>All you
>leftwingers should quit the limp-wristed apologetics and
>face the fact that this movie was shitty through and
>through.

- That's your opinion. Moore has an academy award, widespread crticial acclaim, awards from every major film festival and the highest grossing doc of all time to prove otherwise.

You don't get all of that from a really bad film.

>He never 'connected the
>dots' to provide a direct correlation to anything, and as a
>result the entire thesis is loose if not non-existent.

- He never tried to answer why it happened, he didn't have an answer. The whole point of the film was there is no clear answer and it's probably a whole range of issues that he addressed in the film. Gus Van Sant came to the same conclusion in his new film about it, Elephant, there is no straight answer for an insane act like that.

>They let this dummy win the Academy Award because it looked
>great for the republican fascists who could then claim that
>'there are critics' and that 'they are recognized by and
>large'.... however shitty and limited these critics might
>be. So really Bowling For Columbine was a victory for the
>right wing because it made the left wing look so awful by
>default.

Explain that one again. Republicans let a bad film win the academy award so that Democracts would look bad? Exactly how did Bush and Cheney infiltrate the academy awards to pull this one off? And since so many people obviously love the movie, more than any other documentary ever made, how is it making anyone look bad?