Ernest Schaal wrote:
 > in article 270620041117446597%222ggg@spam.really.sucks, Gerry at
 > 222ggg@spam.really.sucks wrote on 6/28/04 3:17 AM:
 >
 >
 >> In article <caatd091tpp5vlahfrq49hrv53dk5cs6d4@4ax.com>, Raj
 >> Feridun <rferid@NOSPAMyahoo.co.jp> wrote:
 >>
 >>
 >>> However, this movie is not sealing Bush's fate. There are legions
 >>> of right wing knee-jerk ignoramouses who refuse to even SEE the
 >>> film for themselves while feeling completely comfortable with
 >>> blasting the movie as crap and Moore as a propagandist.
 >>
 >> Well, Moore is a propagandist.  He is providing "information that
 >> is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause".  In this case
 >> it is the truth, to promote the cause of removing Bush from the
 >> presidency because he is intentionlly destroying American democracy
 >> and ideals in order to make money for him and his pals.
 >>
 >> And the opposition's propaganda is that only the destruction of the
 >>  constitution, and the nation turned into an uneducated work-farm
 >> will protects us from the godless liberal attack on God, motherhood
 >> and our children.
 >>
 >> I can tell I gotta drop this thread....
 >
 >
 > "In this case it is the truth"? Surely you jest.
 >
 > One does not go to Moore for "Truth," one goes to him for
 > entertainment.
 >
I'd say there's a good bit of truth to what he says. But sometimes only
a small piece of it, with a lot of explanatory information conveniently 
left out.

There's a show in the US called The Daily Show, which is fairly anti 
Bush most of the time. They did a very interesting 'debate' where the 
host (John Stewart) asked questions to two versions of Bush: the 
pre-election Bush and the post 9-11 Bush. It was fascinating to see how 
Bush's stance on most things dramatically changed, even considering the 
events. I was surprised Moore didn't use it.

John W.