Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

None of the Hammonds have joined with Bundy in his occupation and, as ehbeth noted, they have disavowed and connection between Bundy and their situation.

Do you always feel that when a defendant has been found guilty and sentenced to jail that justice has perforce been served, and it's time to move on to another matter?

My point was that Hitchens was wrong too many times to say anything credible about Michael Moore, and that him insulting Moore in the piece quoted by layman, without being able to make ANY substantial point, was just a reflection of how helpless and tone-deaf he ended up. Too much cosying with the neocons can do that to you.

Accepted at face value, Michael Moore’s 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11 would be a devastating indictment of President George W. Bush and his administration. In fact, the documentary is riddled with factual inaccuracies and deliberate deceptions that undermine the director’s basic argument.

While many of the errors and deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 are quite real, and in several cases unethical, conservative critiques of these shortcomings have been dominated by Iraq war apologists who skillfully insert their political talking points into film reviews. I would like to redress this situation by critiquing the critiques of Fahrenheit 9/11 and distinguishing the film’s genuine flaws from valid assertions....

Kopel defines a “deceit” as something that causes one “to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid.” This definition admits considerable variance of opinion, since intelligent people may disagree on the criteria for truth and validity. Nonetheless, many of the “deceits” on Kopel’s list do show a deliberate attempt by Moore to give the viewer an impression that was contrary to the facts that were at his disposal. This is eminently the case when editing takes a statement or event out of context to create an opposite meaning. Kopel’s convincing arguments on the clear incidents of deception enable him to elide into more dubious cases where Moore’s only crime is presenting a point of view different from the conservative reference frame...

Absolutely not. But they are guilty in most cases and this is one of them.

they admitted all the charges to get their time reduced

I am quite familiar with your M.O. by now though, and expect you to dismiss any fact that you don't want to accept as a lie, without elaboration, all while refusing to even try to investigate the facts. To you the "facts" are what you want them to be...i.e., any allegation, or spontaneously made up claim, however flimsy, that you think would support your a priori conclusions.

Did I ever refuse to address any fact that was relevant to the conversation and brought to my attention? Be specific.

Glitterbag is a she, mr. knowitall.

Incredible that this subject has inspired a thirty - page and counting
discussion. Is there something I'm missing on the idea of a dozen people
illegally occupying an empty building in the middle of nowhere?

I think you've conflated the Bundys with the Hammonds. The Bundys are the ones who owe taxes, the Hammonds are the ones who set the fires.

One side opposes federal government overreach, the other objects to armed protesters flouting the law at gunpoint.

One side opposes federal government overreach, the other approves of federal government overreach.

To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. ...If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them....He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer....At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer.

. . . Yeah, kinda like that George, although a better way of putting it would
probably be:

Quote:

One side opposes federal government overreach, the other approves of
federal government overreach.