of.
Only thing left is to define a protocol so there can be multiple party 2's and that party 1's party 2 doesn't have to be party 3's party 2. If the the buyer and the seller have different party 2's, well, the two party 2's have a protocol to talk to each other to make the transfer happen anyway.
Of course at that point you've essentially created a full banking system and/or duplicated what Visa/Mastercard does. The only difference is now you're supposedly doing it honestly by making money off the interest you earn rather than charging the end-user interest.
I actually would love some ammo against the man, he pisses me off. But the sad truth is that most of the posts I've seen in this thread are either like yours (accusing him of being a liar, but not providing evidence) or linking to a list of inaccuracies that have been duly refuted, publically, with evidence, by Moore himself.
Most of his responses I've seen don't seem very belieaveable to me. Many are as much as, "Oh, I didn't mean to make it look like it was that easy to get a gun at a bank" when that's about the only impression a normal person is going to get from the scene.
Same for the Heston "speech" which was severely edited to take a few choice sentences out of context to make him look an in-your-face devil (kind of like Moore), and then prefacing it with a shot from another speech entirely. Maybe Moore claims he didn't mean to take Heston out of context, but the reality is that he did and that's what a normal person is going to get from that scene.
And another is the Flint, MI issue, where it is implied that the NRA/Heston came to Flint right after another shooting, "like in Littleton." Well, he went to Flint 8 months later and it was for an election rally, nothing related to guns. But that's not the impression you get when you see the movie.
Moore's apologies or excuses do not mean the criticisms leveled at his work have been adequately answered. You can't just accept his "that's not the way I meant it to be understood" claim and ignore the reality that 90% of the viewers are going to interpret it that way.
If it takes Moore, Franken, PBS, NPR, the ACLU, whatever, to get bush out of office... So be it. WHEN it happens, I'll credit them with reporting what nobody else does and American voters (all 25 million of 'em. : / ) with saving the world. Free beer at my place!
So the ends justify the means, even if the means is lying to the public?
If you were 5 miles from Columbine, you could've lived in the Valley/KCR, Highland, and Cherry Creek areas and figured out: Someday, somebody is going to flip out.
I was near Southglenn Mall. I went to Arapahoe High School, I was not home-schooled. I absolutely positively didn't see the same "unchained psychos" that you were talking about, neither when I was going to Araphoe or in the years thereafter as a productive adult. I don't even feel Arapahoe had a "clique" problem like that which is so often portrayed in teen flicks. I don't remember any pranks directed by students at other students in the 3 years I went there--not to say there weren't any, but certainly nothing significant.
Perhaps even though Columbine was only about 5 miles away, maybe it was a whole other country. But then again, I even had a friend (who I met on a Denver BBS) who went to Columbine at the time. He never mentioned anything to make me think Columbine was any different than Arapahoe.
Unfortunately, his reputation gives him a reasonable level credibility with most people around the world, and people believe him based on THAT and not solely on the merit of the message itself.
His reputation gives him credibility? I don't think so. His reputation is for disinformation, lies, and bending the truth and interviews to suit his needs. Anyone that is informed about Moore knows better than to truth anything he says.
The leftist liberals don't care whether or not anything he says is accurate, they're just thrilled to see someone attacking Bush since they've been pretty ineffective doing it themselves.
My concern is for the uninformed, mindless middle people. The ones that don't have much of an opinion, don't know that Moore has a history of lying and bending the truth, and are going to walk out of F-9/11 believing conclusions that they really need to investigate for themselves.
Bowling for Columbine was subsequently thoroughly trashed and discredited after the fact. I'm sure the same will happen again on F-9/11. But it is entirely possible that the damage will already be done since those that are going to be affected by this (the uninformed, mindless and undecided masses in the middle) are not going to be subsequently informed that what they saw in the theater was subsequently thoroughly proven to be dung.
Slashdot Mirror
End result: No change.
So why, exactly, do you think that a fictitious pass-thru entity such as a corporation should pay taxes which reduce the amount that it can pay in wages and dividends which, at the end of the day, are taxed anyway? Unless you approve of double-taxation and prefer the government gets your company's money instead of you, as an employee or investor, your complaint makes little sense.
Wow, if everyone can take George Bush out of context, Michael Moore will be out of a job!
That is... We have a main office and I'm in a remote location (another country). I want to be able to buy a piece of hardware I can just connect to my remote location's LAN (which is connected to the Internet) and buy a piece of hardware that connects to the LAN at my main office. The hardware at my remote location would just connect to a normal phone while the hardware at my main office would just connect to a phone line (or extension of a PBX). When the line/extension rings, it goes over the Internet and rings my phone at my remote location. If I want to make a call, I pick up my phone and I'm given a dial-tone from my main office.
But what I want is a pure hardware solution. I want to pay for the hardware and be done with it. There should be no monthly fee since once I have the hardware I'm not using anyone elses resources.
Likewise, I should be able to make free phone calls to others that use the same hardware as long as my phone knows their IP address (or there is a free/cheap service that maps their number to their current dynamic IP address).
Is there something like this? In theory the hadware ought to be dirt cheap since all it really would require is a network card, an ADC/DAC, and a microcontroller to perform the logic. Such a device could probably be built for less than $30, so it ought to be availble to the public for less than $100 for each location.
This has meant that UPC-A barcodes can be scanned worldwide but EAN-13 barcodes produced in other countries could not be scanned in the U.S. because U.S. POS systems didn't understand the "extended" version (EAN-13). This meant that manufacturers outside the U.S. had to have an EAN-13 barcode for the "rest of the world" and a UPC-A barcode for the U.S.--U.S. manufacturers only needed a UPC-A barcode because it works worldwide.
The only thing that is changing here is a requirement that U.S. retailers use POS systems that are able to read an EAN-13 barcode and that their database support it (i.e. the code field must support 13 digits rather than just 12). This is so that a barcode produced in other parts of the world can be scanned in the U.S.
Thus it's not that UPC-A is being "retired"--it's just that U.S. retailers will be expected to be able to handle foreign barcodes.
Any reason for this? The Scottrade page is being produced by an ASP that dumps its source to my window rather than producing an HTML page, but I've connected to many other ASP-based sites that render just fine.
Anyone have any idea what's going on?
The problem is actually both, usually, and my concern isn't that spam is reduced (that'd be a good thing!)--my concern is that the same international/U.N.-sponsored laws that are used to attack spam could be used to control other aspects of communications... including the message.
In other words, you contruct international agreements and laws that permit action being taken regarding how people send messages and all it takes is a decision to use those same agreements to control content and suddenly we're in a very bad place.
Being competitive doesn't mean nor does it require that you enslave yourself to your job more than someone else. If the only thing that differentiates you from others in the job market is your willingness to "take shit", you're going to end up taking more and more of it until you are either fed up or someone else is willing to do the same for even less.
Everyone must do what it takes to remain valuable and differentiate themselves. Someone that can fix a problem in 5 minutes is far more valuable than someone that is available 24 hours a day but takes 6 hours to fix a problem. Demonstrate your usefulness on a daily basis while you are at work and it's far less likely you'll be competing with others on terms as lowly as who is willing to pay for a cell phone or who is willing to be paid the least.
And, yes, this is realistic. You have to make sure you are valuable enough that they don't just replace you with some other droid. But you need to do that anyway. You need to be so damn good that they can't or won't replace you and will pay for the tools you need to get the job done. If your skillset is so identical and your work ethic such that you aren't in any way different from the hundreds of others that want your job then you're going to eventually get replaced whether you pay for your tools or not. Differentiate yourself, make yourself valuable, and you will have job security and won't have to pay for your own tools.
The goals are great, but quite frankly I'm very concerned about where this could take us. It's scary enough when the U.S. Congress tries to make things better by deciding what can and can't be sent via email--having this decided by an international organization just makes me shudder. Today it's just spam, but what happens when that international organization decides that discussion of terrorist planning can't be conducted via email... and what happens when the definition of "terrorist" starts expanding.
I'm all for getting rid of spam, but we need to watch this very carefully.
And what do you think would have happened to the Russians if Germany hadn't had to defend its coast from the UK and the US? It's a given that we (the allies) had them tied up on both fronts and that was hell for them--Hitler was over-extended. Saying that the Russians "won the war" because they were busy on the Eastern front is just absurd as saying that we won the war because we were keeping them busy on the western front.
Crediting any participant for having "won the whole war" is less than accurate. Crediting the US and UK for liberating western Europe, however, is accurate since the alternative would have been western Europe being freed from one dictator only to be occupied by a new one.
That a bunch of liberals are out craving Bush blood and are lapping up inaccurate conspiracy garbage produced by someone with as little credibility as Moore is not surprising--that doesn't make a single thing he said accurate, though, just popular.
So Russia "won" the war by keeping Germany "busy" on their Eastern front? That's twisted logic. Russia spent most of the war getting their butts kicked and subsequently retaking the Soviet cities which had previoiusly fallen to the Germans. They had to scorch their own territory to keep the Germans at bay. To suggest that they "won" the war is silly.
By the same logic, the U.S. won WWII because if it wasn't for us (and the UK), Hitler could have concentrated more of his forces on the Eastern front and overwhelmed the Russians.
Just because the Russians engaged the Nazis on the eastern front doesn't mean they "won" the war for the allies.
I'd also like to see the audience breakdown from the first week. I haven't seen that yet. I saw it plastered around that the movie was packed even in "Republican strongholds." Well, of course. Even in Republican strongholds you have at least thousands of Democrats, and when you have the film showing on only a few screens it doesn't take many Democrats eager to see a "slam Bush" movie to fill the theater. It would be interesting to see if someone went on opening weekend and polled the peopl in line for their party affiliation. That would be a lot more interesting than "soldout shows in Republican strongholds" which is nothing more than a sound-byte.
If anyone has a link to that kind of poll, please let me know. I'd be interested in seeing it.
I'd have to disagree with you about OpenOffice. Well, sort of. I'm sure there are "some" features that are still not in Open Office, but are they features most people need? I'd bet not. I'll bet upwards of 95% of the people could use Open Office for their at-home or in-office needs. And I'll bet that (picking random number out of the air) easily more than 70% of MS Office users could use Open Office to do their work without so much as a training course. Sure, if you want to do it pretty-like and make the transition official you could spend some money on a training course for OO... but I'll bet if you remove MSWord and install OO Write, the vast majority of the users would still be able to write their memo, report, or essay with virtually no problems.
I'm now on OpenOffice 100% and I haven't found a single thing that I need that was missing... And I'm about to publish a book.
GIMP/Photoshop is another story. I've never used Photoshop but I still run Win4Lin to use PaintShop Pro instead of using GIMP. GIMP probably has a lot of features but the GUI of that thing just goes so far out of the realm of normality as to unusable except by the authors and the GIMP purists that are about to flame me. :)
And, best of all, you get malware, spyware, viruses, and trojans for free with your installs!
May 2004 17327 = 559/day
Apr 2004 17764 = 592/day
Mar 2004 14119 = 455/day
Feb 2004 11848 = 409/day
Jan 2004 9910 = 320/day
Dec 2003 10002 = 323/day
Nov 2003 8423 = 281/day
This includes viruses that my Bayesian filter is catching, but since most of those viruses are probably to install spam-viruses that's probably a fair classification. Anyway, I can't say that I've seen things drop off this month. Seems to be holding steady the last 3 months...
Maybe we can make comments like Congress... "We've seen a reduction in the rate of increase of spam." :)
Is that comment based on some real document that I can see, or are you being funny, or are you being Moore-like and just making it up as you go along?
Tax credit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but donations to non-profits result in taxable income deductions, not tax credits, don't they? If they are tax credits then if you have a $1000 tax bill you can pay zero by donating $1000 to a non-profit. If it's a deduction then if you have a $1000 tax bill on $10,000 taxable income, a $1000 deduction makes your taxable income $9000 on which you still have to pay $900.
Unfortunately, I don't think you can get out of paying taxes by giving it to a non-profit instead. If you could I think most of us would opt out of paying taxes and just give it all to some local charity we approve of.
Of course at that point you've essentially created a full banking system and/or duplicated what Visa/Mastercard does. The only difference is now you're supposedly doing it honestly by making money off the interest you earn rather than charging the end-user interest.
Most of his responses I've seen don't seem very belieaveable to me. Many are as much as, "Oh, I didn't mean to make it look like it was that easy to get a gun at a bank" when that's about the only impression a normal person is going to get from the scene.
Same for the Heston "speech" which was severely edited to take a few choice sentences out of context to make him look an in-your-face devil (kind of like Moore), and then prefacing it with a shot from another speech entirely. Maybe Moore claims he didn't mean to take Heston out of context, but the reality is that he did and that's what a normal person is going to get from that scene.
And another is the Flint, MI issue, where it is implied that the NRA/Heston came to Flint right after another shooting, "like in Littleton." Well, he went to Flint 8 months later and it was for an election rally, nothing related to guns. But that's not the impression you get when you see the movie.
Moore's apologies or excuses do not mean the criticisms leveled at his work have been adequately answered. You can't just accept his "that's not the way I meant it to be understood" claim and ignore the reality that 90% of the viewers are going to interpret it that way.
So the ends justify the means, even if the means is lying to the public?
If you were 5 miles from Columbine, you could've lived in the Valley/KCR, Highland, and Cherry Creek areas and figured out: Someday, somebody is going to flip out.
I was near Southglenn Mall. I went to Arapahoe High School, I was not home-schooled. I absolutely positively didn't see the same "unchained psychos" that you were talking about, neither when I was going to Araphoe or in the years thereafter as a productive adult. I don't even feel Arapahoe had a "clique" problem like that which is so often portrayed in teen flicks. I don't remember any pranks directed by students at other students in the 3 years I went there--not to say there weren't any, but certainly nothing significant.
Perhaps even though Columbine was only about 5 miles away, maybe it was a whole other country. But then again, I even had a friend (who I met on a Denver BBS) who went to Columbine at the time. He never mentioned anything to make me think Columbine was any different than Arapahoe.
Whatever, YMMV.
His reputation gives him credibility? I don't think so. His reputation is for disinformation, lies, and bending the truth and interviews to suit his needs. Anyone that is informed about Moore knows better than to truth anything he says.
The leftist liberals don't care whether or not anything he says is accurate, they're just thrilled to see someone attacking Bush since they've been pretty ineffective doing it themselves.
My concern is for the uninformed, mindless middle people. The ones that don't have much of an opinion, don't know that Moore has a history of lying and bending the truth, and are going to walk out of F-9/11 believing conclusions that they really need to investigate for themselves.
Bowling for Columbine was subsequently thoroughly trashed and discredited after the fact. I'm sure the same will happen again on F-9/11. But it is entirely possible that the damage will already be done since those that are going to be affected by this (the uninformed, mindless and undecided masses in the middle) are not going to be subsequently informed that what they saw in the theater was subsequently thoroughly proven to be dung.