I saw this Monday night and have to say wow. Michael Moore does it again with an interesting story, interesting connections and some very nice humor mixed in. It was yet another sold out show (the four theaters in the Chicago area have all been sold out for each screening) and received round of applause at the end.

There are a lot of heart-breaking moments in it but the one for me is when a woman whose son had been killed in Iraq goes to D.C. to visit the White House and some clueless woman comes up and starts screaming in her face that this is all staged. The horror on the mothers face is traumatic.

For the people who claim that Michael Moore is a manipulative person, who skews the facts to further his own agenda and make a specific point, I raise the question: what have Bush and Cheney been doing for the last four years? And the only reason I use them as an example is because this movie is about them.

I urge everyone to see it. You may not agree with his views but you may start to understand why so many people are angry with the U.S. government.

I saw this Monday night and have to say wow. Michael Moore does it again with an interesting story, interesting connections and some very nice humor mixed in. It was yet another sold out show (the four theaters in the Chicago area have all been sold out for each screening) and received round of applause at the end.

There are a lot of heart-breaking moments in it but the one for me is when a woman whose son had been killed in Iraq goes to D.C. to visit the White House and some clueless woman comes up and starts screaming in her face that this is all staged. The horror on the mothers face is traumatic.

For the people who claim that Michael Moore is a manipulative person, who skews the facts to further his own agenda and make a specific point, I raise the question: what have Bush and Cheney been doing for the last four years? And the only reason I use them as an example is because this movie is about them.

I urge everyone to see it. You may not agree with his views but you may start to understand why so many people are angry with the U.S. government.

Hmm.....I MUST GO TO SEE IT!

Release in Japan, it's August. Moreover, screening is only one theater in Tokyo. Japanese summer will be hot!

Good points, Marc. I am hoping to see it this weekend.

For the people who claim that Michael Moore is a manipulative person, who skews the facts to further his own agenda and make a specific point, I raise the question: what have Bush and Cheney been doing for the last four years?

This sort of logic always leaves me scratching my head: I believe these evil people distort the truth, but it's okay for me to distort the truth when I try to convince you that they've distorted the truth.

Not exactly laying claim to the moral high ground.

This sort of logic always leaves me scratching my head: I believe these evil people distort the truth, but it's okay for me to distort the truth when I try to convince you that they've distorted the truth.

Not exactly laying claim to the moral high ground.

I understand what you are getting at here, but wouldn't it be impossible for anyone to argue an opinion then unless they mentioned ALL the pros and cons just to be fair. There is a line that cannot be crossed. Your statement just blurred that line, so let me try to find my glasses.

I understand what you are getting at here, but wouldn't it be impossible for anyone to argue an opinion then unless they mentioned ALL the pros and cons just to be fair. There is a line that cannot be crossed. Your statement just blurred that line, so let me try to find my glasses.

You're missing the point, which is very simple: Because they lie doesn't make it okay for you to lie.

A Democrat says, "Bush is telling lies."
A Republican responds: "Clinton lied all the time."

The response dodges/sidesteps addressing the validity of the initial statement, and implies that Bush gets a free pass because of what his predecessor did, which is patently ridiculous.

I've seen a couple of people on the tube who said their comments to Moore were chopped up to remove anything that didn't further Moore's agenda. One that remains in my head was a congressman stopped on the street by Moore and asked something about congress sending other people's kids off to war and not their own. The congressman told Moore that his nephew had just been called up and was being shipped out.

He said that part never made the final cut.

It's like researchers who toss out test results that don't confirm their thesis. What are the resulting papers worth? Bupkis.

If you ask a question, air the whole answer. Otherwise you're hiding the truth. And that puts you in bed with the folks you're criticizing.

It's like researchers who toss out test results that don't confirm their thesis. What are the resulting papers worth? Bupkis.

If you ask a question, air the whole answer. Otherwise you're hiding the truth. And that puts you in bed with the folks you're criticizing.

It's also like listening to only half of the story. Lately, I've been subscribing to the Pro-Kerry /Anti-Bush e-mail lists, but also to the Pro-Bush / Anti-Kerry Lists. I think by now most know who I'm voting for and would like to see in office, but it helps to read both sides of the story and search independently for verification of some of the "stories" that are reported against one or the other.

Case-in-point: Cheney's Cursing v. Kerry's Middle Finger. The swearing was verified and heavily reported and eventually acknowledged. The middle finger incident was reported by an Anti-Kerry Vietnam Vet and only appeared (verified via Google) on Anti-Kerry sites.

If the whole and honest story were told, I think there might be more shock and outrage, but the Pro-Bush side wouldn't change and the Anti-Bush side wouldn't change. This election cycle, there seems to be no independence.

[SIZE=3]You're missing the point, which is very simple: Because they lie doesn't make it okay for you to lie.

I totally agree with that. I guess the way that I am questioning it is this: At what point is omitting others' views lying and at what point is it just arguing your side of the debate/discussion.

I'm trying to think of an analogy (non-political)........

Say you go into a (now defunct) Gateway store to buy a computer. They are going to tell you all the good features of the computer (and hopefully answer your questions regarding what the bad features are). If they don't tell you all features that Dell (or other competitor) offers that are better than the Gateway and all the inferior features of the Gateway as opposed to the Dell, are they necessarily lying to you? I find it to be a grey area. Yes, it is in a sense a lie of omission, but should they be expected to provide this information unsolicited? There is a line there somewhere where it goes from omission to outright deceit.

I am not arguing that Moore does not use outright deceit in his movie (I haven't seen it yet). I'm sure he does. My argument is that he can't be expected to not omit things which don't support his argument.

I hope this helps explain my view.

A Democrat says, "Bush is telling lies."
A Republican responds: "Clinton lied all the time."

And I agree. I totally HATE this argument.

My current favorite is regarding the Iraq prison (Abu Ghraib) scandals:
Me: "The abuses that took place are wrong (immoral)."
Them: "Saddam Hussein tortured people much worse: gas, rape, mutilation, etc."

As if that validates the torture in the Abu Ghraib prison and makes it OK!!!!

This sort of logic always leaves me scratching my head: I believe these evil people distort the truth, but it's okay for me to distort the truth when I try to convince you that they've distorted the truth.

Not exactly laying claim to the moral high ground.

I suppose it depends on your point of view. Michael Moore uses manipulative truths (i.e. shows his point of view or chooses his wording to make his point known) while Bush flat out lies. I think it's a little different. If anything, the movie is highly entertaining.

On a side note, Moore isn't a Democrat. He's a liberal that hasn't endorsed Kerry, hates Bush, and wants the country back for the people.

Usually, I try to stay out of these discussions.

I have to completely agree with FPW. Michael Moore has even stated in interviews that he skews facts on purpose. He has stated that he isn’t even really making “documentaries”. I lost all interest in him after watching Bowling for Columbine. Many of the facts were so screwed up. So many people came forward after and said the film completely skirted around everything they were really saying. Moore has stated that he “assumes” his audience knows he is playing with words, and they shouldn’t take him so literally.

I won't even get into the way he portrayed Charlton Heston with his editing.