At the risk of being flamed and kicked from this forum---well you heard from one now!

However, I would say conservative first republican second. And Slackware fits somewhere in there also.

I'm an anarchist, but only when taken to have EXACTLY this meaning:

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...narchy&x=0&y=0

Notice that there are many other definitions, which I consider to be government propaganda against anarchists. Hmmm ... I wonder why ...

Well, the man has his beliefs and is not afraid to speak up. Not everyone I disagree with deserves name-calling. I'm, for example, a big supporter of gun rights, but I would hear the opposing point of view when it's expressed in a consistent way and supported by arguments. That's a dialog.

"In a consistent way" and "supported by arguments".

That lets Moore out. I am not calling names when I call him a liar, I am stating facts - thoroughly documented, well researched, and available to anyone who looks facts.. The willful errors in his mocumentaries are legion; he is a liar and a propagandist.

HE is not interested in having a dialog with YOU. He is only interested in advancing his agenda by whatever means, and should the truth be inconvenient, he'll make something up.

You do him far, far too much credit by suggesting that there is any possibility of dialog with him. His movies make it clear that there isn't. He is a propagandist.

See for instance http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

I cannot agree more! When someone films an agenda and claims it is a documentary is only promoting propaganda. A documentary should only state the unbiased facts, and not promote an agenda.

The saying is so true, "If you look for something hard enough, you will always find it." In other words, if you dig deep enough, you will be able to find something that helps confirm your opinion. I have been several Elvis sightings so he must be still alive. It is all a conspiracy to hide the fact that he is in Los Vegas!

I don't believe everything that comes out of Moore's mouth but this quote could be applied to the current Bush Administration as well. They play no part in having dialog with the American people. He's only out to advance his agenda and has stretched the real truth of his Presidency too far and too long. Just like Moore, they're all propagandist in one way or another.

This can be debated, but is irrelevant anyway. Even stipulating it as being absolutely true, is it then your contention that two wrongs make a right?

The statement was that Michael Moore is someone to be admired. My response is that Moore is a liar and a propagandist.

Here is a bit more evidence, which includes some of his most egregious lies:

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

Why is it that when someone shows a vocal leftist for what he is - which in this case is absolutely vile - someone just has to respond by saying (rightly or wrongly) "well yes, but Bush does it too"?

I won't defend this Administration, except insofar as I insist on factual criticisms of this Administration. There is plenty to criticize it for; I simply don't understand why the Left is so demented that they have to make things up - which they very often and very egregiously do.

Don't get me wrong, the only person I admire is my wife for being able to push something the size of a watermelon out of her body and live.

Other than that, it takes a lot to get me to admire anyone nowadays.

Come on! I didn't say admired, I said respected. For stating his point openly and defending it. You can find arguments to counter his point of view and I will respectfully study your arguments too. As, I hope, you would look at what I have to say without throwing it all away as lies and BS from the start. At least he gets his ideas in the open, I don't think he's the only one who thinks this way, although, like I said, mostly I disagree with his views.

I stand corrected

Two points. First, when challenged about specific lies or misdirections, he frequently does NOT support it because he can't.

Second, if he cannot honestly defend his point, meaning with FACTS and EVIDENCE (or clear logic) rather than LIES and MISDIRECTION, then it doesn't matter how openly he has stated his point; it is indefensible and his attempts to defend it merely reveal him for what he is - a vile, irrational, lying propagandist.

When I evaluate someone's argument, I use many criteria. Whether or not I agree with the argument is NOT one of my criteria. Rationality, logic, facts, pragmatism...those are the things I value. I also will look at the associations of the one who is making the argument in order to identify a bias and to consider overall credibility for arguments or facts that I am not in a position to verify.

Quite frankly, indicating respect for Michael Moore costs a LOT of points on the credibility scale.

It is a free country (still, at least for now). Any psycho is allowed to express his view.

However, anyone who is capable of rational thought should dismiss Moore completely. More properly, they should lump him in with Joseph Goebbels, who I am sure would be very impressed with Moore.

If you don't respect your opponents, you can not argue with them. You call them Goebbels, they call you Stalin, and that will be the end of your conversation.
I saw Moore's Fahrenheit movie, I liked it. Then, on the Oscar celebration, I think it took some guts of Mr Moore to say what he said about the war. In my opinion it's something to be respected. If you don't think so, it's your choice, of course, but you still can't just dismiss somebody together with their point of view, no matter how weird it looks to you.
Can I have a piece of it then? (Like my daughter says)

I wouldn't rely on "facts" and "evidence" when it comes to politics, governments and war-related questions. Recent conflicts clearly showed that it is too easy to manipulate truth using mass-media.

I never said anything about Moore expressing his opinion. He is free to do that.

However, he presents lies and misdirection as fact. I would perhaps have enjoyed F-911 had it been presented as a work of fiction or a satire. It wasn't presented that way. Though it was a very clever work of fiction, it was presented as fact.

And even now, in the face of overwhelming evidence, there are those who will insist that it was factual.

Further, bowling for columbine was even worse.

If you present an opinion, you should at least have evidence to support that opinion - particularly if you wish to be an opinion maker. If you cannot come up with the evidence, and have to fabricate it, then you are a liar and a propagandist.

Moore fabricates his evidence. He insists that everything in his movies is factual - and, taken in strict isolation of any context, almost all of it is. But a fact without context is absolutely useless. And falsifying context to misrepresent a fact is what Moore is a master of. It makes him a liar. And a propagandist

No one who has respect for truth, and for rational discussion, and for an honest exchange of ideas, can possibly respect Moore.

You just do the best you can, realizing at every point that aggressive attempts to manipulate and deceive you are being made. The existence of people like Michael Moore makes that job much much harder.

BTW, I'm reading the website you suggested, actually, it's quite interesting, thanks for letting me know about it. Though, there are arguable things there as well.