Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Bush is a politican first, and a Christian, second. That, to me, is more of an insult than anything Wait - it's a BAD thing he's putting his politics before his religion? Aren't we sort of fighting an international war on terrorism against guy who do the exact opposite? I'm not exactly saying that. I'm saying that people who automatically vote for him because of his religion are, in my opinion, morons. There's a reason it's called the herded sheep theory. Or maybe, just maybe, they voted for him because they agreed with him. Gee, I thought you were smarter than that. I guess I'll have to explain it, in really small words. You called us bad for mocking and insulting people. Then, you turn around and so it yourself. That's called being a hy-po-crite. If you don't know what that word is, I can put up a dictionary definiton for you. No, I bad-mouthed you for insulting the HANDICAPPED in your insult of Bush. You know, the whole "He's a retard" thing. Look at all the people he goes to for advice and also look at his friends. He seems far too buddy-buddy with too many oil companies. Don't even make me play the Haliburton card. Feel free to play it. It's trumped by history and facts. What has he done to benefit oil companies? If you vote for someone, you should vote for them because of their stand on the issues, not because he jumps up and down and says, "I'm a Christian! I'm a Christian! Vote for me!" Stunningly enough, they don't vote for him for that reason. He's far less cynical than Kerry's attempt to portray himself as Irish early in his Senatorial career to gain votes in Boston --- or his attempts to portray himself as an actual Catholic. Bush will take any chance he has to score political points, no matter how it looks, or how it reflects on him. Which doesn't really provide a basis for your point. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 If he's going to call it a documentary and pass it off as one he damn well has to give both sides. this is just retarded. a documentary doesn't have to "give both sides," it just has to be nonfiction. 'triumph of the will' is a documentary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 23, 2004 If he's going to call it a documentary and pass it off as one he damn well has to give both sides. this is just retarded. a documentary doesn't have to "give both sides," it just has to be nonfiction. 'triumph of the will' is a documentary. Well, going with his history, "non-fiction" is too much to ask for Mikey. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edotherocket 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Documentaries don't need to present both sides of the arguement. Moore's failing is his accuracy in providing facts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Stunningly enough, they don't vote for him for that reason. He's far less cynical than Kerry's attempt to portray himself as Irish early in his Senatorial career to gain votes in Boston --- or his attempts to portray himself as an actual Catholic. How is Kerry not an "actual Catholic"? Just because one church wanted to deny him Communion doesn't mean he's lying about his religious beliefs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 his attempts to portray himself as an actual Catholic. Yes.. it's a cover.. he's really a Satanist. Since all Catholics think the same on Social issues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted June 23, 2004 If he's going to call it a documentary and pass it off as one he damn well has to give both sides. this is just retarded. a documentary doesn't have to "give both sides," it just has to be nonfiction. 'triumph of the will' is a documentary. Triumph of the Will??? The film that treated Hitler with almost god-like status? The one that became an example of how the Nazi party corrupted the German people into committing the Holocaust? THAT Triumph of the Will? If I were to trying to defend F9/11, the last thing I would do is compare it to Triumph of the Will. Game Over. Try again. Edit: Just for clarification: doc·u·men·ta·ry Audio pronunciation of documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj. 1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Sweet Jesus. Triumph? News for Today. Moore, upset about his R rating "Well gee Mikey, you put a guy getting BEHEADED FOR REAL! on your movie, what the hell kinda rating do you expect", told reporters that he wants teenagers to do whatever they can to see the movie, encouraging them to break the law. Lovely fellow eh? I didn't bother with a source.No one bothers to read all my econ sources, so I am not botheing anymore Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted June 23, 2004 The funny thing is, Moore didn't have to even submit his pet to the MPAA. So long as he didn't rate it using a letter that seemed similar to the MPAA (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) he could have rated it W if he wanted. No, the reason he submitted it to the MPAA (much like the reason he agreed that Disney wouldn't be responsible for distributing the film on the outset) was to create a controversy and recieve more dicksucking from his braindead fanbase for being a martyr. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Cerebus' article seems less like an actual review and just more of an impassioned editorial against Moore. If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed. What in the hell does that have to do with the film or the messages it presents? It is simply sound and fury, signifying nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Taking tips from Mikey eh JotW? That paragraph is at the end of the article, after Hitchens has broken down exactly why he feels that way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2004 That's just an example of what feels like an ulterior motive. Face it, if someone wrote about Hannity, Rush, or especially O'Reilly with that kind of passion, it'd be a "hit piece." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites