# As expected, Fahrenheit 9/11.........



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...=/ap/box_office

I think we should be past "right" and "left" on this film. I am a conservative, myself, middle of the road, vote the issues, not the hairstyles, and with one notable exception I also agree that Moore's film should be seen by everyone.

I think the real split isn't left-right, but war-profiteers versus everyone else. After all, the people pushing for war have millions of dollars to spend for professional public relations firms while those of us who oppose the war do so pro bono.

The issue isn't ideology, the issue is money.


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

Yeah I will DOWLOAD it, but I wouldn't go see it in theatres. Why Because I don't want my 8 bucks buying more cheeseburger for ol' tubby moore


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

garybusey said:


> Why Because I don't want my 8 bucks buying more cheeseburger for ol' tubby moore


 DAMN STRAIGHT LOL


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

umm...ok...ya conservative. But anyways, i wont say anything mean here. Go watch white chicks! and Michael moore hates america(Coming this summer).


----------



## Atlanta Braves Baby! (Mar 12, 2003)

Im going tomorrow to see this movie. I hope it will be good


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

I saw F/911 yesterday, it was okay. It was entertaining and had a few really good points and eye openers, although there was some stuff that was BS. IMO Moore tends to drag on with a certain topic too long sometimes in his films, there were points where I was thinking "come on move on to something else". Other than those one or two incidents though I enjoyed it, I don't know if it's worth paying to see in the theatre though, I got in for free so it didn't matter to me. Overall I thought Bowling for Columbine was a lot better.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Moores ego must be bigger than his ass, if thats possible.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

I watched bowling for columbine from a friend. It was ok except how moore made such a big deal about the girl that was shot to heston. He made it seem it was his fault for her death and tried to dramatize everything for the sake of his movie by putting the pic in his yard. And the deal w/ the kmart...wats w/ that? They made it seem kmart was responsible for the deaths, not the parents, killers, gunmakers, anybody else.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...=/ap/box_office
> 
> I think we should be past "right" and "left" on this film. I am a conservative, myself, middle of the road, vote the issues, not the hairstyles, and with one notable exception I also agree that Moore's film should be seen by everyone.
> 
> ...


 You, conservative? Thats news to everyone here who has read any of your previous posts... As far as getting past 'left' and 'right' issues... Impossible in terms of this movie... Even liberals are critisizing the movie as ridiculous propaganda. The movie is nowhere near a center of the road 'documentary' but something more liberal than O'Reilly is conservative. Moore has contradicted himself in so many interviews that his reliability is beyond suspect.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Moe a conservative?







lol


----------



## LaZy (Jun 17, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> garybusey said:
> 
> 
> > Why Because I don't want my 8 bucks buying more cheeseburger for ol' tubby moore
> ...


----------



## DirtyJersey (Apr 28, 2004)

id download it, wouldn't pay for it.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

I feel caught on this one. I have to see the movie so I can be justified in criticizing it. On the other hand, I don't want Moore to have the satisfaction of my 8 bucks. This was the same dilemna I had with Mel Gibson's _Passion _. There was so much debate over anti-semetism and Gibson's catholicism that I had to see it to have an opinion.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

A conservative isn't one who a)absolutely agrees with everything BUSH/REPUBLICAN or b)war in Iraq is right or c)watches only FauxNews, and casts everything else as "liberal media."

What makes one a conservative are beliefs of issues and ideology such as religion, abortion, guns laws, capital punishment, etc, etc, etc.

Please decipher.

This is the defintive divisiveness that's destroying this nation. It's causing nothing more than an absolute blind obedience approach to the "right/left" mind state. Their can no longer be truth/honesty/accountability in our society if it continues, and unfortunately, it's continuing at a feverish pace.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> A conservative isn't one who a)absolutely agrees with everything BUSH/REPUBLICAN or b)war in Iraq is right or c)watches only FauxNews, and casts everything else as "liberal media."
> 
> What makes one a conservative are beliefs of issues and ideology such as religion, abortion, guns laws, capital punishment, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


 My dear lord... It's easy to spout pretty sounding bullshit, but its still just that... bullshit.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > A conservative isn't one who a)absolutely agrees with everything BUSH/REPUBLICAN or b)war in Iraq is right or c)watches only FauxNews, and casts everything else as "liberal media."
> ...


 Exactly what I mean.

One track mind at work.


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

im gonna go see it tonite... i heard it was an awesome movie...


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> Enriqo_Suavez said:
> 
> 
> > MoeMZA said:
> ...


 You ever heard some stoned out of his mind shithead sit and talk about politics? Its AMAZING. They will sit and give a very detailed account of why war is bad and peace is love and how their take on foreign policy is the solution to end world hunger... If you aren't careful, you might start to think that they are on to something... Then reality hits. People are imperfect, and we live in an imperfect world. Wishful thinking is for the naive who label those grounded in reality 'one track minders'.

Moe, your post was, and is, complete Bullshit. With a capital "B". You blame Bush and the republicans (Thinly veiled as blaming both parties) for a national 'division' that has existed since the formation of our country. Though not the 'best' way about national politics in an ideal world, a party system is the only real way to get things done. Each side champions a different fighter on each issue, and the party that champions the most things that the people want, wins. If we were to mix that up with, say, 10 candidates, the overall winner would be one who fits the ideal profile biggest fractured minority. The winner would most certainly NOT represent the overall will of the people anywhere NEAR as closely.

Contrary to your twisted statements, everyone does not preach either "Blindy follow only the extreme left" or "Blindy follow only the extreme right!" Quite the contrary... People follow their beliefs, and they happen to fall under one or the other of the two main parties in America. If one of the parties or candidates for a party shifts its 'mission statement' or intended actions, and peoples beliefs are better suited to the other party, they switch their alleigance. If I disagree with a majority of the things done by Democrats, who is to say that I am blindy following the Republicans by refusing to vote for the Democrats? If I AGREE with a majority of the things done by the Republicans, who is to say that I didn't come to those conclusions on my own?

As far as truth/honesty (Aren't they the same thing?) and accountability... You say that they 'can no longer' exist if party divisions continue...? COMPLETELY WRONG. As long as there are two distinct and opposing parties, there will always be people checking and balancing each other....

Next, you say that this division is 'continuing at a feverish pace'..... Feverish pace? Excuse me? This insinuates that there is a CHANGE happening in the nation and that this metamorphesis is bound to consume us completely in a small amount of time. Please, what change is this?

As far as your media references... Laughable. FauxNews? You beleive only Republicans divide the media outlets into FoxNews vs. The Rest? Its not partisanship which labels the media outlets... Its bias in the news coverage. You of all people are quick to point out the political leanings of media outlets, yet you ignore the KNOWN AND ACCEPTED FACT that FoxNews leans conservative, and the other major news organizations in American lean liberal.

Every one of your political posts is either a thinly veiled or highly visible stab at the Republican party of this country... You act under the pretense of neutrality, but we can see right through you.

I stick by my original words, and hardly beleive I have a one track mind. You can sprinkle all the sugar you want on it, but sh*t will remain sh*t.


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)




----------



## Chunker-2000 (Jan 17, 2004)

GOLD MEDAL for Enriqo_Suavez


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > Enriqo_Suavez said:
> ...


 Jibberish at a high extent.

Most of what you've said is chorus talk. You've presented nothing that argues with the original argument (that you started) that I'm not a conservative.

Your initial assumption is that I'm hardly a conservative becuase of past posts dissing Bush and his cronies. Does this make me a liberal? Of course not, plain and simple, yet you still make the assumption.

Simply put, you've said NOTHING that makes me a 'veiled' conservative.

Regarding the rest of your post, you do like you've always done, attempt to sabotage my point and make assumptions.

Using your quote, "Though not the 'best' way about national politics in an ideal world, a party system is the only real way to get things done."
This is a complete contradiction, if it's the ONLY REAL way, isn't the best? Fact is, it's not. The fact that it's a DIVISIVE FACTOR, that you also agree it is, proves that it doesn't work and leaves us the least united.

Basically, you've proved my point. It's a characteristic in our system that's a negative. "Divide and conquer." Why follow something that divides? Bush & Co. have divided this country like never before. He's considered one of the most far right politicians of all-time. His policies and extreme beliefs have only wedged the nation further.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is loaded with the "checks and balances" we've yet to see from our elected representatives (Dems and Reps) or from the "liberal" or "conservative" media. He criticizes the DEMS for lack of "checks and balance" as much as he does the Republicans. This is why I endorse the film, and this is why everyone should see it.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

If your conservative answer a few top questions

Are you for gay rights?
Are you pro life?
Do you believe in gun control?
Are you religious?

IMO, if you were a ultra conservative you would want to cut the head of liberalism, not kiss its ass.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Actually I don't see Bush as a far-right conservative at all. I actually see him as somewhat of an opportunistic moderate when it comes to domestic policy and a blind corporate sevant when it comes to foreign policy. Reagan was a much more authentic conservative than Bush, which earned him far greater respect from both parties. 
Bush has yet to shut the borders down and supports the outsourcing of jobs. This is all very non-conservative, as it erodes our national identity. No candidate has yet to challenge the powers of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and monopolies - each one of which erodes the free market premise upon which this country's economy was based. The inflated cost of real estate has further eroded purchasing power and with it the freedom to make a living independent of big government.
I do agree that many "conservatives" give unqualified support to Bush and have no concept of critical thinking. I am a conservative that is disenchanted with both parties, as neither represents the average American. 
Careful with Moore's film though. I have a sneaking suspicion that certain unfavorable groups may be endorsing it and lending him financial support.


----------



## Chunker-2000 (Jan 17, 2004)

I think I can only give you a Bronze medal for that one MoeMZA.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Your right Fargo, I would love to have a ultra right-wing prez in office, Bush is the closest thing right now.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

User said:


> If your conservative answer a few top questions
> 
> Are you for gay rights?
> Are you pro life?
> ...


Again, how the hell am I "kissing ass."

You, as well as ENRIGO, have yet to prove so. You just make assumptions. (ignorant way to argue)

Enrigo gives a history lesson and makes more assumptions (his way of looking smart) and address my only point, that the right/left mentality is divisive, by agreeing without realizing, lol.

To answer your questions:
I am PRO-GUN, PRO-LIFE, PRO-RELIGION. As for gay-rights, I feel this issue has a broad gray area, which makes it difficult.

Thanks for the refrain of assumptions.


----------



## Chunker-2000 (Jan 17, 2004)

Fargo gets a silver! I wont do teh medal pics anymore, takes up to much space.

i will be keeping track of who gets what medals. So give it your best SHOT!!!!

I think MoeMZA gets a silver for that gay rights coment


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> To answer your questions:
> I am PRO-GUN, PRO-LIFE, PRO-RELIGION. As for gay-rights, I feel this issue has a broad gray area, which makes it difficult.
> 
> Thanks for the refrain of assumptions.


A broad grey area? IMO your not a conservative.









edit.typeo


----------



## LEON (Dec 5, 2003)

You are definitely not conservative!!!!!!!
But you are bipolar in your politics








Being both far left and right at the same time.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> Jibberish at a high extent.
> 
> Most of what you've said is chorus talk. You've presented nothing that argues with the original argument (that you started) that I'm not a conservative.
> 
> ...


 HAHA!! Jibberish at a high extent? You are a clever one Moe! You take EXACTLY what I just said about you (That your words were prettied up bullshit), rephrase it, and apply it right back at me!! Oh boy are the intellectual juices flowing!

Moe, you slipped up again! I would like you to READ, and RE-READ what I wrote. I love the fact that you quoted one of my sentences, yet don't even seem to know what it says:

"Though not the 'best' way about national politics *in an ideal world*, a party system is *the only real way *to get things done."

You reply with "This is a complete contradiction, if it's the ONLY REAL way, isn't the best?"

Perhaps you should pay closer attention to adjectives/adverbs before advertising your ignorance. I stated that in an IDEAL world (Note to those who need help reading: We do NOT live in one of these...). We are, however, grounded in reality, and THUS, the best way of doing things, the party system.

Looks like others are starting to take care of some of the other points, and I don't have all day to argue some bonehead on the internet.
I'd just like to point out that judging by your own statements, you have a very interesting way of choosing a presidential candidate. Why is it that you want Kerry in office?

You claim to be "PRO-GUN". Thank George Bush for upholding these rights whereas Clinton passed restrictive gun legislature and Kerry is likely to do so as well if elected. As far as Moore goes, he would love to see you and the rest of America completely unarmed.

You also claim to be PRO-LIFE. This is not a stance to be taken without moral standing, and Bush supports you completely, passing the most restrictive ban on abortions since I don't even remember when. Kerry disagrees with you on this one.

Pro-religion... How could you possibly hate Bush?

Moe... you just don't make sense.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

User said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > To answer your questions:
> ...


 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the conservative stance on gay rights is as follows: what goes on behind closed doors is one's own business, but gay people are not entitled to the same rights as married couples, as this would devaluate the traditional concept of marraige and the value of parents as role models.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

User said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > To answer your questions:
> ...


 And your too simple minded.

It's like saying "I smoke non-menthol, non-light, filtered cigarettes, but because I don't prefer cigars, I'm not a smoker."

So what would you classify me?

Am I more of a LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE? lol.

(don't bother answering)


----------



## Chunker-2000 (Jan 17, 2004)

Hmmm.....No medal awarded on that one Enrigo, too much bashing and not enough complicated stuff thats hard to understand









I am going to go to bed now, but i think Enrigo wins!

MoeMZA would have one but slipped up on some parts.


----------



## Revolt (Jun 26, 2004)

I'm a liberal and I can tell you moe, you think more to the left an you do the right.

Here's a real liberal answer to the questions...

Are you for gay rights? Yes
Are you pro life? No
Do you believe in gun control? Yes
Are you religious? No

Here's a real conservative answer

Are you for gay rights? No
Are you pro life? Yes
Do you believe in gun control? No
Are you religious? Yes


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> And your too simple minded.


 Very nice liberal answer there Moe


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Revolt said:


> I'm a liberal and I can tell you moe, you think more to the left an you do the right.
> 
> Here's a real liberal answer to the questions...
> 
> ...


 Finally a liberal makes some sence around here.....


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > Jibberish at a high extent.
> ...


Again, you AGREE with my point and don't REALIZE it. You prefer to argue and look 'smart', lol. I'll explain. In a nutshell, we are trying to SUSTAIN an IDEAL WORLD. But in our REALITY, we have this DIVISIVE FACTOR (right/left mentality), that you agree (without realizing) is divisive, so to move towards this IDEAL type world, wouldn't it be better to move away from this DIVISIVE FACTOR? This is what I'm trying to promote.

Thanks again.

And please stop with the ASSUMPTIONS, I don't like Kerry and hated Clinton, as I've posted on numerous occasions.

Assumptions are the mother of all FCUK-UPS.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Revolt said:


> I'm a liberal and I can tell you moe, you think more to the left an you do the right.
> 
> Here's a real liberal answer to the questions...
> 
> ...


 According to your reasoning:

I've answered 3 out of 4 questions conservatively.

But I lean to the LEFT?

Go figure!


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> Revolt said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a liberal and I can tell you moe, you think more to the left an you do the right.
> ...


You got owned by the wording of a leftist lol j/k

..dude thats all it comes down to most liberals & conser. is the gay rights thing.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

User said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > Revolt said:
> ...


 Your kidding right? All comes down to this lone issue that distinguishes the two ideologies?

Please stop.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> Again, you AGREE with my point and don't REALIZE it. You prefer to argue and look 'smart', lol. I'll explain. In a nutshell, we are trying to SUSTAIN an IDEAL WORLD. But in our REALITY, we have this DIVISIVE FACTOR (right/left mentality), that you agree (without realizing) is divisive, so to move towards this IDEAL type world, wouldn't it be better to move away from this DIVISIVE FACTOR? This is what I'm trying to promote.
> 
> Thanks again.


No, thank YOU. While I am firmly grounded in reality, your show yourself to be naive. I agree that we have opposing poles of thought (Right / Left) which balance each other out in this country. While you paint the spectrum in a negative light, I must emphasize to you that it is these opposing thoughts that keep the government in check.

"to move towards this IDEAL type world, wouldn't it be better to move away from this DIVISIVE FACTOR? This is what I'm trying to promote."

NO! Not at all! We will ALWAYS have people who disagree on issues, and you will NEVER get everyone to agree. Like the saying goes, you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can NEVER please ALL of the people ALL of the time. And this is exactly how our politics work.

You suggest that we move away from 'divisions' .... but in actuality... what in the hell ARE you saying? The whole reason that the issue of 'left' and 'right' was brought up was because you tried claiming that the movie should be viewed neutrally without respect to 'left' or 'right'. But the fact is, there is a reason a 'left' and a 'right' exist, and that is because people have opposing views. And Michael Moore appeals to one spectrum of extreme views. Why the hell should everyone be forced to sit through that sh*t? Are you suggesting we take away peoples ability to disagree with each other?

Simply put, people disagree. Its in their nature. People create government. Because people naturally disagree, and people create government, there will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, be disagreement and division in government. I don't think this will ever change....


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

why argue w/ moe? What can you accomplish by debating w/ him? imo, there isn't much substance to his posts.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Actually government and law was created not just because people disagree. People, if given unlimited freedom, end up destroying each other. Government is a necessary evil to control the destructiveness of mankind. The disagreements probably stem from just how much government is needed to keep people from starving and abusing one another. Once there the minimum of government, a conservative would not want any more.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you AGREE with my point and don't REALIZE it. You prefer to argue and look 'smart', lol. I'll explain. In a nutshell, we are trying to SUSTAIN an IDEAL WORLD. But in our REALITY, we have this DIVISIVE FACTOR (right/left mentality), that you agree (without realizing) is divisive, so to move towards this IDEAL type world, wouldn't it be better to move away from this DIVISIVE FACTOR? This is what I'm trying to promote.
> ...


 Now I really don't know what your saying.

First, you say WE NEED the IDEAL, by saying the party system isn't the "best" and divisive. Then you say we need the party system for "checks and balances" and the REAL WORLD.

As I've stated in my very first, second, third post. (whether directly or indirectly) The party system only works if their is "checks and balances." We don't have "checks and balances" right now. Which is why I've said throughout this thread that the PARTY SYSTEM, RIGHT/LEFT is DIVISIVE and a NEGATIVE FACTOR in our society. Michael Moore's documentary is the "checks and balances."

Go buy a ticket.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

diddye said:


> why argue w/ moe? What can you accomplish by debating w/ him? imo, there isn't much substance to his posts.


 Insults, how convenient.

Keep to the sideline instead.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> Your kidding right? All comes down to this lone issue that distinguishes the two ideologies?
> 
> Please stop.


Everything political comes down to distinguishing ideologies, what the hell is wrong with you?

This is turning into a bullshit thread, so i'm done with it. I ask you all to leave me out of futher comments please.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

I thought this topic was about a movie...
Stay on-topic, please


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Oh my, I go to bed early yesterday and miss all this fun ?

Seriously, guys, why the hell would you want to get sucked into an argument about Moe's alleged political allegiance for 2 pages ? I personally don't give a rat's ass what he calls himself, but I guess that's just me


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Oh my, I go to bed early yesterday and miss all this fun ?
> 
> Seriously, guys, why the hell would you want to get sucked into an argument about Moe's alleged political allegiance for 2 pages ? I personally don't give a rat's ass what he calls himself, but I guess that's just me


 exactly...this is about the movie. and stop calling it a documentary. call it what it is...a 2 hr commercial for kerry


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

Commercial for Kerry? Kerry is not mentioned in the film once. Michael Moore is not a Kerry supporter.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Denver said:


> Commercial for Kerry? Kerry is not mentioned in the film once. Michael Moore is not a Kerry supporter.


 this movie is anti-bush and its a known fact his goal for the movie is to get him out of office. So unless you think he endorses nader, please tell me he isn't pro-kerry.


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

He doesn't endorse Kerry, that's a fact. Michael Moore claims to be independent, he is not a registered Democrat, you can draw your own conclusions from that. 
Have you seen the film?


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

There is a part of the movie, in the very beginning, where he says he decided to make the film to prove his statements made when he won his award for BFC. Which is pretty much what he does, he goes over some of the BS that happened in the 2000 Elections, and some of the ridiculous things Bush has done since being in office. After about the first half of the movie, Bush isn't really mentioned as much, there is more talk about the Iraq war.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Denver said:


> He doesn't endorse Kerry, that's a fact. Michael Moore claims to be independent, he is not a registered Democrat, you can draw your own conclusions from that.
> Have you seen the film?


 I've read an interview with Moore where he said that 
a) Kerry's got what it takes to be a great president 
b) Bush needs to be kicked out of the office by any means possible
c) He urged Nader not to run

I'd say that he is a Kerry supporter


----------



## ineedchanna (May 27, 2003)

diddye said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my, I go to bed early yesterday and miss all this fun ?
> ...


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Denver said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't endorse Kerry, that's a fact. Michael Moore claims to be independent, he is not a registered Democrat, you can draw your own conclusions from that.
> ...


 post it.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Denver said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > Denver said:
> ...


 It's in the latest issue of Playboy..what do you want me to do - type it out for you ? Or are you saying I am lying ?


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

Did I say you were lying? I'd just like to read it, and I have interviews in which he says otherwise. Playboy....I'll get it from a friend.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

let say for argument sake that he isn't pro-kerry. now we can all agree he is anti-bush. for him to want this president out of office, would you blindly vote for another candidate w/o having any idea who it is? He must have an alternative right? Who would that be? Why would somebody choose the "lesser of two evils" when the other "evil" is unknown? I'd rather know who im voting for instead of just not wanting bush. It shows me moore would be just a complaining idiot and has no plans of action.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

diddye said:


> let say for argument sake that he isn't pro-kerry. now we can all agree he is anti-bush. for him to want this president out of office, would you blindly vote for another candidate w/o having any idea who it is? He must have an alternative right? Who would that be? Why would somebody choose the "lesser of two evils" when the other "evil" is unknown? I'd rather know who im voting for instead of just not wanting bush. It shows me moore would be just a complaining idiot and has no plans of action.


 Almost every left-leaning person I know in NE Ohio is voting for Kerry simply to get Bush out of office. Few of them actually believe Kerry is a strong candidate. I have a suspician Moore falls into that category.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

I read the same interview in Playboy. Moore's only reason for not backing Kerry is because he 'voted for the war' which is completely true. People seem to forget that, and its easy for Kerry to now say it was a 'mistake' as an election tactic. Moore states that he believes that Kerry can admit he was wrong about the war.... The hell? What about all those who beleive the war WASN'T and ISN'T wrong? I sure as hell earn any money through the war, but I am still a very strong supporter.


----------



## mechanic (Jan 11, 2003)

MoeMZA said:


> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...=/ap/box_office
> 
> I think we should be past "right" and "left" on this film. I am a conservative, myself, middle of the road, vote the issues, not the hairstyles, and with one notable exception I also agree that Moore's film should be seen by everyone.
> 
> ...


 I agree.But don't you think it's kind of hipocritical of Moore to call others "war profiteers" and yet he has made a movie about the whole situation and it was pro bono? NO WAY! He's making a killing off of it.
Which begs the question- Why should a profiteer like Moore get any of my money?
I also would like to point out that if Moore was the political genius his supporters claim, maybe he would have some political power instead of Monday afternoon "armchair Quarterbacking" while not offering any real solutions to real problems himself.
It's never a problem to point out others short comings, it's something else entirely
to have to rise above them yourself.
Just my 2 cents.
Eric


----------



## Denver (Mar 18, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> What about all those who beleive the war WASN'T and ISN'T wrong?


 There are people who believe that???


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

mechanic said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...=/ap/box_office
> ...


 Moore is a film-maker, not a politician.

As for answers to problems. Bush is the problem, and the answer to the problem Moore provides is get Dumbya out of office.

Bush comes from a long-line of war profiteers, from his dad to his granddaddy, all three have made huge amounts of money from conflicts/wars. Do a search on Prescott Bush and Hitler, or do a search on the Carlyle Group. The BUSHES are intelligent BUSINESS MEN, not leaders.

Moore exposes it all to the mainstream public.

"Checks and balances."


----------



## mechanic (Jan 11, 2003)

MoeMZA said:


> mechanic said:
> 
> 
> > MoeMZA said:
> ...


 O.K. but by making a killing off of the film, dosen't that put Moore in the same boat as Bush ect?
And if Moore's ideal is to get GW out, who praytell does he endorse as a replacement?


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

mechanic said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > mechanic said:
> ...


 Hardly.

You can't seriously compare Bush's profiting to Moore's. No one has died from Moore's 'business' decisions.

Moore publicly endorsed Clark during the democratic elections. And as the popular saying goes, "Anyone but Bush in 2004!"


----------



## mechanic (Jan 11, 2003)

Oh I see...
I feel more enlightened all the time.
Later
E


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

so moe....since clark is gone, who does he endorse now? i'll bet it rhymes w/ merry, berry, ferry, dairy, marry...hmm


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

He should be endorsing Pizza Hut, that's who's going to be the real "profiteer" of this movie


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

heres a link for those who said "bush shouldn't be president, gore should've won'....or "it should be the popular vote"....or "bush blah blah blah".....suck this:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.b...ories/main.html

looks like he won...and fairly.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

diddye said:


> so moe....since clark is gone, who does he endorse now? i'll bet it rhymes w/ merry, berry, ferry, dairy, marry...hmm


 Quite honestly, I could careless who he endorses. It's a non-issue.

Bottom line, F 9/11 exposes Bush & Co.

Buy a ticket.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

diddye said:


> heres a link for those who said "bush shouldn't be president, gore should've won'....or "it should be the popular vote"....or "bush blah blah blah".....suck this:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.b...ories/main.html
> 
> looks like he won...and fairly.


 So what if he was elected fairly? That's not the issue: Bush should never have been elected in the first place - the world would have been a better place without him (and his fellow criminals, obviously), but that's my personal opinion...


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

I feel like I'm in Boulder.... "C'mon guys, lets stick it to the man! Evil corporate skum are the reason for all our problems! It's all a big conspiracy!!!" .... Get a life.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

I hope that's in response to my remarks: I'd rate your intelligence higher than to yell "Get a life" at people just because they think different: would be a shame if I'm wrong...

I'm not a big fan of Moore either, but I save my hatred for Bush: that is 100% independent from whatever my opinion is about Moore, his movies, or the discussions they provoke...
And no, it's not a mere disliking I have for Bush: I hate him with a passion.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Down with Kerry, Down with Bush! I say we elect Mr. Moore into presidency.....that way we can criticize the way he handles his diplomatic skills, his ability to micromanage the US and its resources. MOORE FOR PRESIDENT!


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> I feel like I'm in Boulder.... "C'mon guys, lets stick it to the man! Evil corporate skum are the reason for all our problems! It's all a big conspiracy!!!" .... Get a life.


 Again, BUSH COMES FROM A LONG-LINE OF WAR-PROFITEERS. You can't deny this. Why doesn't this FACT ALONE pursuade people to suspect other POSSIBLE MOTIVES for Bush being a 'leader'?

If you just, for one minute, put your right/left, unconditional supporting mentality on the side, you too, like I, would realize.

The film is groundbreaking. And if you don't want to support Moore's work, do a search on the internet on Prescott Bush and Hitler, or the Carlyle Group. Enlighten yourself.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

[off-topic]

Moe's posting style reminds me of this classic Maddox commentary:



maddox.xmission.net said:


> Ever hear someone say "that may or may not be the case," as if there's some hidden third possibility that we weren't aware of? Thanks for pointing out the only two possibilities in the universe sh*t-c*ck. These are the worst kind of people to talk to because they try so hard to be open-minded that it sounds like the debate in a political science class where no opinion is too stupid for the professor to consider and the same fat kid keeps raising his hand to tell you his dumb ideas about free market capitalism as you fantasize about repeatedly stomping his face into a jar. I hate talking to open-minded people. They're the same kind of people who emphasize every other word when they type as if you can *somehow hear their obnoxious cadence *in your head, for example: "we didn't go to the store, but we DID buy a cake." Cool it Shatner, we don't read in the same voice you speak.


[/off-topic]

PS> Im guilty of the same thing sometimes.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > heres a link for those who said "bush shouldn't be president, gore should've won'....or "it should be the popular vote"....or "bush blah blah blah".....suck this:
> ...


 b/c theres whiners that do anything just to be negative. I felt this was the most relative thread instead of opening a new one. And yes, he should of been elected b/c he was chosen by the citizens of america. And in november, there is a good chance he will again. I dont want to hear any more whiners about the past election or this coming election.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Xenon said:


> [off-topic]
> 
> Moe's posting style reminds me of this classic Maddox commentary:
> 
> ...


 lol?

Don't know if to laugh.

Why ignore my points?

Usually when one does so, it's becuase there is no argument.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

You are correct - there is no ARGUING with you, Moe - fo' sho' !!!


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

diddye said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > diddye said:
> ...


 I'll mention the past elections as often as I please - just because you say it was fair doesn't mean it actually was (same applies to whatever I say: just because I say so doesn't make it the thruth: it is my truth however, based on info I gathered and thought about).
To me, Bush' election is the start of a a lot of misery in this world, so I decide for myself when to refer to it when it has relevance to me or my statements. In the most simplistic terms possible: F 9/11 = Bush: Bush = dubious elections.

btw: having to resort to terms like "whiners" to refer to those that disagree with you actually says more about you than about the people you confront...


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

MoeMZA said:


> lol?
> 
> Don't know if to laugh.
> 
> ...


 no sir. Just making an EFFORT not to enter this FORAY. Do I make myself CLEAR, Moe?


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Xenon said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > lol?
> ...


 AKA

"I now realize and agree that Bush & Co. are huge war profiteers, but I will continue to unconditionally support him and his Co."


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

LOL


----------



## Clay (Feb 28, 2003)

A bit mroe on your hero Michael Moore. Honest adn factual as he is....
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

MoeMZA said:


> "I now realize and agree that Bush & Co. are huge war profiteers, but I will continue to unconditionally support him and his Co."


 I will follow my liar. You follow yours. Any more beer left in that fridge?


----------



## crazyklown89 (Aug 28, 2003)

Xenon said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > "I now realize and agree that Bush & Co. are huge war profiteers, but I will continue to unconditionally support him and his Co."
> ...


----------



## bobme (Feb 17, 2003)

I am posting this, incase any one else is lasy.

Why has Presidential candidate George W. Bush been able to raise uncounted tens of millions of dollars? It can't be because of his positions on the issues; he has scrupulously avoided taking many. It can't be because of his knowledge of world events; he thinks being asked such questions is a trick." (He will embarrassingly lie, saying that he knows the answer to a question, and half a sentence later admit that he doesn't.)

No, George "I'm No Longer Drunk" Bush's support is because the Bush family fortune is old, and it's big, and comes from a century old alliance with the most powerful interests on Wall Street and in industry. Worse, part of Dub-a-Ya's money comes from grandfather Prescott Bush's financial alliance with the Nazis.

On October 20, 1942, the US Alien Property Custodian, under the "Trading With the Enemy Act," seized the shares of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder. The largest shareholder was E. Roland Harriman. (Bush was also the managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, a leading Wall Street investment firm.)

The UBC was established to send American capital to Germany to finance the reorganization of its industry under the Nazis. Their leading German partner was the notorious Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, who wrote a book admitting much of this called "I Paid Hitler."

Among the companies financed was the Silesian-American Corporation, which was also managed by Prescott Bush, and by his father-in-law George Herbert Walker, who supplied Dub-a-Ya with his name. The company was vital in supplying coal to the Nazi war industry. It too was seized as a Nazi-front on November 17, 1942. The largest company Bush's UBC helped finance was the German Steel Trust, responsible for between one-third and one-half of Nazi iron and explosives.

Prescott Bush was also a director of the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, (this one owned largely by Roland's brother, Averell Harriman), which owned about a third of the Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation, the rest owned by Friedrich Flick, (a member of Himmler's "Circle of Friends" who donated to the S.S.).

Republican Presidential candidate Bush's great-grandfather, Bert Walker, helped organize the Harriman investment in the Hamburg-America Line of ships, of which grandfather Prescott became a director. It was seized on August 28, 1942 because it was used to give free passage to Nazi propaganda and propagandists, and had earlier shipped guns to the Nazi's private armies to assist their takeover of Germany.

Further examples would be more tedious than shocking. But, given these evil financial dealings, how did Prescott later become a Republican Senator, and George H.W. become President? Well,the two leading attorneys for these Bush-Harriman-Nazi deals were John Foster Dulles, later Secretary of State under Eisenhower, and Allen Dulles, future head of the CIA.

Prescott's father, Samuel P. Bush, owned Buckeye Steel Castings Co. which made parts for the Harriman brothers' father's (E.H. Harriman) railroads. Harriman's financing for the railroads came largely from William Rockefeller. These shipped the oil of his brother John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil. (This was the origin of the two Georges' involvement in the oil business.)

Samuel Bush became a leader in President Woodrow Wilson's "War Socialism" as director of small armaments and ammunition on the War Industries Board (which set up coercive price-fixing cartels over American industry during World War I). There, Bush assisted Percy Rockefeller (son of William) in his takeover of small arms manufacturers.

The elder George Bush continued the family tradition of support for totalitarian governments by supporting the Communist Chinese in the UN, and by directly aiding its military as President.

Will the younger George Bush continue to support big government, or will he support free markets? His first political act was a tax increase to subsidize his baseball stadium. When libertarians and conservative Republicans were opposing the bailout of American banks that loaned money to the Mexican government, the Texas Governor supported it, because of his connections to those Wall Street Banks.

This is in keeping with the actual history of the Republican Party. It was founded in the 1850's explicitly as the party of high taxes to subsidize politically connected businesses, (then known as "internal improvements"). All Republican Presidents in the last fifty years have continued to increase the size of the government, and claims of support for free markets and lowered taxes are mere rhetorical cover. Texas Governor George Bush will continue that tradition.


----------



## air*force*one (Mar 5, 2004)

50%


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > Judazzz said:
> ...


 it wasn't my analysis to determine the election was fair, it was the citizens and a "recount" as stated in my link that proves it was. This is about his election, not his performance as a president-different subjects. And I do consider it whining when people complain about something that was four years ago which cannot be changed and as it turns out, they were wrong about.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

bobme said:


> I am posting this, incase any one else is lasy.
> 
> Why has Presidential candidate George W. Bush been able to raise uncounted tens of millions of dollars? It can't be because of his positions on the issues; he has scrupulously avoided taking many. It can't be because of his knowledge of world events; he thinks being asked such questions is a trick." (He will embarrassingly lie, saying that he knows the answer to a question, and half a sentence later admit that he doesn't.)
> 
> ...


 Sorry.

I know I mentioned Prescott Bush earlier and didn't post some links or additional info.

I'm not lazy, just want the lemmings to surprise themselves and do their own studies, searches, or investigating.


----------



## bobme (Feb 17, 2003)

well, now i did it for them.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

bobme said:


> well, now i did it for them.


 All this information I believe is fully documented in Charles Higham's book, _Trading With the Enemy_. Higham, unlike Moore, was a scholar of research rather than half-truths. Nevertheless, it all supports my point that Bush, despite what the liberals say, is not a Conservative, unless we mean one who conserves the corruption of large corporate interests. To his credit, he still does pose a greater challenge to terrorism than Kerry.

These are some Conservative values: The belief that the nation is founded and directed through the grace of God; anti-abortion; family values and traditional marraige as a basis for non-fucked up people; Free-enterprise entrepeneur capitalism, as opposed to the corporate socialism we have now; borders secured from illegal aliens; one primary language as a uniting form of national identity; minimal outsourcing of American jobs; the reestablishment of a woman's domestic role in raising her children; the right to bear arms; Limits on the power of corporate agriculture to bleed local farmers out of business. I could go on. Bottem line: Bush sucks, Kerry sucks, Moore sucks.


----------



## air*force*one (Mar 5, 2004)

i wana see that it looks good


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/847...15AAA2DDD8D.htm

In the words of a member here:"Go buy a ticket"...."it is a must see for all"...and "this is not about right or left".


----------



## Winkyee (Feb 17, 2003)

I watched it last night. 
even with the b/s filters on, 
the Bush family is a pack of criminals.
There are just too many glaring examples 
and coincidences to ignore or pass off as accidental.
Bush is only a tool for the extreemly wealthy and 
serves only to greatly increase the wealth of his "clansmen".
He is a danger to society


----------



## mechanic (Jan 11, 2003)

Just out of curiosity for all the people who endlessly whine about Bush actually losing in Florida, am I the only one who remembers Gore trying furitively
to have all the fighting men/women's vote thrown out because there was not a post mark on the military mail?








Just thought I'd point it out in case anyone forgot.
Later
E


----------



## *DaisyDarko* (Mar 17, 2004)

mechanic said:


> Just out of curiosity for all the people who endlessly whine about Bush actually losing in Florida, am I the only one who remembers Gore trying furitively
> to have all the fighting men/women's vote thrown out because there was not a post mark on the military mail?
> 
> 
> ...


 I remember that!
All I can say is that I'm extremely happy that Gore wasn't in office 9/11.
He's an idiot. And on top of that I hate his wife....
Anyone remember the PMRC?


----------



## mechanic (Jan 11, 2003)

delirium said:


> mechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of curiosity for all the people who endlessly whine about Bush actually losing in Florida, am I the only one who remembers Gore trying furitively
> ...


I'm glad Gore wasn't in office then as well.
And no I don't remember the PMRC. What was that about?


----------



## *DaisyDarko* (Mar 17, 2004)

The Parents Music Resource Center..
Tipper was the head of trying to censor music.
I was a huge thing in the 80's.
A huge rediculous thing!


----------



## *DaisyDarko* (Mar 17, 2004)

PMRC link

PMRC


----------



## mechanic (Jan 11, 2003)

delirium said:


> PMRC link
> 
> PMRC


 Interesting.
Thanks.
E


----------

