Juffo-Wup wrote:

It's useless to resist. Supporting Republicans makes you partner in crime. Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Idi, Mugabe... they're the same shit, only different asshole.

Actually, what the most prominent critics of U.S. government such as Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn REALLY believe is that the U.S. government has systematically and intentionally oppressed every except the wealthiest 1% since day one. They believe that Republicans and Democrats are equally evil, that no mainstream American political candidate has ever tried to better the country, that socialism is better than democracy, and that only third party candidates can save America. During the 2004 election, most of these people bit their tongues and openly endorsed Kerry for president. Yes, they were so desperate to get Bush voted out of office that they sold out their beliefs. Ironically enough, Michael Moore's endorsementof Kerry probably hurt Kerry more than anything else. Moore may have gotten some of the people who would have otherwise voted for Ralph Nader to vote for Kerry, but he has a very repellant personality and his endorsement of Kerry pushed many moderates and independents towards Bush.

First of all, your entire response is ad hominem. More importantly, you seem to have ignored my point entirely. Instead of addressing what I said, you wrote a reply based on a bunch of assumptions of what you think I must believe because I don't like Michael Moore.

The point that I was trying to make is this: Michael Moore existed way before Fahrenheit 9/11. If you look at his work as a whole, you will notice there has been a shift in tone in recent years. Moore used to be a huge critic of US government in general. He doesn't like the US system and he wants to create a more socialist American. That's not a criticism, that's not a judgment, that's a fact. Up until recently, he was an avid supporter of third party candidates, particular Ralph Nader. However, as the 2004 election approached, Moore decided to focus his energies on getting Kerry elected. This was not because he liked Kerry, it was because he hated Bush. Moore then harshly criticized Nader for running in 2004, saying that he was hurting Kerry by running and calling for him to immediately withdraw from the race.

And this is why I was criticizing Moore. You see, even though his core beliefs have not changed, he opted to try and push a guy that he doesn't even like into office because it was easier than trying to get Nader into office. He verbally assaulted Nader, who is one of his oldest friends, for attempting to become president even though Moore WANTS him to become president. Moore did what he though was easy instead of what he thought was right and that is why I have no respect for him.

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

But regardless of which side you're on, I'd just like us all to agree that moderators are the real problem in America.

You're just jealous that you don't have mod powers.

Tebor wrote:

I'm afraid that I might be too pro-Hollywood to like United 93, or that it won't thrill me because I know how it ends.

Knowing how a movie ends is no excuse not to like it. You probably watch your favorite movies over and over again, don't you? I 've seen ET at least two dozen times but I still cry every time at the end when we find out that ET never existed and that Elliot was just using ET as a vehicle to repress how his dad sexually abused him.