Well, he asked if there were any Republicans in the audience, and told the Democrats who’d showed up to (basically) shut up when they booed - and made a point about how his events are open to people of all political persuasions, in contrast to (for instance) a recent local event featuring the Bush twins.
Say what you like about him, Weirddave, but he’s smart enough not to do what you said, and during his speech here at school, several Republicans were quite vocal, and he handled it with the utmost aplomb and good humor. You would lose that bet.
I think that’s exactly what his history has shown him to do. He makes millions by releasing films full of half truths and distortions, and could care less for facts as long as his agenda is advanced. He is the consummate propagandist. Reread post #41 and follow the link provided for another good example of how his mind works.
Finally someone with some sense. I don’t understand why people can’t separate their feelings for Bush from what makes perfectly reasonable legal sense. I think Moore would lose this case. I don’t care if he does ordoesn’t, but I think he would lose.
Didja catch the exchange about de minimis? That’s a real legal principle, not just something I made up. I don’t think Moore would lose this case, because the law doesn’t give a flying fuck about petty shit. And you can take that to the court.
It’s easier to say “he makes millions by releasing films full of half truths and distortions” instead of going to the trouble of actually identifying them.
(Oh, and to pre-emptively rebute the inevitable right-wing echo chamber: here and here)
I bet someone who pays more attention to history can correct me/fill in the details, but I seem to remember that George Washington stood on a street corner with a barrel of whiskey and gave a mug-full to anyone who passed by, with the request that they vote for him. How standards have fallen…
