Who Voted for Bush?

[wig]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 28 2003, 04:27 PM
We will look back 10-15 years from now and remember this era as the "time of bullshit".

Alex

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You got that right! Alot of it taking place right here. h34r:

[OldJeff]

Bad Example Alex,

95% of the total tax dollars in the US are paid by the top 5% - or whatever the exact percentages are - that is a fact.

Satire is comedy - in this case it is comedy being presented as fact.

I say somewhere that each persons share of the US federal budget is about $3500, what I want to know is where are all those bastids that I am paying for - they should at least come over and cut my freaking lawn.

[ulfie]

Alex, there is one glaring ommission in your tax argument. The bottom wage earners, thanks to the earned income tax credit, get an income tax refund that is MORE money than they actually payed so in effect they pay NO taxes at all plus get money from the top wagers to boot. To say the poor guy is paying more taxes as a percent is pure folly.

The fact is that the bulk of the taxes are payed by the middle class. It has to be that way since that is the biggest percentage of wage earners. Democrats love to call any tax cut a tax cut for the rich. We could have a tax cut on baby formula and somehow that would become a tax cut for the rich. We have a couple hundred billionaires in this country. Maybe we should just make them pay all the taxes. That would make everyone happy, wouldn't it? Then when the billionaires all move out to foreign countries that are tax havens that will leave the rest of us to pick up the slack and everyone will wonder what happened. This whole tax cuts for the rich argument is a load of camel dung used for class envy purposes.

I know you won't believe a word I say so I'm not sure why I bother.

[Vick]

Alex - You're really blowing my mind on this one

How can you see Rush's presentations anywhere close to the same as what Moore has done

To the best of my knowledge Rush NEVER set up a business to further his own agenda

Again please let me ask you Alex, do you find Moore's actions acceptable? How can you compare Rush's actions to Moore's

I get that they are both doing what ever to make their point but Moore has purposed performed fraudulent acts

How can you find Moore's actions anything but incredibly reprehensible
and how can you not see a world of difference between Rush's presentation and Moore's deliberate deceitful presentation

Maybe I can explain it like this
Moore has deliberately set up situations and lies to make his point and passed it off as documentary and accepted awards for a documentary (that is at best satire, at worst purposeful deceit)

I would love to interview Moore on national TV and confront him with these issues -

Most of the world believes Moore's work is documentary, we know Rush is a windbag

[Vick]

Oh shit Alex - you're the pivot man in this debate - getting it from all sides - but we haven't gotten personal ... yet he he he :P

If you are set on going to Toronto please be safe - I think you're crazy but it's your life

[Mike AI]

The Truth about Michael Moore and Columbine

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Documents everything.


a snipit

he first misconception to correct about Michael Moore's The Big One is that it is a documentary. It's not. Moore doesn't make those. As was proven after the release of Moore's debut, Roger & Me, the director uses real people, places, and circumstances, then stages events (see Harlan Jacobson's piece in the November/ December 1989 Film Comment for more details). Reality a fragile commodity in any "fact-based" motion picture takes a back seat to what will play well on a movie screen. As a result, it's best to consider Moore's films as entries into the ever-growing category of pseudo (or "meta") documentaries. Or, perhaps even more accurately, view it as an exercise in self-publicity.

James Berardinelli

[ulfie]

Equivalent in our biz is bang bus. Yeah, it's all real. sheesh Same with Moore's crap.

[OldJeff]

"when anyone ever talks about the economy, he never does get around to mentioning that the recessions of the last 30 years always occur during a republican presidency

You obviously were not paying attention to much during Jimmy Carters Watch (which BTW was with a Democratic House and Senate)



... forgetting that the democrats never had control of the whitehouse, the senate, and the house at the same time..."

FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Carter all had Dem House and Senate for their entire terms

Clinton had them for his first 2 years

This is the first time Republicans have controled all 3 since Ike in 1953-55

I am sorry for interrupting the left wing fantasy with some historical fact

All this information was collected from whitehouse.gov and the US House and Senate Websites

[ulfie]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 28 2003, 06:40 PM
"when anyone ever talks about the economy, he never does get around to mentioning that the recessions of the last 30 years always occur during a republican presidency

You obviously were not paying attention to much during Jimmy Carters Watch (which BTW was with a Democratic House and Senate)



... forgetting that the democrats never had control of the whitehouse, the senate, and the house at the same time..."

FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Carter all had Dem House and Senate for their entire terms

Clinton had them for his first 2 years

This is the first time Republicans have controled all 3 since Ike in 1953-55

I am sorry for interrupting the left wing fantasy with some historical fact

All this information was collected from whitehouse.gov and the US House and Senate Websites

Yeah, those gas lines were fun when Carter was President. In PA you could only buy gas every other day based on whether the last number of your liscense plate was odd or even and only if you could find a station that actually had gas. Those 18% interest rates were pretty fun too. I'm sure it's somehow the Republicans fault though that Carter was one of the worst President's ever.

Note to Sykkboy...he has done many great things since with Habitat For Humanity but he was a lousy President.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by ulfie@Mar 28 2003, 07:57 PM
Note to Sykkboy...he has done many great things since with Habitat For Humanity but he was a lousy President.

He's also a good neighbor - so far both times we've gone under "Orange Alert", the secret service guys have showed up - not as many as when he's physically here - either some of his family's around or they're just checking things out.

Granted, the SS guys are going to blow up just as easily as I am when a bomb hits, but for some odd reason, I'm comforted when they're here (and I know the utilities to the subdivision will get fixed really fast if they go down ). I also doubt there would be a phone company POP out here if it weren't for him, so I thank him for my DSL

But he was way too "nice" to be president.

[OldJeff]

I was in PA at that time as well, didn't notice the gas lines much since Mom couldn't afford a car at that time.

However she was part of the 10% plus unemployment, of course the astronomical inflation rate was very comforting.

We did however have lots of government subsidized dairy products to eat.

[Hooper]

Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic.

Might as well point out that Carter was from Georgia and a bad president. The two have very little to do with eachother.

It amazes me how much people like to play on a "team"... you're either a dem or a rep (at least on this board).. do people feel the need to join "teams" and choose sides just because they like to feel like part of something? Dont forget that a republican from the northeast is usually more liberal than a democrat from the south. And all this Liberal vs. Conservative policy, do you mean social issues, economic issues, or international issues?

GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.

I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.

Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.



Last edited by Hooper at Mar 28 2003, 08:40 PM

[ulfie]

Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 08:37 PM
Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic.

Might as well point out that Carter was from Georgia and a bad president. The two have very little to do with eachother.

It amazes me how much people like to play on a "team"... you're either a dem or a rep (at least on this board).. do people feel the need to join "teams" and choose sides just because they like to feel like part of something? Dont forget that a republican from the northeast is usually more liberal than a democrat from the south. And all this Liberal vs. Conservative policy, do you mean social issues, economic issues, or international issues?

GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.

I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.

Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.

OK, he was just a bad President, happy now?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 08:37 PM
GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.

I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.

Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.

[Vick]

Carter was a very weak, well intentioned and unluckily President
Unlikely to be Pres at when OPEC started oil embargoes and drove prices of Oil up giving the US the terrible recession of the 70's
- Clinton was a VERY luckily Pres, lucky to be in office at the time of the internet boom and high flying tech times


Hooper - Who are you going to offer as an alternative to Bush?
Were you glad it is Bush in office on 9/12/2001 and not Gore - I certainly was, but I am glad it is Bush everyday and not Gore

Depending on many things, in particularly the outcome of the war with Iraq Bush could be seen as a Great President when history looks back

[cj]

Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 08:37 PM
Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic.

Might as well point out that Carter was from Georgia and a bad president. The two have very little to do with eachother.

It amazes me how much people like to play on a "team"... you're either a dem or a rep (at least on this board).. do people feel the need to join "teams" and choose sides just because they like to feel like part of something? Dont forget that a republican from the northeast is usually more liberal than a democrat from the south. And all this Liberal vs. Conservative policy, do you mean social issues, economic issues, or international issues?

GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.

I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.

Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.

well said!!!

the one thing i've had the most trouble understanding about usa politics is the 'teams' ... you have to be on 1 side on the other and you can't disagree with any policy or elected politician if they belong to the party you belong to ... i never understood how the best person would be picked for the job if everyone stuck with their own teams ...

the other thing that i've noticed is that this method produces a lot of sheep who agree with their party's leader for no other reason than he is a 'democrat' or a 'republican' ...

from what i gather, being a democrat or a republican is decided on a set of rules and policies ... you agree with all or none of the rules and that's what decides which party you belong to. I wonder sometimes why Torone and Mike have so much trouble accepting the opinions of others, and I've realized its because of the rules of the political system ... you can't say anything negative about the party you belong to or you aren't truly a loyal member of that party, even if your party is flat out wrong on a particular issue. every opinion you do have contributes to making you a 'left wing' or 'right wing' or a combination of 'labels' which you are then a part of for life.

What's wrong with just having an actual opinion based on the situation of the moment and considering the facts as they relate to that specific situation?

The political test we did here on oprano was really interesting ... we got to see everyone cast into an 'identity' based on a small series of questions ... are our views any more or less valid if we fit into the right or wrong category?

And more importantly, relating to this thread, does being a republican make George Bush a good or a bad president? Or does the fact that he's made bad decisions for america make him a bad republican? Or does the fact that he's a republican make him a good president/bad president no matter what he's done with his term in office?

[Hooper]

and does being a pornographer make one a good or bad person?

or how's that old song go...

When you're a jet you're a jet
You're a Jet All The Way
From Your First Cigarette
To Your Last Dying Day.

It's all very reminiscent (sp?.. too lazy to check) of some bad gay broadway musical where people are choosing sides and grandstanding without noticing that the actual "choosing of sides" is the problem that our antagonists and protagonists are all really encountering.

Hooper - Who are you going to offer as an alternative to Bush?

Well clearly Gore wasn't funny enough for anybody. I would vote for the reagan daughter or chelsea clinton... or maybe Jeb bush...

Seriously though? There are some fantastic politicians out there who unfortunately dont have the ability to connect with the "average joe" which raises another question... why do we want a president who we can associate with and feel like he's the kinda guy we'd like to joke and drink a beer with? shouldnt we desire to have a president who is smarter than us? somebody who is truly a genius? somebody who doesn't slow down on the highway to stare at the purty red lights of the fire truck?

John Kerry... Richard Gephard... who was the senator with the really huge ears? anybody remember him? he was one smart motherfucker...

*note. edited to notate that i am not claiming that kerry or gephard are geniuses*

I think from now on we should have a new set of criteria for picking presidents... Just answer yes to four questions and he has my vote.

1) Is his dick bigger than mine?
2) Does he know how to do long division without a calculator?
3) Can he talk for 10 minutes without referring to God?
4) Can he beat me in a spelling bee?


i'd like to have a president who can beat me in a spelling bee is all realy want.. is that too much to ask?

New Slogan.. "George Bush, he cant beat you in a spelling bee... but he sure knows how to wave!"



Last edited by Hooper at Mar 28 2003, 10:11 PM

[Vick]

CJ - I'll give you the simplest explanation of the America 2 party political system you'll ever get

Republicans = Rich White Guys

Democrats = Rich White Guys Who Feel Guilty


If you think I'm kidding think about the Republicans (MikeAI, Ulfie, Vick, Torone) and Democrats (Todd, Porndoggy, Hooper) here at Oprano

Yeah I'll catch hell for this post he he he he

[Vick]

he he he Hooper

That's from West Side Story

Can go for the Bush twins but then I like twins

I have a theory -
Anyone who aspires to the office of President is unfit for the office, just by the simple fact of what sort of egomanic would want to be President of the USA
If you want it, you're too flawed for the job

[Hooper]

I'm not a democrat by any stretch, i vote a very mixed ticket.. it's just that right now since the repubs have a majority in pretty much everything anything "anti policy" sounds anti republican...

I do think however that you everybody you named as a dem is a jew (perhaps the explanation for the guilt?) and all the repubs are wasps... just an observation

[Vick]

No, MikeAI is half Jew and I think PornoDoggy is Goim

I would have included Serge as a Rep but not sure about his affiliation



Last edited by Vick at Mar 28 2003, 10:38 PM

[PornoDoggy]

I'm about as Jewish as a Kosher Ham ... and I don't feel guilty about jack shit. As far as rich, well, I ain't on welfare and I ain't got enough.

I've voted for more Democrats for President than I have Republicans only if you figure in the independents that I've voted for (and that first vote for Truman [Nixon v McGovern]). Frankly, I'm far less a Democrat than I am an anti-Republican.

The funny thing is, I'm not nearly as far to the left as I used to be, but I'm further away from the Republican party than I ever have been. Beginning with the "Mitchell Plan" in the late 60s/early 70s to attract the Trent Lott bubbas to the party, and continuing with Reagan's mobilization of the religious right in the 80s, I've watched the Republican Party move further and further to the right.

[Hooper]

yuummmmmmm... ham

[Hooper]

you were voting in the 60's? how friggin old are you dude? i thought torone was the only ww1 veteran here ;-)

[PornoDoggy]

I have a birthday coming up in a couple of weeks that involves a five and a zero. At the moment, I am 49.

And that was 1972, not the friggin 60s .... No way was I gonna vote for Richard (no Dick) Nixon, but couldn't bring myself to vote for McGovern either.

youngin's ...



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 28 2003, 10:52 PM

[cj]

Originally posted by Vick@Mar 28 2003, 10:16 PM
I have a theory -
Anyone who aspires to the office of President is unfit for the office, just by the simple fact of what sort of egomanic would want to be President of the USA
If you want it, you're too flawed for the job

Vick, that's a god damn pearl if ever i heard one ;-))))

[cj]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 28 2003, 10:50 PM
I have a birthday coming up in a couple of weeks that involves a five and a zero. At the moment, I am 49.

And that was 1972, not the friggin 60s .... No way was I gonna vote for Richard (no Dick) Nixon, but couldn't bring myself to vote for McGovern either.

youngin's ...

I guess I shouldn't mention that my mum's 50th was the 17th march, and I passed quarter of a century a few days prior ;-)))

50 is FAR from old pd, my crazy nutcase (said lovingly) of a mother proves that to me every day ;-)

[Rox]

Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 05:37 PM
Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic.

Might as well point out that Carter was from Georgia and a bad president. The two have very little to do with eachother.

It amazes me how much people like to play on a "team"... you're either a dem or a rep (at least on this board).. do people feel the need to join "teams" and choose sides just because they like to feel like part of something? Dont forget that a republican from the northeast is usually more liberal than a democrat from the south. And all this Liberal vs. Conservative policy, do you mean social issues, economic issues, or international issues?

GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.

I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.

Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.

Well said, Hooper. Georgie couldn't even convince me he was worthy of my vote even if it was only to cast my vote against Al Gore, for Chrissake... that's saying something. For all of the reasons you so eloquently pointed out, and more, I think Bush is a fucking horrible president. It is like a knife in my gut to know this guy is the face of America.

Voting for the man and not the party gets more difficult with every election, that's for sure. What we need more than ever is more than just two really shitty choices.

[Rox]

Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 07:08 PM
I think from now on we should have a new set of criteria for picking presidents... Just answer yes to four questions and he has my vote.

1) Is his dick bigger than mine?
2) Does he know how to do long division without a calculator?
3) Can he talk for 10 minutes without referring to God?
4) Can he beat me in a spelling bee?


i'd like to have a president who can beat me in a spelling bee is all realy want.. is that too much to ask?

New Slogan.. "George Bush, he cant beat you in a spelling bee... but he sure knows how to wave!"

Y'know, the Presidential Package is no concern of mine, but as for the other three, I believe we ought to codify those criteria!

[sextoyking]

Good Eve,

just got back from seeing Basic with the family. Ok Movie, but nothing to brag about

Good points PD, Hooper, Vick, Rox.

I still remember being about 10 years old and my mom jumping up and down when Carter won the presidency, she was in tears and estatic. A Life long democrat, god rest her soul.

Carter forsure has made up for some of the bad times during his 4 years. He Def. cares about america and loves his country.

As far as bush goes, fuck I can't even tell you where my thoughts are with him. I give up until nov. 2004. At first I just didn't like him, didn't like his policies, his values, etc. But I have truly learned to despise him. As people in the state dept. are quitting over Iraq and policies, I can only PRAY to the almighty, that mabey Sec. Powell will finally get so sick of him and the hawks, that he too will quit. But I think he might be gone if bush wins 2004 anyways.

Who do I like right now, I like and always have loved Sen. Kerry, can't fuck with his patriotic record, that is forsure.

Officer on Navy Gun boat in Vietnam, 1 or 2 purple hearts, silver star, etc.

The reason I truly have respect for Kerry, is in the few years of the clinton admin. He chaired the sub commitee on POW / Mia's from vietnam for 1 whole year. I watched Cspan every night that year. He yelled, fought his ass off to find out any info on lost soldiers, I commend him for that..

[Torone]

Here's something nobody seems to grasp...
Limbaugh may inject his own opinions; but when he presents something as truth, it is the truth. With the number of Libs, etc out there trying to discredit him, he has to research it very carefully.

[OldJeff]

"Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic."

And it is different than pointing out that Bush sucks and a Republican because ?.........

Oh yea, because it is OK to lump all Republicans together, but not Democrats, I remember now.

"Carter forsure has made up for some of the bad times during his 4 years. He Def. cares about america and loves his country."

What exactly has he done to make up for complete incompetence ?
Being a nice caring guy does not make up for shit. I am sooooooooooo tired of hearing about how someone "cares"

FUCK feel good psycobabble - Carter was and still is a nit wit, probably more of one than the stooge in there now - that is correct Dubya is a stooge

American political parties

Pro Abortion, Anti Gun corporate party

Pro Gun, Anti Abortion corporate party

Not really a whole lot of difference between the 2, and less than 1% of them are worth the air they breath

[Hooper]

And it is different than pointing out that Bush sucks and a Republican because

Well at least you agree he sucks

[Rox]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 29 2003, 07:17 AM
American political parties

Pro Abortion, Anti Gun corporate party

Pro Gun, Anti Abortion corporate party

Not really a whole lot of difference between the 2, and less than 1% of them are worth the air they breath

So where would someone fit who's Pro-2nd Amendment & Pro-Choice (I have yet to meet a single person who's "pro-abortion.")?

[Opti]

Originally posted by Peaches@Mar 28 2003, 05:54 AM
While I didn't necessary like MM, I at least respected him for saying what he thought. He's become nothing more than a pure entertainer now and that respect is gone

This is exactly how I feel about Michael Moore too Peaches!

I used to love the stuff he did in the "The Awful Truth" and "TV Nation". I have been on his fan e-mail list for years... He was REALLY witty and almost an anti-entertainer! When his book Stupid White Men did so well in early 2002 I noticed his emails changed to be totally self promotional.. prior to that his emails were always about some ultra liberal campaign for any underdog cause sort of thing... Usually encouraging people to send a form letter to some Governor appealing for death sentence clemency and stuff like that.. never self promotional. Since about November 2001 I don't think I have seen one e-mail promoting anything but himself.. he's a boring media whore now... his Oscar ceremony speech was just another publicity motivated stunt as is his "passionate" anti war stance I reckon.

you should check out his website... actually don't, he claims that he gets 20 million hits a day it will probably be slow.. so I'll give you a couple of highlights...

Nowadays he seems to invoke the "name of lord" as being on his side almost as strongly as GWB..

I'd Like to Thank the Vatican...

By Michael Moore
March 27, 2003

A word of advice to future Oscar winners: Don't begin Oscar day by going to church.

That is where I found myself this past Sunday morning, at the Church of the Good Shepherd on Santa Monica Boulevard, at Mass with my sister and my dad. My problem with the Catholic Mass is that sometimes I find my mind wandering after I hear something the priest says, and I start thinking all these crazy thoughts like how it is wrong to kill people and that you are not allowed to use violence upon another human being unless it is in true self-defense.

The pope even came right out and said it: This war in Iraq is not a just war and, thus, it is a sin.


This is his main menu items today....

See Mike's Backstage Press Conference at the Oscars
Moore explains Oscar speech
Michael Moore Stars at Academy Awards

He reminds me of how I felt in about 1979 when I realised Kiss weren't just in it for the love of the music

Originally posted by Vick@Mar 27 2003, 01:38 PM
What concerns me is that Michael Moore's material is presented as documentary and a lot of gullible people (particularly the 18-30 crowd here in the states) take it as a documentary and form opinions on the material and then act on those opinions based on information that has been incorrectly presented or represented - hence we have harmful, misguided action from Moore's profiteering

Not only is it presented as documentary, he clearly claims his work as "non-fiction" and a film "documentary" on his website.


Millions of Americans seem to agree. My book "Stupid White Men" still sits at No. 1 on the bestseller list (it's been on that list now for 53 weeks and is the largest-selling nonfiction book of the year). "Bowling for Columbine" has broken all box-office records for a documentary. My Web site is now getting up to 20 million hits a day (more than the White House's site). My opinions about the state of the nation are neither unknown nor on the fringe, but rather they exist with mainstream majority opinion. The majority of Americans, according to polls, want stronger environmental laws, support Roe vs. Wade and did not want to go into this war without the backing of the United Nations and all of our allies.

That is where the country is at. It's liberal, it's for peace and it is only tacitly in support of its leader because that is what you are supposed to do when you are at war and you want your kids to come back from Iraq alive.


I agree fully that if his movie uses fictional setup scenes then Moore should be drawn and quartered and maybe charged with espionage or whatever you do to people that knowingly try and hurt the country for profit!

But seriously... can you accept those allegations could possibly be true? For a start the author appears to be clutching at straws if the first thing he has to say is some lame point about the killers not attending their bowling class. If the story about the gun giveaway is so far from reality why isn't the bank suing/exposing the fraud? he can't call it non-fiction and documentary and then just make up fictional shit can he? or maybe i am being really naive... :P I haven't seen it... but seriously who cares if some redneck community bank gives away guns to attract business... I saw that bit on the TV ads and it really was a funny scene! I don't believe anyone thinks all 250 million Americans are like that... wouldn't be worth making a "documentary" about if it was so normal! (Although BigS, Hooper, GWB, J.R. Ewing and almost everyone else I've ever run across from Texas do make me worry about what the truth really is) :P

Also, back on the thread topic by Todd... It was good to hear an American praise Clinton... I was wondering who it was that supported him through those 8 years! My memories of Clinton was that he held remarkably high opinion poll ratings even through the worst of his "incidents" ... From a foreigners point of view The Clinton years appeared good for America economically.. and in contrast to "Bush the father" and "Bush the son" that book ended him, Clinton developed amazingly good relations with Moscow, Europe and most of Asia... and all with what appeared a weighty economic bias advantage to the USA... he seemed to drive international policy from the inside and used that to ensure American business profited.. I honestly don't know if Clinton was good or bad for America.. I have been starting to think it is just foreigners that liked him from opinions posted around here ;-))

Clinton "promised" Australia the earth and gave us very little apart from more tariffs on our steel and agriculture exports to the US. Bush has already given a lot of this back to Australia.. and I don't doubt there is a lot more "payback" to come.. but I don't think this is all good news for us.. If he has so easily paid off a close ally it makes me wonder how much he has had to sell out to get some of the less friendly 45 coalition nations on board... or maybe he is just a nice guy who wants to help out the 20 million friendly folk down under because they stood up and supported him so fast.... Either way it's a worry imho.

[Vick]

Opti - you got me thinking - why isn't Moore going after the sources that are providing the information regarding the bank set up and other work he has done - one source being the Wall Street Journal? (who I would hope research the work they do)

Could it be that he hopes this doesn't get anymore press? Does he fear a backlash against him and his work if these allegations are true and get major mainstream press?

Crazy as it sounds I'm going to try to give this bank a call and see if they will comment



Last edited by Vick at Mar 29 2003, 02:56 PM

[Opti]

Originally posted by Vick@Mar 30 2003, 07:56 AM
Opti - you got me thinking - why isn't Moore going after the sources that are providing the information regarding the bank set up and other work he has done - one source being the Wall Street Journal? (who I would hope research the work they do)

Could it be that he hopes this doesn't get anymore press? Does he fear a backlash against him and his work if these allegations are true and get major mainstream press?

Crazy as it sounds I'm going to try to give this bank a call and see if they will comment

Cool Idea Vick!!!! If he is happy to post that 20 million "people" per day visit his site (which is obviously what he is implying) he may well say anything!

I would love to know if that was true! Wall street journal... well I would hope they checked it out too.. did anyone have a link to the article I have missed? I can imagine the bank teller who was made to look like a goose also might say anything though!

[Vick]

Opti - here's the link to the WSJ article
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...ml?id=110003233

It is presented as an opinion journal so I guess that protects from lawsuits to some degree

[cj]

well, i could've believed a lot of what he had to say until i read the 20 million hits a day to his website



i'm so sick of celebrities who don't know how to read their website stats claiming bullshit numbers like that. I wish someone would explain the difference between hits and visitors



if he does have 20 million visitors a day *cough*, i want to manage his website.

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 29 2003, 09:55 AM
Here's something nobody seems to grasp...
Limbaugh may inject his own opinions; but when he presents something as truth, it is the truth. With the number of Libs, etc out there trying to discredit him, he has to research it very carefully.

Torone, I agree with you fully, Rush always presents 100% truth - but he SELECTS the truth very carefully, and ignores facts that don't support his opinions - often ignoring facts that prove him wrong or show that "his side" did the same things when they were in the same situation.

The tax thing is a riot - it really is simple math - even if you had a flat tax percentage rate, the more affluent would pay more tax than the poor. No news here, except to present the numbers in a way to obliterate real logic and replace it with indignation and panic.

Vick

Republicans: Rich white guys denying the existance of crime and poverty
Democrats: Rich white guys accepting that you can't ignore it forever.

Anyway, Toronto was fun... camera work continues to get better... :-)

Alex

[Torone]

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by RawAlex+Mar 30 2003, 07:56 PM-->

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Display Modes

Linear Mode

Switch to Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main Board Rebooted The Business Of Porn - Closed For Posting     Legacy Archived Main Board     Vesuvio

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 PM..