Exposing Moore

[B-Buzz]

Bowling For Columbine

 

[shep]

Bowling For Columbine

old and proven to be wrong


How to deal with the wacko attackos

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

That article is filled with speculation, facts we already know, and generalized crap. Nagging details do not a refute make.

 

[DubbC415]

moore's response is hilarious.

 

[phil]

how the fuck was it proven to be wrong? i actually liked the movie but to sit here and dance around the fact that he edited the shit out of that heston speech and interview is disgusting. that dude has always been a piece of shit in my eyes but until now i liked the movie.

 

[phil]

you guys talk about sheep?

bwahahaha hahahah!!!

 

[Droopy Eye]

OH NO, IT'S THE HARDYLAW LINK.........ON THE INTERNET, RUN MY COMMIE CHILDREN AND HIDE IN THE MOUNTAINS!

Exposing "Exposing Moore"

 

[phil]

DROOPY, DO YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT DISCOUNTS WHAT WAS STATED ON THE HARDY SITE?

ANY OF YOU? LOL

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Exposing Exposing Moore: It's an idiotic piece written by a dimwitted fuck who couldnt understand Moore's intent 99 percent of the time.

 

[shep]

how the fuck was it proven to be wrong? i actually liked the movie but to sit here and dance around the fact that he edited the shit out of that heston speech and interview is disgusting. that dude has always been a piece of shit in my eyes but until now i liked the movie.

he didn't edit the shit out of heston's speech. everything that was said, except for the introduction to heston and the NRA with his words "out of my cold dead hands" was taken directly from the speech in denver

 

[shep]

DROOPY, DO YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT DISCOUNTS WHAT WAS STATED ON THE HARDY SITE?

ANY OF YOU? LOL

yes, because they backed up their shit with sources... not only droopy's link, but the moore link itself

 

[phil]

not too bright are we?

 

[shep]

not too bright are we?

no, you're not

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

If you disagree, you must be a STUPID LIBERAL

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

That article nearly completely discounts Hardy's link. While the "exposing exposing" author admitted that hardy was *right* on some points, he said that many others were inferences, and things the author THOUGHT Moore meant when he really didn't.

phil, you're honestly interested in this topic. Please read all of the links objectively, not with McHatchism/Hannity/Limbaughism "Oh this is just liberal giberal fiberal commie stuff". Read the articles objectively and dispassionately.

 

[phil]

if you dont see it now i could never show you anyway.

tsk tsk tsk.

 

[shep]

if you dont see it now i could never show you anyway.

tsk tsk tsk.

typical reply of a dumbshit and/or a conservative...... has nothing to stand on and replies with the "oh, you just don't know" routine

 

[phil]

look asswipe, if you cant see with your own eyes that moores intention was NOT complete and unbiased truth, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I CAN HELP YOU?

 

[shep]

look asswipe, if you cant see with your own eyes that moores intention was NOT complete and unbiased truth, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I CAN HELP YOU?

who said it was unbiased? everything has bias. the point was, that everything that was written to attack moore in that article was proven to be wrong. if you can't see that, then you shouldn't be alive

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Youre just a STUPID LIBERAL who CANT SEE IT

What the fuck you even bother reading this board phil? You know it all!