If he was honest the article would read like this:

OK...I''m voting for the ''disappear in the middle of the night'' option...

D''OH...did I just say that aloud?

Can someone explain why this guy is so vilified? I don''t get it ... I understand that you may not agree with his opinions but alot of the vitriol I see on the net about him lends me to believe that he has slept with alot of people''s mothers. He''s a filmmaker and after watching Farenheit 9/11, I can see where the arguments can be made that he lied through omission but he didn''t just make it up either. I guess what I''m asking is what about him is so evil that warrants the amount of hatred I''ve seen? Note that I''ve only seen the one film but from I gather he comes across as more of an investigative journalist than a historian and his opinion is pretty obvious so I don''t see what harm he is doing. Now Rush Limbaugh is someone I can understand hating ...

I dislike loudmouths. I especially dislike disingenuous loudmouths. I dislike Rush Limbaugh too.

I''ll admit I get confused with the Moore bashing, and no, I''m not a fan. Doesn''t Rove do similar things, just not putting it up as a movie, just 30 second spots?

Most of what he presented in the movie was based on factual events so no he didn''t just make it up or lie. I''m not defending the guy per se, but I had already read about most of what was stated and although he took liberties I can''t see why his opinion generates so much anger in people other than the fact that he must be hitting close to home.
I consider Bush to be a scumbag but I am at the least able to distinguish between my feelings about him and then give him credit when it''s due regardless. Moore may be slanting his film somewhat to reflect the hatred he feels for Bush and not be completely objective but to dismiss him as a lying slimeball because you don''t agree means you are possibly denying the truth because of the delivery. You may be okay with the Bush''s close ties to the Saudi''s but alot of people don''t share that opinion and so to me having a film that educates the masses somewhat isn''t a bad thing. I would say the same thing if the Swift Boat guys turned out to be somewhat truthful in their attacks. In this day in age, even little kernals of truth are welcome ...

There is an article entitled the 59 lies of the film. Bush''s ""ties"" with the Saudi''s turned out to be fake and false. I suggest you find out about what type of bullsh*t is in that movie and educated your self. There is very little truth to the movie.

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

IS a good start.

The problem with Moore is he banks on ambiguity in his facts. He uses just enough fact with his deception that someone who wants to believe them can rationalize a defense of his perspective if they have the desire to do so. Its a common ploy that profits from the willingness of some (or many depending on your level of cynicism) to look past the nature of the comment to that small factoid that is being exploited. Its not the weigh of evidence, just the seriousness of the charge line of thinking.

At this point it is worth making clear that facts are not the same as the truth.

Many stereotypes have a small amount of fact in them but that hardly lessens the effect when they are hurled at others and it doesn''t make them true no matter how we spin it to that situation. I doubt anyone here would call a hispanic person a ""wetback"" and then explain to that person why by some loose collection of opinion and soundbites that it is true. Yet its okay for Moore to hurl accusations in the same manner, I fail to see why the standard is different.

An example of Moore''s tactics is the headline ""Gore should have won!"" during 2000. Now, this wasn''t a front page headline from a midwestern paper as he claimed, but a editorial from a guest columnist on page 26. Moore took a factoid in the title and then repackaged it to look like fraud. What does that make him? Simple, my mother taught me a long time ago that this makes you a liar and once more, with willful intent.

Being a liar isn''t difficult and reasoning doesn''t change the truth of the matter. To do the opposite of what is true or accurate makes someone the opposite, which is a liar. I don''t see any loopholes there.

There are ways it can be twisted, details added and subtracted, but in the end, the basic meaning is the same and he is a liar, the lies (or potential lies) of others are unimportant in this cases and not an excuse by comparison to equalize his, especially when you go a step further to claim your perspective is not only accurate, but ""the truth"".

Moore made a financial killing off of 9/11. I would love to have someone ask him how he feel about making money off paranoia, damaging the democratic image and the deaths of 3000 people to further his aims. I''m sure these are all acceptable to him in the end.

Moore is fungus and I actually have facts to back my statement up unlike him (thanks for providing them Mr. Moore)

How do you figure?

Well, sure, nobody likes being taken out of context or misrepresented. Seems that everyone ""twists"" the facts to fit into their own worldview.

Take Fox Butterfield, for example. He''s says that the ""low violent crime rate/high arrest rate"" is some kind of paradox because he apparently doesn''t see a causal relationship between the two. Seems to me that the lower crime rate is directly related to the higher arrest rate. But that''s looking at the exact same facts and coming up with different conclusions.

I still contend that Moore is vilified because he is virtually unchallenged in the mainstream press, and there is a large number of people that disagree with him. People react accordingly.

What made me perk up was that you asserted that Free Speech had somehow been done away with. Why? Because people hate Michael Moore? People have hated Limbaugh for years and you don''t see his message getting stifled by the government. Moore still walks the streets a free man, and will (and should!) continue to do so. What part of free speech guarantees everyone''s right to be free of dissenting opinions? This is the second time in two weeks that Free Speech has been trotted out when something faces disagreement or ridicule. I don''t see any DVD distributions or Web servers being shut down by the Federal Government. The statement has as much validity as the earlier assertion that those that don''t like ""hip hop"" are somehow racists. I just don''t get it.

What, you mean like death threats? In that case, I agree with you. But if you mean that he should be able to say what he wants and people aren''t allowed to vehemently disagree with him, then aren''t you abridging their rights to free speech?

Neither do I, but it does certainly cut both ways. An example is that website Pred linked to in one of the other threads (werenotsorry.com, IIRC). The guy took it down because of the general bullsh*t he was submitting himself to. This included people calling him at his home and threatening him. The guy even linked to another one (weisnotsorry.com), which was blatantly mocking and misrepresenting the man''s position. The kind of discourse you are referencing, which seems to be bred in hate, ignorance, and anger is definitely not the sole domain of the stereotypical Republican Jesus Freak.

In 1998, I told my gay restaurant owner boss that I was an atheist. Why, you wonder? Because he asked what religion I was. He harrassed me about it for the next month (with all these ridiculous hypotheticals), and continued to make side comments for the last two years that I worked there, after I told him that I was sorry that he ever brought it up. I am convinced that I was passed over for the Bar twice because of it, though I finally got back there after time passed. My point is that consequences for what you say didn''t magically begin when George W Bush entered the White House. Free Speech is one thing, but sometimes being prudent about when and where you exercise it is better. I''ve not witnessed any evidence (personally) that should make anyone afraid to speak their mind, and I''m pretty sure I live in a bastion of New Republican values. I''ve not witnessed or heard reports of violence against or shouting down of Democrats, but that''s just me.

Termination - I think he meant that they would get fired. Not EX-terminated.