Discussion:
OT Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
(too old to reply)
s_knight8
2004-06-26 22:51:59 UTC
Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html

Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
David Bossie
President, Citizens United
Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM


Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President Bush?

David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group,
thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The group
alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to the
restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.

"Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election," Bossie
said.

Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives a
thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.


A transcript follows.

________________________________________________

washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised or
seen?

David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First off,
we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation of his
so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets the
facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track record
of credibility.

We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission claiming
that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering communications" as
defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.

These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a federal
candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.

All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits my
free speech as well as Michael Moore's.

Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July 31st.
2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal, and 3.
He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.

People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that President Bush
has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the voters
over his record?

David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's leader
in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.

This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd will
rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it as
well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a journalist.
Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from office.

_______________________


Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning that he
has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never voted
is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?

David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting, it's an
essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.

However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a good
story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.
Dave Reid
2004-06-27 00:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by s_knight8
David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy
group
David Bossie, a scumbag of the highest order.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/11/time/trillin.html
http://tinyurl.com/2rrkb

"If Webster Hubbell had really said, as Dan Burton's creative transcript
had it, "The Riady is just not easy to do business with me while I'm
here," what language was he supposed to be speaking? Did people on the
staff of Burton's Government Reform and Oversight Committee actually take
that to be an English sentence? Do they talk that way themselves? Outside
of chairman Burton's earshot, do they say things like "The Burton are just
too much of loony to conduct this investigation"?

...snip...

Hubbell knew that conversations on the prison phone would be recorded, but
that doesn't mean he knew they would be made public. If he had, he would
have presumably studded his conversations with rude jokes about Kenneth
Starr and how simple it had been to hoodwink the independent counsel's
office on a plea-bargain agreement. He certainly didn't know they would be
made public as edited by Burton's chief investigator, David N. Bossie, who
presumably picked up his notion of fair play partly from his old colleague
Floyd Brown, the creator of the Willie Horton campaign commercial."

dave
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-27 01:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Reid
Post by s_knight8
David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy
group
David Bossie, a scumbag of the highest order.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/11/time/trillin.html
http://tinyurl.com/2rrkb
"If Webster Hubbell had really said, as Dan Burton's creative transcript
had it, "The Riady is just not easy to do business with me while I'm
here," what language was he supposed to be speaking? Did people on the
staff of Burton's Government Reform and Oversight Committee actually take
that to be an English sentence? Do they talk that way themselves? Outside
of chairman Burton's earshot, do they say things like "The Burton are just
too much of loony to conduct this investigation"?
...snip...
Hubbell knew that conversations on the prison phone would be recorded, but
that doesn't mean he knew they would be made public. If he had, he would
have presumably studded his conversations with rude jokes about Kenneth
Starr and how simple it had been to hoodwink the independent counsel's
office on a plea-bargain agreement. He certainly didn't know they would be
made public as edited by Burton's chief investigator, David N. Bossie, who
presumably picked up his notion of fair play partly from his old colleague
Floyd Brown, the creator of the Willie Horton campaign commercial."
dave
You have blinders in evaluating the highest order of scumbags....this isn't
even on the nasty scale of politics a 3.

v/r Beau
Doug Sorensen
2004-06-27 02:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by s_knight8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
David Bossie
President, Citizens United
Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President Bush?
Donning my tinfoil hat for a moment, do you think this is one of the
reasons why the left was behind campaign finance "reform"? A lot of
the left's big sugar daddies and mommies are in the entertainment
industry. They can simply reroute their money to films like The Day
After Tomorrow or Farenheit 9/11 and get as much or more political
impact for their money.

Doug
Jefferson N. Glapski
2004-06-27 04:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Sorensen
Post by s_knight8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
David Bossie
President, Citizens United
Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President Bush?
Donning my tinfoil hat for a moment, do you think this is one of the
reasons why the left was behind campaign finance "reform"? A lot of
the left's big sugar daddies and mommies are in the entertainment
industry. They can simply reroute their money to films like The Day
After Tomorrow or Farenheit 9/11 and get as much or more political
impact for their money.
No. This is one of many unintended consequences. And an unfortunate one too.

Cocksuckers like John "S&L" McCain were as much on the forefront of this
censorship as anyone.

I wonder what the scope of the consequences of this censorship will be. For
instance, in Canada, there are no fixed election dates, so the party in
power can spend prior to an election date being declared. Then they call the
election and the limits kick in. I also wonder what the effect of US
imperialists like Moore and Nader trying to alter Canadian elections will
have. Various suits have been brought up against individuals spending more
than $1,000. Filing suit against someone like Moore could be very possible.
--
Jefferson

"But it's hard as hell not to be some kind of redneck bigot sometimes..."
-Trevor Zion Bauknight

"Most environmentalists think I'm a corporatist."
-Mike Dahmus

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger
of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini
Peter L
2004-06-28 16:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right wing
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating even
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
Post by s_knight8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
David Bossie
President, Citizens United
Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President Bush?
David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group,
thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The group
alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to the
restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.
"Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election," Bossie
said.
Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives a
thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.
A transcript follows.
________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised or
seen?
David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First off,
we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation of his
so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets the
facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track record
of credibility.
We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission claiming
that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering communications" as
defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.
These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a federal
candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.
All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits my
free speech as well as Michael Moore's.
Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July 31st.
2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal, and 3.
He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.
People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that President Bush
has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the voters
over his record?
David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's leader
in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.
This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd will
rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it as
well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a journalist.
Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from office.
_______________________
Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning that he
has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never voted
is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?
David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting, it's an
essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.
However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a good
story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-28 19:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right wing
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating even
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.

Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that is
Spiderman 2.

v/r Beau
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
David Bossie
President, Citizens United
Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President Bush?
David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group,
thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The
group
Post by s_knight8
alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to the
restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.
"Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election," Bossie
said.
Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives a
thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.
A transcript follows.
________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised or
seen?
David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First off,
we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation of
his
Post by s_knight8
so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets the
facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track
record
Post by s_knight8
of credibility.
We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission
claiming
Post by s_knight8
that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering communications"
as
Post by s_knight8
defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.
These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a federal
candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.
All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits my
free speech as well as Michael Moore's.
Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July
31st.
Post by s_knight8
2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal, and
3.
Post by s_knight8
He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.
People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that President
Bush
Post by s_knight8
has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the voters
over his record?
David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's
leader
Post by s_knight8
in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.
This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd will
rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it as
well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a
journalist.
Post by s_knight8
Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from office.
_______________________
Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning that he
has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never
voted
Post by s_knight8
is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?
David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting,
it's
Post by Peter L
an
Post by s_knight8
essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.
However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a good
story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.
Vic Romano
2004-06-28 20:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-28 20:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does $50m the
first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.

v/r Beau
Vic Romano
2004-06-28 20:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does $50m
the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
"family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-28 21:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does $50m
the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
"family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
I expect it to be in keeping with previous cinematic depictions of famous
comic book heroes. I don't expect that there will be an overt political
message.

v/r Beau
Vic Romano
2004-06-29 14:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the
other right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
blind quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does
$50m the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
"family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
I expect it to be in keeping with previous cinematic depictions of
famous comic book heroes. I don't expect that there will be an overt
political message.
v/r Beau
It's interesting. I've now heard this "Spiderman 2 will do better" line
in at least 4 different newsgroups. So my question is this: which
conservative screamer put out this talking point? Limbaugh? Hannity?
Moreover, why would anyone think it's great that a slew of 12 to 16 year
olds who can't even get into F911 are going to drop cash on Spiderman?
Is that the demographic they identify with?

F911 grossed 21.8 mil playing on only 868 screens. That's more than 25K
per screen over 3 days. Spiderman 1 grossed 114 mil in its opening
weekend. It played on 3615 screens. It averaged 31.5k per screen on its
opening weekend. And that's the all-time record. Let's just keep that in
perspective shall we? F911 took in more than 80% what Spiderman took in
and F911 doesn't have 50 million screaming teenagers flocking to see it.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 01:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the
other right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
blind quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does
$50m the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
"family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
I expect it to be in keeping with previous cinematic depictions of
famous comic book heroes. I don't expect that there will be an overt
political message.
v/r Beau
It's interesting. I've now heard this "Spiderman 2 will do better" line
in at least 4 different newsgroups. So my question is this: which
conservative screamer put out this talking point? Limbaugh? Hannity?
Moreover, why would anyone think it's great that a slew of 12 to 16 year
olds who can't even get into F911 are going to drop cash on Spiderman?
Is that the demographic they identify with?
F911 grossed 21.8 mil playing on only 868 screens. That's more than 25K
per screen over 3 days. Spiderman 1 grossed 114 mil in its opening
weekend. It played on 3615 screens. It averaged 31.5k per screen on its
opening weekend. And that's the all-time record. Let's just keep that in
perspective shall we? F911 took in more than 80% what Spiderman took in
and F911 doesn't have 50 million screaming teenagers flocking to see it.
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited distribution
which is about the volume limit that it could probably have generated. I
assume that in wider distribution that the saturation point of Bush is Evil
types would be reached fairly easily thus obviously lowering the per screen
average nonsense that folks are suddenly yapping about as if it is
significant.

v/r Beau
Vic Romano
2004-06-30 13:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see it
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 14:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see it
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So? I
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not a
blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd. Ya...the
Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm.
Tell me another.

v/r Beau
Vic Romano
2004-06-30 14:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
Post by Charles Beauchamp
So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first time
I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
More outstanding satire.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
entire month off after only the first 6 months.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 19:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
Notice that you left the "by propeganda" part out.
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first time
I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
It is how I spell it. Is there a point to your spew?
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
More outstanding satire.
Yes I am glad you find it amusing. Mr. Moore is a satirist, not a serious
documentarian.
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
entire month off after only the first 6 months.
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?

v/r Beau
Chainsaw
2004-06-30 19:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
Notice that you left the "by propeganda" part out.
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first time
I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
It is how I spell it. Is there a point to your spew?
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
More outstanding satire.
Yes I am glad you find it amusing. Mr. Moore is a satirist, not a serious
documentarian.
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
entire month off after only the first 6 months.
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
Moore is an entertainer, nothing more. What's worse: an
entertainer skewing the facts for the sake of his art,
or a President lying and being a total idiot?
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 01:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
Notice that you left the "by propeganda" part out.
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first time
I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
It is how I spell it. Is there a point to your spew?
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
More outstanding satire.
Yes I am glad you find it amusing. Mr. Moore is a satirist, not a serious
documentarian.
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
entire month off after only the first 6 months.
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
Moore is an entertainer, nothing more. What's worse: an
entertainer skewing the facts for the sake of his art,
or a President lying and being a total idiot?
He made a movie about Bill Clinton?

v/r Beau
Chainsaw
2004-07-01 06:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
Notice that you left the "by propeganda" part out.
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first
time
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
It is how I spell it. Is there a point to your spew?
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
More outstanding satire.
Yes I am glad you find it amusing. Mr. Moore is a satirist, not a
serious
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
documentarian.
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
entire month off after only the first 6 months.
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
Moore is an entertainer, nothing more. What's worse: an
entertainer skewing the facts for the sake of his art,
or a President lying and being a total idiot?
He made a movie about Bill Clinton?
That would qualify as humorous coming from almost
anyone but you.
Will Vaughan
2004-06-30 20:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a hell
of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this group.
TOE
2004-07-01 01:46:59 UTC
Permalink
"Will Vaughan's been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou;
Post by Will Vaughan
Post by Charles Beauchamp
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a hell
of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this group.
But the point is, Bush didn't.

-TOE
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 01:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Vaughan
Post by Charles Beauchamp
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a hell
of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this group.
Clearly you are wrong. And the post article that is widely spoken
of....takes great liberty with the facts..apparently like Mr. Moore
does...again.

v/r Beau
Charlie Board
2004-07-01 01:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
entire month off after only the first 6 months.
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
He says that the Washington Post said so. Which is true.
Are you claiming the Post got it wrong?
TOE
2004-07-01 02:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Board
Post by Charles Beauchamp
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
He says that the Washington Post said so. Which is true.
Are you claiming the Post got it wrong?
I don't know if he is, but I am.

-TOE
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 05:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Board
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
entire month off after only the first 6 months.
That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
He says that the Washington Post said so. Which is true.
Are you claiming the Post got it wrong?
I have flat out said they are wrong numerous times as have others unless one
takes the most absurd interpretation of vacation.

v/r Beau
unknown
2004-06-30 14:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So? I
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
you won't have any problems with that.

I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a
blind idealogue.
Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
as total propaganda? How did you come to that conclusion? Read a review?
Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
propaganda you choose.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion.
Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
and you're choosing to remain in the dark.

I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
getting tremendous word of mouth.

It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
he's dead.


Max
--
jaybyrd
2004-06-30 15:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
as total propaganda? How did you come to that conclusion? Read a review?
Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
propaganda you choose.
I saw the film. it's pretty much total propoganda.


PP PP
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP tttttt ttttttt
PP PP ii ttt ttt
PP ii ii it tt tt tt tt
PP iii iii ttt tt
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 19:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
you won't have any problems with that.
I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though if
he is intentionally misleading.
Post by unknown
I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a
blind idealogue.
Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
as total propaganda?
In fact I have disputed specific points made by folks who have seen the
film. It is irrelevant to me whether or not the information is portrayed on
film one way or the other. I have yet to find a single new point brought up
regarding the film. Simply repetitive arguments that are basically lacking
credibility that have been made by many before Mr. Moore.


How did you come to that conclusion?

Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by those
that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be needed?
No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is engaging in
serious honest discourse...


Read a review?
Post by unknown
Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
propaganda you choose.
You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
viewpoint.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion.
Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
Post by unknown
I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
getting tremendous word of mouth.
Blah blah blah...it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting out
an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
Post by unknown
It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
he's dead.
If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with that.
BTW...where did this Bush tried to stop it nonsense come from? Probably the
same sources that spout that Halliburton got a no bid contract in Iraq.

v/r Beau
Chainsaw
2004-06-30 19:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
affected
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
for
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
strongly
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are
a
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
see
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
you won't have any problems with that.
I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though if
he is intentionally misleading.
Post by unknown
I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a
blind idealogue.
Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
as total propaganda?
In fact I have disputed specific points made by folks who have seen the
film. It is irrelevant to me whether or not the information is portrayed on
film one way or the other. I have yet to find a single new point brought up
regarding the film. Simply repetitive arguments that are basically lacking
credibility that have been made by many before Mr. Moore.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by those
that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be needed?
No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is engaging in
serious honest discourse...
Read a review?
Post by unknown
Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
propaganda you choose.
You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
viewpoint.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion.
Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
Post by unknown
I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
getting tremendous word of mouth.
Blah blah blah...it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting out
an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
Post by unknown
It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
he's dead.
If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with that.
BTW...where did this Bush tried to stop it nonsense come from? Probably the
same sources that spout that Halliburton got a no bid contract in Iraq.
Here are a few sources for the Halliburton story. When you learn
to read and think for yourself, check them out.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/06/14/news/08d53505335a65e687256eb30062a6ae.txt

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040614/pl_usnw/new_evidence_shows_cheney_continues_relationship_with_halliburton_in_violation_of_government_ethics165_xml

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040615/pl_usnw/halliburtonwatch__pentagon_broke_contract_laws_to_help_halliburton174_xml

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040615/ts_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_1
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 02:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
affected
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
for
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
strongly
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are
a
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
see
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
you won't have any problems with that.
I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though if
he is intentionally misleading.
Post by unknown
I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a
blind idealogue.
Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
as total propaganda?
In fact I have disputed specific points made by folks who have seen the
film. It is irrelevant to me whether or not the information is portrayed on
film one way or the other. I have yet to find a single new point brought up
regarding the film. Simply repetitive arguments that are basically lacking
credibility that have been made by many before Mr. Moore.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by those
that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be needed?
No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is engaging in
serious honest discourse...
Read a review?
Post by unknown
Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
propaganda you choose.
You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
viewpoint.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion.
Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
Post by unknown
I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
getting tremendous word of mouth.
Blah blah blah...it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting out
an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
Post by unknown
It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
he's dead.
If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with that.
BTW...where did this Bush tried to stop it nonsense come from? Probably the
same sources that spout that Halliburton got a no bid contract in Iraq.
Here are a few sources for the Halliburton story. When you learn
to read and think for yourself, check them out.
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/06/14/news/08d53505335a65e687256eb30062a6ae.txt
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040614/pl_usnw/new_evidence_shows_cheney_continues_relationship_with_halliburton_in_violation_of_government_ethics165_xml
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040615/pl_usnw/halliburtonwatch__pentagon_broke_contract_laws_to_help_halliburton174_xml
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040615/ts_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_1
Interestingly enough it is virtually all the same report basically from
hysterical Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman who has been screaming
misinformation on these so called no bid contracts with Halliburton for more
then a year. And you tell me to think for myself...idiot.

v/r Beau
Chainsaw
2004-07-01 06:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
affected
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
for
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
strongly
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there
are
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
a
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
see
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
you won't have any problems with that.
I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though
if
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
he is intentionally misleading.
Post by unknown
I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a
blind idealogue.
Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
as total propaganda?
In fact I have disputed specific points made by folks who have seen the
film. It is irrelevant to me whether or not the information is
portrayed on
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
film one way or the other. I have yet to find a single new point
brought up
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
regarding the film. Simply repetitive arguments that are basically
lacking
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
credibility that have been made by many before Mr. Moore.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by
those
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be
needed?
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is
engaging in
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
serious honest discourse...
Read a review?
Post by unknown
Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
propaganda you choose.
You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
viewpoint.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion.
Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
Post by unknown
I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
getting tremendous word of mouth.
Blah blah blah...it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting
out
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
Post by unknown
It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
he's dead.
If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with
that.
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
BTW...where did this Bush tried to stop it nonsense come from? Probably
the
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
same sources that spout that Halliburton got a no bid contract in Iraq.
Here are a few sources for the Halliburton story. When you learn
to read and think for yourself, check them out.
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/06/14/news/08d53505335a65e687256eb30062a6ae.txt
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040614/pl_usnw/new_evidence_shows_cheney_continues_relationship_with_halliburton_in_violation_of_government_ethics165_xml
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040615/pl_usnw/halliburtonwatch__pentagon_broke_contract_laws_to_help_halliburton174_xml
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040615/ts_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_1
Interestingly enough it is virtually all the same report basically from
hysterical Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman who has been screaming
misinformation on these so called no bid contracts with Halliburton for more
then a year. And you tell me to think for myself...idiot.
So if pretty much every major newspaper and media outlet
reports the story, and one neoconservative moron doesn't
like to hear it, it becomes misinformation? LOL. Try again,
knuckle-dragger.
Vic Romano
2004-06-30 20:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply
affected
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
vote
for
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
strongly
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand -
not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that
there are
a
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse
to
see
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
So?
I
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot
be easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm
sure you won't have any problems with that.
I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument
though if he is intentionally misleading.
But it does not diminish Bush's argument that he is intentionally
misleading?
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 02:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Vic Romano
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply
affected
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
vote
for
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
strongly
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand -
not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that
there are
a
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse
to
see
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
So?
I
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot
be easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm
sure you won't have any problems with that.
I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument
though if he is intentionally misleading.
But it does not diminish Bush's argument that he is intentionally
misleading?
Que?

v/r Beau
unknown
2004-06-30 23:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though if
he is intentionally misleading.
Think of it as an editorial, with some backing facts. Disagreeing
with the opinion in the editorial does not diminish the validity of
any facts presented.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
How did you come to that conclusion?
Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by those
that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be needed?
Call me crazy, but I still prefer to see things for myself and then
draw conclusions. I've seen far too many discussions and reviews
that led me to think a film was a certain way, only to find I had a
completely different take when I saw it myself.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is engaging in
serious honest discourse...
He's not, he's presenting his opinion. That he uses manipulative
methods at times doesn't mean the whole thing is garbage, any more
than the fact that you took a little dig at me later in your post
means that your opinions in the rest of the post are completely without
merit.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Read a review?
Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
propaganda you choose.
You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
viewpoint.
And the film is Moore's viewpoint. But I guess since his viewpoint is
distributed over a broader audience than most people, it qualifies as
propaganda? It can't just be a matter of manipulation, because lots
of people discussing it around here gladly twist facts to suit their
purposes.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion.
Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
"The likes of you..." Yup, you sure seem interested in honest discourse
yourself.

You're in the dark because you're discussing a film you've not seen.
If I read the Cliff Notes to a book, and I go to a book discussion,
I would definitely say I was in the dark even though I might know the
bare bones idea of the thing, and maybe even know enough to bluff my
way through it like I knew what I was talking about.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
getting tremendous word of mouth.
Blah blah blah...
Yes, when presented with something you don't like, just cover your
eyes and ears and pretend it didn't happen. Hey, I was as surprised
as anyone at the Monday night crowd.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting out
an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
Only one of the more popular Anne Rice movies. Whether you hate the
movie or not, you can't deny that it drew pretty darn well considering
its, "limited audience." Besides, we're not exactly talking about
the audience for an inscrutable arthouse flick; $24 mil is pretty decent
by any standard.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with that.
You mean like when all politicians lie? Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush. Topical
fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
still does).


Max
--
TOE
2004-07-01 01:45:11 UTC
Permalink
"Max Chuang's been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou:

<snip>
Post by unknown
You mean like when all politicians lie? Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush. Topical
fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
still does).
Your thesis has one very big problem. Yes, Moore
lies in all his movies, that's well known, but what
Moore does often in F9/11 is insinuate or leave-out
important facts. Unless everyone runs to their PC
to check-out all of Moore's facts, which I am sure
they don't, the movie will remain true in the viewer's
mind.

-TOE
Post by unknown
Max
--
unknown
2004-07-01 02:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by TOE
Post by unknown
Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush. Topical
fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
still does).
Your thesis has one very big problem. Yes, Moore
lies in all his movies, that's well known, but what
Moore does often in F9/11 is insinuate or leave-out
important facts. Unless everyone runs to their PC
to check-out all of Moore's facts, which I am sure
they don't, the movie will remain true in the viewer's
mind.
Um ... not sure what the "problem," is, but that's pretty much the
point I was making, which is to say that movies (and entertainment)
is more powerful in convincing people what the truth is than anything
else.


Max
--
Chainsaw
2004-07-01 06:11:16 UTC
Permalink
And the powers that be left Me here to do the thinking..... :-)
Post by TOE
<snip>
Post by unknown
You mean like when all politicians lie? Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush. Topical
fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
still does).
Your thesis has one very big problem. Yes, Moore
lies in all his movies, that's well known, but what
Moore does often in F9/11 is insinuate or leave-out
important facts. Unless everyone runs to their PC
to check-out all of Moore's facts, which I am sure
they don't, the movie will remain true in the viewer's
mind.
In many cases that will be true. Personally in this case
I'm glad. :-)
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 02:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though if
he is intentionally misleading.
Think of it as an editorial, with some backing facts. Disagreeing
with the opinion in the editorial does not diminish the validity of
any facts presented.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
How did you come to that conclusion?
Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by those
that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be needed?
Call me crazy, but I still prefer to see things for myself and then
draw conclusions. I've seen far too many discussions and reviews
that led me to think a film was a certain way, only to find I had a
completely different take when I saw it myself.
OK you are crazy. (You asked). Were this a film maker who didn't have the
history and self stated intent to spread lies and misinformation for the
cause he espouses you might have a point. This in my view is as worthwhile
as paying money to go watch an Al Quaida video. Ya it is great to see the
lies for yourself...but do you really expect to gain anything from it?
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is engaging in
serious honest discourse...
He's not, he's presenting his opinion. That he uses manipulative
methods at times doesn't mean the whole thing is garbage, any more
than the fact that you took a little dig at me later in your post
means that your opinions in the rest of the post are completely without
merit.
I really don't care if you think my opinions have merit or not. I know that
I am not lying. Mr. Moore lies. He does it for a living. That isn't
really in dispute. The conclusions he is pushing are faulty if he bases it
on incorrect information. I don't expect to convince the big fat liar
either. You disagree apparently but offer no actual reason.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Read a review?
Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
propaganda you choose.
You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
viewpoint.
And the film is Moore's viewpoint. But I guess since his viewpoint is
distributed over a broader audience than most people, it qualifies as
propaganda?
No. He fires of multiple misleading points. That is what makes it
propaganda. At least..everything that has been said about the content tells
me it is propaganda. Frankly no one is disputing the comments regarding the
content...so all of you liberals that are saying ya but go see it are as
guilty as Mr. Moore of intentionally spreading propaganda. It is quite
telling to me anyways how so many of you folks in this here corner of USENET
are willing to ok propaganda without really refuting the very misleading
nature of said propaganda simply because...you agree with that propaganda.


It can't just be a matter of manipulation, because lots
Post by unknown
of people discussing it around here gladly twist facts to suit their
purposes.
So? Lot's of people in here are fans of various teams etc. That has
nothing to do with what I am talking about though.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion.
Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
"The likes of you..." Yup, you sure seem interested in honest discourse
yourself.
You're in the dark because you're discussing a film you've not seen.
I am not in the dark on the points I am discussing....so the film is
irrelevant. You folks really have no rational argument.
Post by unknown
If I read the Cliff Notes to a book, and I go to a book discussion,
I would definitely say I was in the dark even though I might know the
bare bones idea of the thing, and maybe even know enough to bluff my
way through it like I knew what I was talking about.
While that may be true, it has zero to do with anything I am talking about.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
getting tremendous word of mouth.
Blah blah blah...
Yes, when presented with something you don't like, just cover your
eyes and ears and pretend it didn't happen. Hey, I was as surprised
as anyone at the Monday night crowd.
No, when presented with something that hasn't got anything to do with the
point being made...that is stated as if it is relevant.....I address it
appropriately. It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement...my
like or dislike. Big freaking deal..there was a big Monday night crowd.
So? There are a lot of left wing Bush haters in the vicinity of the theatre
you went to. Color me stunned.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting out
an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
Only one of the more popular Anne Rice movies. Whether you hate the
movie or not, you can't deny that it drew pretty darn well considering
its, "limited audience." Besides, we're not exactly talking about
the audience for an inscrutable arthouse flick; $24 mil is pretty decent
by any standard.
The cash flow of the film is impressive sorta...it was pretty much expected.
Put Spiderman 2 on 1000 screens this weekend and it would sell out 99% of
the showings. That gross by F911 is all nice and good, it is certainly a
commercial success all things considered. I don't really see what that has
to do with what I am commenting on regarding points Mr. Moore is trying to
make.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with that.
You mean like when all politicians lie?
No, I mean exactly what I said.


Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
Post by unknown
it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush.
I don't recall mentioning whether or not it would swing anyone. Frankly I
doubt a movie by a known propagandist will have any real effect on the
voting public. The folks that are jumping up and down in praise of the film
almost all seem to have the same viewpoint going in as they do coming out.
And you can all cite some mysterious "staunch Republican" whose mind was
changed etc...I will simply call BS on that.

Topical
Post by unknown
fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
still does).
More comments on stuff that has nothing to do with what you are replying to.
Congrats.

v/r Beau
unknown
2004-07-01 03:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
And the film is Moore's viewpoint. But I guess since his viewpoint is
distributed over a broader audience than most people, it qualifies as
propaganda?
No. He fires of multiple misleading points. That is what makes it
propaganda. At least..everything that has been said about the content tells
me it is propaganda.
Frankly no one is disputing the comments regarding the
content...so all of you liberals that are saying ya but go see it are as
guilty as Mr. Moore of intentionally spreading propaganda.
All what liberals? I'm certainly not one. On many issues, I'm
conservative ... which is not to say Republican, since that party has
long since abandoned true conservatism.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
It is quite
telling to me anyways how so many of you folks in this here corner of USENET
are willing to ok propaganda without really refuting the very misleading
nature of said propaganda simply because...you agree with that propaganda.
That brush big enough for you?
Post by Charles Beauchamp
It can't just be a matter of manipulation, because lots
Post by unknown
of people discussing it around here gladly twist facts to suit their
purposes.
So? Lot's of people in here are fans of various teams etc. That has
nothing to do with what I am talking about though.
I don't know what, "in here," means to you, but in asbnll political
discussion has become par for the course.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
If I read the Cliff Notes to a book, and I go to a book discussion,
I would definitely say I was in the dark even though I might know the
bare bones idea of the thing, and maybe even know enough to bluff my
way through it like I knew what I was talking about.
While that may be true, it has zero to do with anything I am talking about.
Not with what you're talking about, specifically, but you're not the
center of this thread, and things go off on tangents sometimes.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Yes, when presented with something you don't like, just cover your
eyes and ears and pretend it didn't happen. Hey, I was as surprised
as anyone at the Monday night crowd.
No, when presented with something that hasn't got anything to do with the
point being made... that is stated as if it is relevant.....I address it
appropriately.
You've talked about how this film has such a limited audience. That
has nothing to do with the validity of the film, oh but when you want
to talk about something else it's not irrelevant. But then when
I mention attendance at the theater, it is irrelevant. Hypocrite.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement...my
like or dislike. Big freaking deal..there was a big Monday night crowd.
So? There are a lot of left wing Bush haters in the vicinity of the theatre
you went to. Color me stunned.
Why is that? I live in a pretty conservative neighborhood, actually.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The cash flow of the film is impressive sorta...it was pretty much expected.
Put Spiderman 2 on 1000 screens this weekend and it would sell out 99% of
the showings. That gross by F911 is all nice and good, it is certainly a
commercial success all things considered. I don't really see what that has
to do with what I am commenting on regarding points Mr. Moore is trying to
make.
It has to do with discussion of impact. Which you've happily participated
in, but somehow when you don't like the facts you label it irrelevant.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with
that.
Post by unknown
You mean like when all politicians lie?
No, I mean exactly what I said.
Doesn't matter where the lies come from. Sorry to tell you this, but
most of what comes from both sides is lies, especially when they think
it'll get votes (and it does).
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush.
I don't recall mentioning whether or not it would swing anyone. Frankly I
doubt a movie by a known propagandist will have any real effect on the
voting public.
That might be the case if the voting public were smart. But that's
not the case.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The folks that are jumping up and down in praise of the film
almost all seem to have the same viewpoint going in as they do coming out.
And you can all cite some mysterious "staunch Republican" whose mind was
changed etc...I will simply call BS on that.
Again, it's the middle group that counts. And they have no reason
not to see the film.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Topical
Post by unknown
fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
still does).
More comments on stuff that has nothing to do with what you are replying to.
Congrats.
Actually, it has everything to do with how this film will be accepted.
Shakespeare's Richard III was nothing more than propaganda ... yet
if you ask most people what they know of the actual king, it's
Shakespeare's portrayal that has persisted. Same with William Randolph
Hearst and Citizen Kane. I don't see why this film will be any
different, and I hate to break this to you, but the truthfulness (or
lack thereof) will have little bearing on how well it convinces people
that what is presented is true.


Max
--
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 05:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
And the film is Moore's viewpoint. But I guess since his viewpoint is
distributed over a broader audience than most people, it qualifies as
propaganda?
No. He fires of multiple misleading points. That is what makes it
propaganda. At least..everything that has been said about the content tells
me it is propaganda.
Frankly no one is disputing the comments regarding the
content...so all of you liberals that are saying ya but go see it are as
guilty as Mr. Moore of intentionally spreading propaganda.
All what liberals? I'm certainly not one. On many issues, I'm
conservative ... which is not to say Republican, since that party has
long since abandoned true conservatism.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
It is quite
telling to me anyways how so many of you folks in this here corner of USENET
are willing to ok propaganda without really refuting the very misleading
nature of said propaganda simply because...you agree with that propaganda.
That brush big enough for you?
Interesting...there was no broad brush comment..."so many of you folks" is
not a broad brush at all..it is the opposite of a broad brush statement. It
is a very specific subset of the entire community commented on.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
It can't just be a matter of manipulation, because lots
Post by unknown
of people discussing it around here gladly twist facts to suit their
purposes.
So? Lot's of people in here are fans of various teams etc. That has
nothing to do with what I am talking about though.
I don't know what, "in here," means to you, but in asbnll political
discussion has become par for the course.
in here...meaning...the 3 newsgroups that are listed up there in the
header....see em? Up there..top of the screen?
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
If I read the Cliff Notes to a book, and I go to a book discussion,
I would definitely say I was in the dark even though I might know the
bare bones idea of the thing, and maybe even know enough to bluff my
way through it like I knew what I was talking about.
While that may be true, it has zero to do with anything I am talking about.
Not with what you're talking about, specifically, but you're not the
center of this thread, and things go off on tangents sometimes.
Yes and the world turns, but since you are replying to what I am saying it
would maybe be good to stay on subject at least a little.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Yes, when presented with something you don't like, just cover your
eyes and ears and pretend it didn't happen. Hey, I was as surprised
as anyone at the Monday night crowd.
No, when presented with something that hasn't got anything to do with the
point being made... that is stated as if it is relevant.....I address it
appropriately.
You've talked about how this film has such a limited audience. That
has nothing to do with the validity of the film, oh but when you want
to talk about something else it's not irrelevant. But then when
I mention attendance at the theater, it is irrelevant. Hypocrite.
I am not a hypocrite. It is entirely consistent for me to say the film has
a limited audience...and that your commenting on how at a particular theatre
the crowd overflowed is irrelevant. In fact they are inclusive statements.
The audience attracted to this film will overwhelmingly be fans of the
material being presented. They are a small group. How is a comment about
how there were a lot of people at a particular theater address my comments
about the points being made by the film maker? In a couple nights you will
likely see an overflow crowd at theaters around the nation for Spiderman 2.
Big deal.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement...my
like or dislike. Big freaking deal..there was a big Monday night crowd.
So? There are a lot of left wing Bush haters in the vicinity of the theatre
you went to. Color me stunned.
Why is that? I live in a pretty conservative neighborhood, actually.
So? Again....how many people does it take to fill up a theater?
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The cash flow of the film is impressive sorta...it was pretty much expected.
Put Spiderman 2 on 1000 screens this weekend and it would sell out 99% of
the showings. That gross by F911 is all nice and good, it is certainly a
commercial success all things considered. I don't really see what that has
to do with what I am commenting on regarding points Mr. Moore is trying to
make.
It has to do with discussion of impact. Which you've happily participated
in, but somehow when you don't like the facts you label it irrelevant.
Impact? The impact will be non-existent. The only people tending to agree
with Mr. Moore's points..agreed when they went into the theater. You have
said not a single thing that indicates anything about impact. Your only
offering was that there were a lot of people at the theater. A few weeks
ago I wasted a couple hours and $5.00 to go see New York get hit by a Tidal
Wave in the Day After Tomorrow...it was overtly preachy...overtly political
in it's Global Warming stuff...a month later...I know of no person who came
to a belief in the goofy science mentioned in the film. I know a lot of
folks that remember the cool 40 minute long action sequence that takes up
about the first half of the movie.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with
that.
Post by unknown
You mean like when all politicians lie?
No, I mean exactly what I said.
Doesn't matter where the lies come from. Sorry to tell you this, but
most of what comes from both sides is lies, especially when they think
it'll get votes (and it does).
I really don't care about that as regards what I am talking about here. I
am refuting points that the film maker apparently has tried to make.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by unknown
Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush.
I don't recall mentioning whether or not it would swing anyone. Frankly I
doubt a movie by a known propagandist will have any real effect on the
voting public.
That might be the case if the voting public were smart. But that's
not the case.
Case in point...folks that believe the left wing propaganda that Mr. Moore
spews constantly.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The folks that are jumping up and down in praise of the film
almost all seem to have the same viewpoint going in as they do coming out.
And you can all cite some mysterious "staunch Republican" whose mind was
changed etc...I will simply call BS on that.
Again, it's the middle group that counts. And they have no reason
not to see the film.
You are correct. The middle 15% or so are going to decide the election.
Um...they need to know the truth. The President was not on vacation 42% of
his first 8 months in office. Halliburton/KBR in fact has NOT gotten a "no
bid" contract in Iraq to provide logistical support to troops. There have
been a total of NO persons of interest listed among the 142 folks that flew
out of the country in those mysterious flights that were not very mysterious
in the days following 9/11.
Post by unknown
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Topical
Post by unknown
fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
still does).
More comments on stuff that has nothing to do with what you are replying to.
Congrats.
Actually, it has everything to do with how this film will be accepted.
Shakespeare's Richard III was nothing more than propaganda ... yet
if you ask most people what they know of the actual king, it's
Shakespeare's portrayal that has persisted. Same with William Randolph
Hearst and Citizen Kane. I don't see why this film will be any
different, and I hate to break this to you, but the truthfulness (or
lack thereof) will have little bearing on how well it convinces people
that what is presented is true.
I have no doubt about the power of propaganda. Which is why I and others
are speaking up about the nonsensical points Mr. Moore apparently has tried
to dupe the public into thinking. Fortunately not many people in the end
will actually go to watch this movie.

v/r Beau
Chainsaw
2004-06-30 18:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So? I
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not a
blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd. Ya...the
Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm.
Tell me another.
OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
international support, and will result in the rest of the
world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
warnings about possible terrorist attacks.

Want more?
Vic Romano
2004-06-30 19:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
international support, and will result in the rest of the
world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
No one in the BUsh administration condoned the use of torture at Abu
Ghraib or Gitmo, nor did anyone in the administration do anything to
foster an atmosphere in which such torture could occur.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Ralph Kennedy
2004-07-01 00:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
No one in the BUsh administration condoned the use of torture at Abu
Ghraib or Gitmo, nor did anyone in the administration do anything to
foster an atmosphere in which such torture could occur.
1T WA5 JUS A F3W BAD APPL35!!@!!@!!!!!!!

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Bryan S. Slick
2004-07-01 00:34:52 UTC
Permalink
[Ralph Kennedy (***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu)]
[Thu, 1 Jul 2004 00:23:27 GMT]

:Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> writes:
:>
:> No one in the BUsh administration condoned the use of torture at Abu
:> Ghraib or Gitmo, nor did anyone in the administration do anything to
:> foster an atmosphere in which such torture could occur.
:
: 1T WA5 JUS A F3W BAD APPL35!!@!!@!!!!!!!

Do you have a point to make here, Ralph?
--
Bryan S. Slick, usenet at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Ralph Kennedy
2004-07-01 01:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:>
:> No one in the BUsh administration condoned the use of torture at Abu
:> Ghraib or Gitmo, nor did anyone in the administration do anything to
:> foster an atmosphere in which such torture could occur.
Do you have a point to make here, Ralph?
Seems pretty obvious I do, Bryan. I think the
administration *did* foster an atmosphere in which
what happened at Abu could occur, and I do not think
it is a matter of just a few bad apples from the
enlisted ranks. I believe the "bad apples" were
doing their job in good faith as best as they had
been led to believe their job was, or at the very
least, that what they did was not considered
unacceptable behavior on their part.

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Bryan S. Slick
2004-07-01 01:25:32 UTC
Permalink
[Ralph Kennedy (***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu)]
[Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:06:28 GMT]

:Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> writes:
:> [Ralph Kennedy (***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu)]
:>
:> :Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> writes:
:> :>
:> :> No one in the BUsh administration condoned the use of torture at Abu
:> :> Ghraib or Gitmo, nor did anyone in the administration do anything to
:> :> foster an atmosphere in which such torture could occur.
:> :
:> : 1T WA5 JUS A F3W BAD APPL35!!@!!@!!!!!!!
:>
:> Do you have a point to make here, Ralph?
:
: Seems pretty obvious I do, Bryan. I think the
:administration *did* foster an atmosphere in which
:what happened at Abu could occur,

That's what I thought you were trying to say.

Fuck you.
--
Bryan S. Slick, usenet at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Ralph Kennedy
2004-07-01 01:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:06:28 GMT]
:>
:> :>
:> :> No one in the BUsh administration condoned the use of torture at Abu
:> :> Ghraib or Gitmo, nor did anyone in the administration do anything to
:> :> foster an atmosphere in which such torture could occur.
:>
:> Do you have a point to make here, Ralph?
: Seems pretty obvious I do, Bryan. I think the
:administration *did* foster an atmosphere in which
:what happened at Abu could occur,
That's what I thought you were trying to say.
Fuck you.
Oh there's a clever argument, Bryan.

By the way, I'm curious as to how my low
opinion of the atmosphere fostered by Rumsfeld
and his cronies and my defense of certain
members of the enlisted ranks constitutes an
insult to you. Other than the fact that you
seem to think anybody not in a uniform expressing
any opinion whatsoever about anything remotely
having to do with the military is offensive, that
is.

If you have some reasoning to explain
why my line of thinking on Abu is all fucked
up, by all means, step up to the plate. Go
ahead and set me straight. I mean, besides
just saying, "Fuck you," that is.

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Bryan S. Slick
2004-07-01 04:02:46 UTC
Permalink
[Ralph Kennedy (***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu)]
[Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:40:20 GMT]

: If you have some reasoning to explain
:why my line of thinking on Abu is all fucked
:up, by all means, step up to the plate. Go
:ahead and set me straight. I mean, besides
:just saying, "Fuck you," that is.

What do I do for a living, Ralph?

Can you envision a world where the idea that me and mine are taught or
even encouraged in the slightest fashion to mistreat prisoners,
particularly considering the fact that the world has a microscope on the
United States military right now? I know of one case where an Iraqi
prisoner was mistreated. A soldier kicked one in the balls while his
hands were tied behind him. Know what happened to that soldier? He got
the ever-loving SHIT beaten out of him.. by other American soldiers.

I don't know, Ralph, maybe you think I missed the memo on mistreating
prisoners or something. Your assertion that violating the Geneva
Convention is somehow part of the "atmosphere" fostered by the Bush
Administration on down is insulting. I cannot speak for every American
soldier, but I do believe that if anyone's going to take a stab at it,
the one with a guess closer to the mark would be, not you. You insult a
way of life you do not and cannot understand. Many of us take honor and
integrity far more seriously than most people you know. You have no
right to say what you said, in a moral sense. Obviously, you have a
perfect right to say what you said from the standpoint of being an
American who is free to make as much of an ass of himself as he wants.
--
Bryan S. Slick, usenet at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2004-07-01 05:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
: If you have some reasoning to explain
:why my line of thinking on Abu is all fucked
:up, by all means, step up to the plate. Go
:ahead and set me straight. I mean, besides
:just saying, "Fuck you," that is.
What do I do for a living, Ralph?
Can you envision a world where the idea that me and mine are taught or
even encouraged in the slightest fashion to mistreat prisoners,
particularly considering the fact that the world has a microscope on the
United States military right now? I know of one case where an Iraqi
prisoner was mistreated. A soldier kicked one in the balls while his
hands were tied behind him. Know what happened to that soldier? He got
the ever-loving SHIT beaten out of him.. by other American soldiers.
Jesus, Bryan...one case? I know of dozens and I'm not even *in* the
military.
--
Trev

"There is no difference between education and food." - Jefferson N. Glapski
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2004-07-01 05:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
: [Ralph Kennedy (***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu)]
: [Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:40:20 GMT]
:
: : If you have some reasoning to explain
: :why my line of thinking on Abu is all fucked
: :up, by all means, step up to the plate. Go
: :ahead and set me straight. I mean, besides
: :just saying, "Fuck you," that is.
:
: What do I do for a living, Ralph?
:
: Can you envision a world where the idea that me and mine are taught or
: even encouraged in the slightest fashion to mistreat prisoners,
: particularly considering the fact that the world has a microscope on the
: United States military right now? I know of one case where an Iraqi
: prisoner was mistreated. A soldier kicked one in the balls while his
: hands were tied behind him. Know what happened to that soldier? He got
: the ever-loving SHIT beaten out of him.. by other American soldiers.
:
: I don't know, Ralph, maybe you think I missed the memo on mistreating
: prisoners or something. Your assertion that violating the Geneva
: Convention is somehow part of the "atmosphere" fostered by the Bush
: Administration on down is insulting. I cannot speak for every American
: soldier, but I do believe that if anyone's going to take a stab at it,
: the one with a guess closer to the mark would be, not you. You insult a
: way of life you do not and cannot understand. Many of us take honor and
: integrity far more seriously than most people you know. You have no
: right to say what you said, in a moral sense. Obviously, you have a
: perfect right to say what you said from the standpoint of being an
: American who is free to make as much of an ass of himself as he wants.

I read this as a validation of what he said, actually.

You have very thin skin sometimes, Sarge.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Bryan S. Slick
2004-07-01 05:51:40 UTC
Permalink
[Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
[Thu, 01 Jul 2004 05:36:34 GMT]

:Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
:: [Ralph Kennedy (***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu)]
:: [Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:40:20 GMT]
::
:: : If you have some reasoning to explain
:: :why my line of thinking on Abu is all fucked
:: :up, by all means, step up to the plate. Go
:: :ahead and set me straight. I mean, besides
:: :just saying, "Fuck you," that is.
::
:: What do I do for a living, Ralph?
::
:: Can you envision a world where the idea that me and mine are taught or
:: even encouraged in the slightest fashion to mistreat prisoners,
:: particularly considering the fact that the world has a microscope on the
:: United States military right now? I know of one case where an Iraqi
:: prisoner was mistreated. A soldier kicked one in the balls while his
:: hands were tied behind him. Know what happened to that soldier? He got
:: the ever-loving SHIT beaten out of him.. by other American soldiers.
::
:: I don't know, Ralph, maybe you think I missed the memo on mistreating
:: prisoners or something. Your assertion that violating the Geneva
:: Convention is somehow part of the "atmosphere" fostered by the Bush
:: Administration on down is insulting. I cannot speak for every American
:: soldier, but I do believe that if anyone's going to take a stab at it,
:: the one with a guess closer to the mark would be, not you. You insult a
:: way of life you do not and cannot understand. Many of us take honor and
:: integrity far more seriously than most people you know. You have no
:: right to say what you said, in a moral sense. Obviously, you have a
:: perfect right to say what you said from the standpoint of being an
:: American who is free to make as much of an ass of himself as he wants.
:
:I read this as a validation of what he said, actually.
:
:You have very thin skin sometimes, Sarge.

How would you take it if someone said that your higher-ups are basically
putting out that you're to violate the Geneva Convention, Chris?
--
Bryan S. Slick, usenet at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2004-07-01 05:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:> :> No one in the BUsh administration condoned the use of torture at Abu
:> :> Ghraib or Gitmo, nor did anyone in the administration do anything to
:> :> foster an atmosphere in which such torture could occur.
:>
:> Do you have a point to make here, Ralph?
: Seems pretty obvious I do, Bryan. I think the
:administration *did* foster an atmosphere in which
:what happened at Abu could occur,
That's what I thought you were trying to say.
Fuck you.
Watch F9/11 and tell me that you didn't find some of the soldiers'
comments disgusting beyond belief.
--
Trev

"There is no difference between education and food." - Jefferson N. Glapski
TOE
2004-07-01 01:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Kennedy
Seems pretty obvious I do, Bryan. I think the
administration *did* foster an atmosphere in which
what happened at Abu could occur, and I do not think
it is a matter of just a few bad apples from the
enlisted ranks. I believe the "bad apples" were
doing their job in good faith as best as they had
been led to believe their job was, or at the very
least, that what they did was not considered
unacceptable behavior on their part.
I love that: "foster an atmosphere." I guess that
is a lot easier than saying "there is absolutely no
proof linking the Iraqi prison abuse with anyone
in the Bush adminsitration. Every investigation by
politicos and newsmen has turned-up completely
empty. Damb....it was in the atmosphere like how
in the old days they thought malaria was the fault
of swamp gas..."

And you better find that memo stating that
when prisoners are abused: DONT FORGET
TO TAKE PICTURES!!!

-TOE
Post by Ralph Kennedy
--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2004-07-01 03:37:02 UTC
Permalink
TOE <***@komboinkcast.nyet> wrote:
:
: "Ralph Kennedy's been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou:
:
: > Seems pretty obvious I do, Bryan. I think the
: > administration *did* foster an atmosphere in which
: > what happened at Abu could occur, and I do not think
: > it is a matter of just a few bad apples from the
: > enlisted ranks. I believe the "bad apples" were
: > doing their job in good faith as best as they had
: > been led to believe their job was, or at the very
: > least, that what they did was not considered
: > unacceptable behavior on their part.
:
: I love that: "foster an atmosphere." I guess that
: is a lot easier than saying "there is absolutely no
: proof linking the Iraqi prison abuse with anyone
: in the Bush adminsitration.

It's not nice to lie.

On this, the Bushies already have been caught dead to rights.
Besides, the last I checked the president was the Commander-
In-Chief and therefore responsible for what happens under his
watch. Are you implying that the military is defiant of this
president and his SecDef?
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Bryan S. Slick
2004-07-01 04:03:28 UTC
Permalink
[Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
[Thu, 01 Jul 2004 03:37:02 GMT]

:On this, the Bushies already have been caught dead to rights.
:Besides, the last I checked the president was the Commander-
:In-Chief and therefore responsible for what happens under his
:watch. Are you implying that the military is defiant of this
:president and his SecDef?

So, Clinton should have been fired for Tailhook and the West Point
cheating scandal, eh?
--
Bryan S. Slick, usenet at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Czar Drooling Simpleton I
2004-07-01 05:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
: [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
: [Thu, 01 Jul 2004 03:37:02 GMT]
:
: :On this, the Bushies already have been caught dead to rights.
: :Besides, the last I checked the president was the Commander-
: :In-Chief and therefore responsible for what happens under his
: :watch. Are you implying that the military is defiant of this
: :president and his SecDef?
:
: So, Clinton should have been fired for Tailhook and the West Point
: cheating scandal, eh?

Tailhook happened under Bush 41.

But, yeah, the prez should be held accountable for scandals that
happen under his watch, especially if he doesn't take appropriate
action in response.

What we've seen from Bush has been particularly deplorable,
putting the blame squarely on enlisted men and women while
administration memos surface detailing the legal basis under
which they planned in advance to justify exactly the sort of
stuff that went on at Abu Ghraib.

Either Donald Rumsfeld ok'd those abusive practices, or else
he's insufficently effective as SecDef to keep the military
under control. I do not believe that our military defies
orders, and I have seen one of the aforementioned memos, so
I'm pretty certain that responsibility for this lies at least
as high as Rumsfeld.

I understand that naval tradition demands that the captain
of a ship resigns command should the ship run aground, whether
it's his fault or not. I don't expect to see the president's
resignation, but I do expect Rumsfeld to take responsibility;
and, if Rumsfeld refuses, the president should fire him. And,
if the president refuses, the voters should fire *him*. After
all, in the end, Abu Ghraib reflects poorly on all of us as a
nation. If we decline to hold our leaders accountable, then
by extension we ratify what they permitted to happen in our
name.
--
Czar Drooling Simpleton I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 19:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not a
blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
Ya...the
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm.
Tell me another.
OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
international support, and will result in the rest of the
world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
Want more?
Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.

v/r Beau
Chainsaw
2004-06-30 19:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
affected
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and
keep
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
Ya...the
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm
hmmm.
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Tell me another.
OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
international support, and will result in the rest of the
world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
Want more?
Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
LOL. Of course, given that your position is utterly
untenable and devoid of any facts, your response is not
at all surprising. My "colors" are about actually reading
articles from different perspectives and trying to synthesize
the truth via actually *thinking*. Yours are about mindless
name-calling and inane attempts to co-opt the word "patriotism".
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 02:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
affected
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and
keep
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
Ya...the
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm
hmmm.
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Tell me another.
OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
international support, and will result in the rest of the
world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
Want more?
Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
LOL. Of course, given that your position is utterly
untenable and devoid of any facts, your response is not
at all surprising. My "colors" are about actually reading
articles from different perspectives and trying to synthesize
the truth via actually *thinking*. Yours are about mindless
name-calling and inane attempts to co-opt the word "patriotism".
Ya...that sounds like me. You sure you replied to the right message?

v/r Beau
Chainsaw
2004-07-01 06:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
affected
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
for
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
strongly
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there
are
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
see
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and
keep
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
Ya...the
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm
hmmm.
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Tell me another.
OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
international support, and will result in the rest of the
world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
Want more?
Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
LOL. Of course, given that your position is utterly
untenable and devoid of any facts, your response is not
at all surprising. My "colors" are about actually reading
articles from different perspectives and trying to synthesize
the truth via actually *thinking*. Yours are about mindless
name-calling and inane attempts to co-opt the word "patriotism".
Ya...that sounds like me. You sure you replied to the right message?
Yep. The guy who's unable to discuss the issues and prefers
to hide behind some vague undefined notion of Americanism.

Vic Romano
2004-06-30 20:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could
probably have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that
the saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply
affected
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a
man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in
Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You
better hope that there are
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
So?
I
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am
not
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on
and
keep
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
Ya...the
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in
office..mmm
hmmm.
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Tell me another.
OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
international support, and will result in the rest of the
world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
Want more?
Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
The fact that you failed to refute a single point he made is duly noted
by thinking people.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 02:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could
probably have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that
the saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
deeply
affected
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a
man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in
Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You
better hope that there are
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
Post by Vic Romano
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
So?
I
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am
not
a
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on
and
keep
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
Ya...the
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in
office..mmm
hmmm.
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Tell me another.
OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
international support, and will result in the rest of the
world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
Want more?
Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
The fact that you failed to refute a single point he made is duly noted
by thinking people.
The fact that the only people who will consider the perspective you are
taking are left wing extremists and Bush haters is noted. His "points" have
all been refuted...probably over 1,000 times each...by me..in USENET. There
is nothing to his nonsense.

v/r Beau
Ralph Kennedy
2004-06-30 23:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a blind idealogue.
Then what's that <tap> <tap> <tap> sound we keep
hearing whenever you're entering the chatroom? And how
come we always have to pick up a bunch of dogshit after
you leave?

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 02:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Kennedy
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am not a blind idealogue.
Then what's that <tap> <tap> <tap> sound we keep
hearing whenever you're entering the chatroom? And how
come we always have to pick up a bunch of dogshit after
you leave?
Well Ralph it isn't my fault that you spend all your time following me
around and crapping yourself constantly.

v/r Beau
Charlie Board
2004-07-01 01:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
You can delete words 3-7 from this sentence with no loss
of accuracy.
Chainsaw
2004-06-30 18:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see it
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
Your story is amazing and heartening. I've been pretty convinced
that the film will only galvanize those who are already
democrats or who don't like Bush. Hopefully there are a few more
repub's who are open-minded enough to see the film and then
objectively assess what they've seen.
Peter L
2004-06-28 23:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does $50m
the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
"family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
Republicans don't mind violence, they just can't stand sex.
Post by Vic Romano
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Vic Romano
2004-06-29 14:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter L
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the
other right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
blind quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does
$50m the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
"family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
Republicans don't mind violence, they just can't stand sex.
Right, thanks.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Dennis
2004-06-29 14:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.


----

"the glass is not only half full,
the first half has been delicious!!!"

to reply: scrape off the end bits...
I am Jack's utter apathy
2004-06-30 00:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red herring.
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them all
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens will
be a rather large mistake.
--
TO
"Ah, now there's a machiavellian countenance... ooh, a sextet of ale!"-
Homer Simpson
Randolph M. Jones
2004-06-30 12:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red herring.
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them all
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens will
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 13:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red herring.
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them all
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens will
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted your
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to destroy
America in the name of France.

v/r Beau
Vic Romano
2004-06-30 13:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint
them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
blind quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda
show either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000
screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways
to destroy America in the name of France.
Excellent satire.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 14:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vic Romano
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint
them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
blind quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda
show either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000
screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways
to destroy America in the name of France.
Excellent satire.
I liked it quite well.

v/r Beau
Randolph M. Jones
2004-06-30 13:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted your
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to destroy
America in the name of France.
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
check.
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 14:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted your
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to destroy
America in the name of France.
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
check.
How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?

v/r Beau
Randolph M. Jones
2004-06-30 14:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
destroy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
America in the name of France.
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
check.
How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?
I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 14:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
destroy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
America in the name of France.
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
check.
How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?
I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
You should cross over to the dark side and become a Conservaf*ck
Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's more betterer then Methadone
commie.

v/r Beau
Randolph M. Jones
2004-06-30 14:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
this
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
destroy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
America in the name of France.
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
check.
How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?
I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
You should cross over to the dark side and become a Conservaf*ck
Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's more betterer then Methadone
commie.
Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I aborted my gay
lover's babies?
Clockwork Orange
2004-06-30 14:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get
my welfare check.
How will you have any left after you go buy your crack
cocaine?
I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
You should cross over to the dark side and become a
Conservaf*ck Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's
more betterer then Methadone commie.
Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I aborted
my gay lover's babies?
The way you're just rearing up on your hind legs like that! That's
terrific! So what if you suck a little cock every once in a while!
That's TERRIFIC!

($1 to Rhonda)
--
Cheers,
--Jeff

Just remember: You can't spell "cunt" without "CU."
--Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 19:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clockwork Orange
Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get
my welfare check.
How will you have any left after you go buy your crack
cocaine?
I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
You should cross over to the dark side and become a
Conservaf*ck Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's
more betterer then Methadone commie.
Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I aborted
my gay lover's babies?
The way you're just rearing up on your hind legs like that! That's
terrific! So what if you suck a little cock every once in a while!
That's TERRIFIC!
($1 to Rhonda)
Excuse me, but this Rhonda...is she hawt?

v/r Beau
Clockwork Orange
2004-06-30 20:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Clockwork Orange
Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I
get my welfare check.
How will you have any left after you go buy your crack
cocaine?
I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
You should cross over to the dark side and become a
Conservaf*ck Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's
more betterer then Methadone commie.
Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I
aborted my gay lover's babies?
The way you're just rearing up on your hind legs like that!
That's terrific! So what if you suck a little cock every once
in a while! That's TERRIFIC!
($1 to Rhonda)
Excuse me, but this Rhonda...is she hawt?
She used to be, but lately she's taken to tying her hair up in a
severe bun and sticking her fountain pen up her ass, so you
figure it out.
--
Cheers,
--Jeff

"Now, just hold on there, buddy! Let's be serious!
The toilet training of exalted religious
personalities is not our primary topic of discussion!"
--Harry in "ThingFish"
Chainsaw
2004-06-30 20:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clockwork Orange
Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Clockwork Orange
Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I
get my welfare check.
How will you have any left after you go buy your crack
cocaine?
I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
You should cross over to the dark side and become a
Conservaf*ck Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's
more betterer then Methadone commie.
Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I
aborted my gay lover's babies?
The way you're just rearing up on your hind legs like that!
That's terrific! So what if you suck a little cock every once
in a while! That's TERRIFIC!
($1 to Rhonda)
Excuse me, but this Rhonda...is she hawt?
She used to be, but lately she's taken to tying her hair up in a
severe bun and sticking her fountain pen up her ass, so you
figure it out.
JPEG! MPEG! :-)
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 19:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
this
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
destroy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
America in the name of France.
Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
check.
How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?
I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
You should cross over to the dark side and become a Conservaf*ck
Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's more betterer then Methadone
commie.
Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I aborted my gay
lover's babies?
As long as you say you love the Bush you can be gubernator of a large west
coast state

v/r Beau
Chainsaw
2004-06-30 18:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted your
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to destroy
America in the name of France.
And most of you Bush supporters are Neanderthal nuckle-dragging
fascist jarhead morons who have the critical thinking skills of
a stapling machine.
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-30 19:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chainsaw
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted your
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to destroy
America in the name of France.
And most of you Bush supporters are Neanderthal nuckle-dragging
fascist jarhead morons who have the critical thinking skills of
a stapling machine.
Most of you Bush haters are whiny wannabe intellectuals with the wisdom of a
cotton swab waiting for any chance to sell the country out in the name of
your simplistic fascism.

v/r Beau
Chainsaw
2004-06-30 19:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Chainsaw
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your
Post by Chainsaw
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
destroy
Post by Chainsaw
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
America in the name of France.
And most of you Bush supporters are Neanderthal nuckle-dragging
fascist jarhead morons who have the critical thinking skills of
a stapling machine.
Most of you Bush haters are whiny wannabe intellectuals with the wisdom of a
cotton swab waiting for any chance to sell the country out in the name of
your simplistic fascism.
This criticism couldn't possibly be valid since you can't define
half the words you're using.
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 02:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chainsaw
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Chainsaw
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
be a rather large mistake.
What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?
Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your
Post by Chainsaw
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
destroy
Post by Chainsaw
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
America in the name of France.
And most of you Bush supporters are Neanderthal nuckle-dragging
fascist jarhead morons who have the critical thinking skills of
a stapling machine.
Most of you Bush haters are whiny wannabe intellectuals with the wisdom of a
cotton swab waiting for any chance to sell the country out in the name of
your simplistic fascism.
This criticism couldn't possibly be valid since you can't define
half the words you're using.
Hey sockpuppet...you stay outa our game til you learn the damn roolz.

v/r Beau
Vic Romano
2004-06-30 13:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring. I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and
several bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will be a rather large mistake.
They are still lining up around the block at my local theater. I think
you are wrong and in for a surprise. Good day Mr. Kaplan.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
John Rogers
2004-06-30 22:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Hey Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com>! I'm not 'Knifey-Boy'. I'm
not 'Stab-Man'. I'm The Blue Raja.
Post by Vic Romano
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring. I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and
several bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will be a rather large mistake.
They are still lining up around the block at my local theater. I think
you are wrong and in for a surprise. Good day Mr. Kaplan.
Dood, stop defaming the name. Vic and Kenny are Republicans without a
doubt.


John Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta

"I will choose a path thats clear.
I will choose free will."
Dennis
2004-06-30 15:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by I am Jack's utter apathy
Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red herring.
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them all
Post by Dennis
Post by Vic Romano
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
that is Spiderman 2.
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.
Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens will
be a rather large mistake.
I don't know, the majority of these other theaters are bound to be in
Rural America, where most of the red counties were in 2000... might be
interesting...


----

"the glass is not only half full,
the first half has been delicious!!!"

to reply: scrape off the end bits...
Peter L
2004-06-28 23:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
I am not bragging and I don't know what a quadroplegic is. But without the
constant right wing whining, do you really think a documentary showing in
limited release will ever beat out a main stream major release?

Hoop Dreams, one of the best documentaries I've seen, don't get much
audience until word or mouth gets going.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that is
Spiderman 2.
v/r Beau
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
David Bossie
President, Citizens United
Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President
Bush?
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy
group,
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The
group
Post by s_knight8
alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to
the
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.
"Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election,"
Bossie
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
said.
Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives a
thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.
A transcript follows.
________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised or
seen?
David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First
off,
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation of
his
Post by s_knight8
so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets the
facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track
record
Post by s_knight8
of credibility.
We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission
claiming
Post by s_knight8
that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering
communications"
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
as
Post by s_knight8
defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.
These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a federal
candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.
All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits
my
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
free speech as well as Michael Moore's.
Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July
31st.
Post by s_knight8
2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal, and
3.
Post by s_knight8
He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.
People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that President
Bush
Post by s_knight8
has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the voters
over his record?
David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's
leader
Post by s_knight8
in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.
This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd will
rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it
as
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a
journalist.
Post by s_knight8
Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from office.
_______________________
Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning
that
Post by Charles Beauchamp
he
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never
voted
Post by s_knight8
is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?
David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting,
it's
Post by Peter L
an
Post by s_knight8
essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.
However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a good
story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.
Galactus
2004-06-29 03:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter L
I am not bragging and I don't know what a quadroplegic is. But without the
constant right wing whining, do you really think a documentary showing in
limited release will ever beat out a main stream major release?
If you liked 'Hoop Dreams,' check out "Go Tigers."
--
remove 'XXX" to reply.
Charlie Board
2004-06-29 03:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that is
Spiderman 2.
Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
v/r Beau
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
David Bossie
President, Citizens United
Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President
Bush?
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy
group,
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The
group
Post by s_knight8
alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to
the
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.
"Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election,"
Bossie
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
said.
Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives a
thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.
A transcript follows.
________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised or
seen?
David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First
off,
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation of
his
Post by s_knight8
so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets the
facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track
record
Post by s_knight8
of credibility.
We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission
claiming
Post by s_knight8
that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering communications"
as
Post by s_knight8
defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.
These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a federal
candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.
All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits
my
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
free speech as well as Michael Moore's.
Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July
31st.
Post by s_knight8
2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal, and
3.
Post by s_knight8
He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.
People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that President
Bush
Post by s_knight8
has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the voters
over his record?
David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's
leader
Post by s_knight8
in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.
This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd will
rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it
as
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a
journalist.
Post by s_knight8
Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from office.
_______________________
Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning that
he
Post by Peter L
Post by s_knight8
has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never
voted
Post by s_knight8
is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?
David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting,
it's
Post by Peter L
an
Post by s_knight8
essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.
However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a good
story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-29 05:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Board
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that is
Spiderman 2.
Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen average
would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the real
target audience is less then 50% of the population.

v/r Beau
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2004-06-29 06:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Charlie Board
Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen average
would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the real
target audience is less then 50% of the population.
I think I heard a little while ago on the radio that 2,000-odd
additional prints of the film had been ordered.
--
Trev

"There is no difference between education and food." - Jefferson N. Glapski
Charles Beauchamp
2004-06-29 07:14:38 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.football.college Charles Beauchamp
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Charlie Board
Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen average
would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the real
target audience is less then 50% of the population.
I think I heard a little while ago on the radio that 2,000-odd
additional prints of the film had been ordered.
Good for them. A Superhero is coming to the rescue this week though...

v/r Beau
Charlie Board
2004-07-01 01:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Charlie Board
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that
is
Post by Charlie Board
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Spiderman 2.
Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen average
would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the real
target audience is less then 50% of the population.
I think the real target audience will come into play when the DVD
hits the rental stores 2 weeks before the election....
Charles Beauchamp
2004-07-01 02:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Board
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Charlie Board
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Peter L
Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
wing
Post by Peter L
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
even
Post by Peter L
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.
Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that
is
Post by Charlie Board
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Spiderman 2.
Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen average
would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the real
target audience is less then 50% of the population.
I think the real target audience will come into play when the DVD
hits the rental stores 2 weeks before the election....
Probably correct. Except that by that time probably 99% of the people who
eventually do actually vote...will have already made up their minds.

v/r Beau
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...