C. James Prutz wrote:
>>It does when "ethical" vegans and other leftwingers (like you)
>>repeatedly violate copyrights.
>
> I'm not left-wing at all.

Liar. You're way left of center.

> Then again, Newt Gingrich is liberal
> compared to you.

No, he isn't, but you have a lot more in common with him than I do. I've never
left an older wife for a younger woman.

>>>>>Additionally, you imposed your
>>>>>political bent
>>>>
>>>>I didn't impose anything. I merely revealed my contempt for fat
>>>
>>>slobs who
>>>
>>>>document their lies and call it "art."
>>>
>>>What exactly did he lie about in the movie?
>>
>>One of the central lies is that President Bush personally arranged
>>for the Binladen family to leave the US following September 11th (along with
>>a litany of other crackpot conspiracy charges which General Wes Clark was asked
>>if he agreed with when Moore endorsed his campaign). The person who authorized
>>the departure of the Binladens and other Saudis was Richard Clarke.
>>
> http://jskelly.squarespace.com/displ...moduleId=15843
> &entryId=13586
>
> This is a very conservative website.

Its source for the Clarke quote isn't. Here, I'll spare you the "very
conservative" editorializing and let you read the original source yourself:
http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx

> It's hardly a credible source
> from which to make a legitimate case.

I think Richard Clarke's quote is legitimate. So, too, do other liberals like
Christopher Hitchens, former editor of The Nation. Hitchens himself (charitably)
calls Moore's latest flick propaganda. He even wrote, "Here we glimpse a
possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic
standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni
Riefenstahl."

http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Face it, Putz, my first source wasn't "out there." Moore's distasteful piece of
shit of a film is.

>>Would you like me to find the other lies and distortions in Moore's
>>tawdry movie?
>
> Knock yourself out. Just use credible sources if you want anyone to
> take you seriously.

What exactly do you consider credible, seeing how you dismiss the Hill's
reporting that Richard Clarke -- whose own book showed a rabid anti-Bush animus
-- unambiguously admitted he authorized flights carrying the Binladens and other
Saudis out of the country following 9/11? Do you hold the same high standards
for Moore's sources, or does he get a free pass?

>>>Have you seen it?
>>
>>Not yet, but I have plenty friends who have. Not one, even among my
>>liberal friends, was impressed.
>
> You have friends?!

Many.

> Liberal friends even!

Yes, many.

>>>>>by referring to Michael Moore as "lard ass
>>>>>propagandist".
>>>>
>>>>All three words apply to him.
>>>
>>>One could say the same about Rush Limbaugh.
>>
>>Maybe you were unaware that Mr Limbaugh has lost well over 100
>>pounds. One
>>glaring difference between Limbaugh and Moore is that Limbaugh
>> doesn't lie to
>>score points; that's the only way Moore can. Still, I'm not an
>> apologist for Rush Limbaugh.
>
> My point in this was your words "lard ass propagandist" could describe
> some conservatives (Rush was my example) as well as some liberals. The
> only reason you railed Moore was because he doesn't share your
> political opinion.

No, I pointed out that his film is a complete piece of excrement. Read Chris
Hitchens' review. He concurs, and he's not a rabid right-wing extremist.

> Therefore you are inconsistent and biased.

No. Non sequitur.

>>>You are inconsistent and biased.
>>
>>Non sequitur; you haven't shown any bias or inconsistency on my
>> part.
>
> Wrong, see above.

No, I'm correct.

> You believe only what the conservative propaganda
> machine says you should believe.

Such as? Such as when I categorically denounced what happened at Abu Ghraib and
called for prosecution all the way up the chain of command if the soldiers
involved really were acting under orders as they and their attorneys claim?
http://snipurl.com/798q

> You are a biased, inconsistent parrot.

Show where I've ever been inconsistent, asshole.

>>Contrary
>>to what you seem to think, I don't listen to Rush. I'm more a fan of
> Sean
>>Hannity, Michael Reagan, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Michael
> Medved, and,
>>sometimes, Michael Savage.
>
> Rush isn't all that bad a guy after all. He's a Pittsburgh Steeler
> fan! :^)

That's definitely an indelible mark of bad character -- almost as bad as being a
Pirates fan. Did you see what the Astros did to Fogg in the fifth inning last
night? Hehe.