# Fahrenheit 9/11 wins best movie at peoples choice



## spikey_r (Jan 11, 2005)

MM's acceptance speech:  

http://michaelmoore.com/_media/pcaawardslong.mov 

it was up against spiderman2, shrek2 and the incredibles...


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Jan 11, 2005)

yeah im glad he won that 

too bad people can be bothered to vote for a film and not bothered to vote in an election though


----------



## vimto (Jan 11, 2005)

Brilliant stuff


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2005)

Now we just have to wait for the bushbots to slump along and post their usual fatuous crap.

If we're *really* lucky we may even get a    out of pbman.


----------



## mears (Jan 11, 2005)

Good for Mr. Moore.

I will take our victory in November.

Four more years!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 11, 2005)

I didn't really like it that much, but my personal cinematic preferences aren't the issue - if this makes people see it and question the bullshit, that's good enough for me.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 11, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> Good for Mr. Moore.
> 
> I will take our victory in November.
> 
> Four more years!


You do know the Republicans will lose the next election, though, don't you? Just checking. Not that it will make that much difference at that stage.


----------



## vimto (Jan 11, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> Good for Mr. Moore.
> 
> I will take our victory in November.
> 
> Four more years!


Yeah four more years for the world to see what you truly are.

Rise up America and take back what is yours.


----------



## vimto (Jan 11, 2005)

A spectre is haunting America...


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 12, 2005)

Moore is looking at his last days in the limelight.  He'll have to start teaming up with has-beens to keep the crowds interested.  I wouldn't be surprised if Gary Coleman shows up in a film, maybe Vanilla Ice too but he has better sense.  There's always Barbara Streisand.  She'd do it.


----------



## mears (Jan 12, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> You do know the Republicans will lose the next election, though, don't you? Just checking. Not that it will make that much difference at that stage.



If its enough time to reform social security and our tax system it will be worth it. Its not about winning elections but what you do once elected.


----------



## Rentonite (Jan 12, 2005)

I doubt Bush has the balls to do what needs to be done.
lets hope he does.

I pray to God that I never meet MM
I would have an adverse emotional reaction and end up in prison for discharging a firearm inappropriatly.

That guy has lied so much to so many and he has made millions telling people exactly what they want to hear.


----------



## TomUS (Jan 12, 2005)

Rentonite said:
			
		

> I doubt Bush has the balls to do what needs to be done.
> lets hope he does.
> 
> I pray to God that I never meet MM
> ...


Are you insane?  A Buch supporter complaining about lies?  Name a MM lie please.

The award was great if it gets a few more to see the movie.  Anything to get the populace to peer through the ignorance-inspiring pablum fed to them by the main stream news media.


----------



## neilh (Jan 12, 2005)

TomUS said:
			
		

> Are you insane?  A Buch supporter complaining about lies?  Name a MM lie please.
> 
> The award was great if it gets a few more to see the movie.  Anything to get the populace to peer through the ignorance-inspiring pablum fed to them by the main stream news media.


i ain't got much time for bush, republicans, gun nuts etc, but i don't consider moore to be the most honest of folk, whether he's anti war or not.
checkout this site for a lot of his lies, mistruths, exagerrations etc.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 12, 2005)

I'd have to concur with neilh. My first thought when looking at Bowling for Columbine (a basically confused film anyway) was that he went looking for the biggest lunatics he could find and filmed them for the shock value.

And as someone else pointed out to me, the scene with the disabled kids pressuring the supermarket chain to stop selling ammunition was ethically dubious.

When he set it up, he had no way of knowing whether or not it would be successful. And if it had been unsuccessful, those kids could have been emotionally hurt. . .

As for F9/11, I wasn't surprised that he didn't mention that when the Taliban came to power in 1996, their rise was cautiously welcomed by Bill Clinton, who said they might be a force for stability (which you need for piplines, of course).


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 12, 2005)

Moore will be the next Andy Kaufman.


----------



## mears (Jan 12, 2005)

Rentonite said:
			
		

> I doubt Bush has the balls to do what needs to be done.
> lets hope he does.
> 
> I pray to God that I never meet MM
> ...



Yes, lets hope. 

If Michael Moore wants to really serve the American people, his next movie should center on American obesity.

He could use himself as a case study


----------



## El Jugador (Jan 12, 2005)

Rentonite said:
			
		

> I doubt Bush has the balls to do what needs to be done.
> lets hope he does.


What, top himself? Yes we can but pray.





			
				Rentonite said:
			
		

> I pray to God that I never meet MM


Presumably because he has a habit of decidedly kicking neocon arse (sorry, _ass_).





			
				Rentonite said:
			
		

> I would have an adverse emotional reaction and end up in prison for discharging a firearm inappropriatly (sic).


You mean shoot yourself in the foot?





			
				Rentonite said:
			
		

> That guy has lied so much to so many and he has made millions telling people exactly what they want to hear.


You mean stuff like "Saddam was involved in 11/9 and had WMD?" or "We're not after their oil, honest!"


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 13, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> Yes, lets hope.
> 
> If Michael Moore wants to really serve the American people, his next movie should center on American obesity....


You mean Supersize Me?


----------



## mears (Jan 13, 2005)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> You mean Supersize Me?



Exactly, But make himself the central character in the movie


----------



## Dandred (Jan 13, 2005)

Rentonite said:
			
		

> That guy has lied so much to so many and he has made millions telling people exactly what they want to hear.




     

Are you sure you've got the right person there.


----------



## The Oracle (Jan 13, 2005)

*No Change*

It was because of the award I decided to go out and buy his DVD and view it. There were several things that were true in his film. I will list just three.

1.	That rich peoples interest trump the interest of the poor.
2.	The ignorant poor are the ones who make the biggest sacrifices in society.
3.	That there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction In Iraq, hence the stated reason for the war.

The White House finally quietly admitted this today, but also added the War was still the right thing to do.

One thing that M. Moore should have included in his film was that nothing will change; the ignorant masses will continue to be misinformed, used and ignorant masses.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> Good for Mr. Moore.
> 
> I will take our victory in November.
> 
> Four more years!



What [anti] sincerity! With any luck a mysterious helicopter crash may occur.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2005)

Rentonite said:
			
		

> I doubt Bush has the balls to do what needs to be done.
> lets hope he does.
> 
> I pray to God that I never meet MM
> ...



Your answer to everything isn't it? Get your gun out and blow the fucker away.

Once again, you make the same claim as all those others who hate Moore (and it's as simple as that); and while not having a real argument to counter Moore,you prefer instead to focus on his physique (as mears has done) or claim that he is "lying". If he is "lying" where is your proof? That's right you have none and nor does mears.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> Exactly, But make himself the central character in the movie



For someone who claims to want 'serious' arguments with people about world politics; and for someone who claims to be 'logical' and uses 'reason' you don't half contradict yourself. 

Bereft of a proper counter argument to Moore, all you can come up with are comments about his size. This is an example of the _intellectual weakness_ that you are so fond of accusing others of having.

I'll bet you don't eat 5 helpings of fruit and veg a day.


----------



## Wess (Jan 13, 2005)

Rentonite said:
			
		

> I doubt Bush has the balls to do what needs to be done.
> lets hope he does.
> 
> I pray to God that I never meet MM
> ...



If he's lied so much then why has there been not one law suit against him?...In a litigious society like the US where people will sue at the drop of the hat you would think people would be lining up for the chance...no?


> That guy has lied so much to so many and he has made millions telling people exactly what they want to hear.


But I do agree with your Bush sentiments..he is a real fucken lying scumbag cunt that one. And he's made millions off you poor tax payers in the states...,no wonder you hate your president so much, any normal person would.


----------



## pbman (Jan 13, 2005)

Now thats interesting.   

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/270757p-231851c.html

"Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression," Eastwood told the star-dotted crowd attending the National Board of Review awards dinner at Tavern on the Green, where Eastwood picked up a Special Filmmaking Achievement prize for "Million Dollar Baby."

Then, the Republican-leaning actor/director advised the lefty filmmaker: "But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you."

The audience erupted in laughter, and Eastwood grinned dangerously.

"I mean it," he added, provoking more guffaws.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Now thats interesting.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/270757p-231851c.html
> 
> ...



And that's what counts, eh? The threat of violence - however it jocular it appears to be - is the solution to any disagreements? I have got that _right_, haven't I peebs?

Over to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Now thats interesting.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/270757p-231851c.html
> 
> ...




Big deal. So Clint is a right-wing dick with a line in death threats. Yawn.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 13, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Now thats interesting.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/270757p-231851c.html
> 
> ...



Go ahead Mike make my day.

Isn't that just what Trigger (Rentonite) said.
Shit now he'll think he really is that Dirty Harry character he hides behind on here.  

Maybe this is indicative of one of America’s biggest issues. Sure you can have free speech until my Magnum takes issue with something you said. 

Great link PB helped me re-affirm my belief that you have a problem in the states where by its OK to think about killing people who don't agree with your ideals. Explains a lot about the overt aggression the world sees from the US. 

Certainly makes Trigger seem more like an acceptable American norm.

Have a nice day


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2005)

Aye, the auld cunt's got an auld image to live up to, "Make my day punk", "This is the most powerful handgun in the world and it could just blow your head clean awf".

But he looks like a fucking twit these days; a grizzled auld actor who only got to be mayor of Carmel.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 13, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Aye, the auld cunt's got an auld image to live up to, "Make my day punk", "This is the most powerful handgun in the world and it could just blow your head clean awf".
> 
> But he looks like a fucking twit these days; a grizzled auld actor who only got to be mayor of Carmel.



Clints' Site 
So he looks like Charlton Heston. 
Ain't that a co-incidence, maybe that's why Clint's edgy. He probably saw Bowling for Columbine and thought that Mike was just some Johnny Knoxville style character who likes fucking with old cowboys.  

I prefer his records myself. They expose his much misunderstood sensitive side.
Check out the 'Real life Honky-tonk Man' section on his site for an audio treat of the big cowboy.

Man that’s sweet country music. 
You could skin a buck to those tunes.


----------



## pbman (Jan 13, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> And that's what counts, eh? The threat of violence - however it jocular it appears to be - is the solution to any disagreements? I have got that _right_, haven't I peebs?
> 
> Over to you.



I sure he didn't want michael to get confused, he freqently misses the message and or selectivley editeds things people say.

But it is nice to see eastwood isn't going to take any crap from him.


----------



## pbman (Jan 13, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Big deal. So Clint is a right-wing dick with a line in death threats. Yawn.



And he carries a lot more weight than mooor, does if you know what i mean.


----------



## Dandred (Jan 14, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Then, the Republican-leaning actor/director advised the lefty filmmaker: "But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you."
> 
> The audience erupted in laughter, and Eastwood grinned dangerously.
> 
> "I mean it," he added, provoking more guffaws.






God bless the American way


----------



## chriswill (Jan 14, 2005)

Its on on Channel 4, thursday 27th of this month don't you know.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 14, 2005)

Dear old Clint.

What was the name of that film where he was the hero and dragged a woman into a barn and raped her?   She wanted to be raped though...all women do.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 14, 2005)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Dear old Clint.
> 
> What was the name of that film where he was the hero and dragged a woman into a barn and raped her?   She wanted to be raped though...all women do.


Surely your confusing Clint with Seth from Emmerdale


----------



## The Oracle (Jan 14, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> And that's what counts, eh? The threat of violence - however it jocular it appears to be - is the solution to any disagreements? I have got that _right_, haven't I peebs?


Funny you should say that, but this is how Hollywood has programmed us with their action movies, to use violence as a way to solve problems.

How many of you enjoy Hollywood action movies? Or will be able to enjoy watching the gratuitous violence in the future knowing that the American hero in the end will triumph over the evildoers, with magnificent one liners such as “Go ahead make my day” or “we will smoke em out”

Oh yeah don’t forget it the Christian way too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I sure he didn't want michael to get confused, he freqently misses the message and or selectivley editeds things people say.
> 
> But it is nice to see eastwood isn't going to take any crap from him.



A bit like you eh peebs? Editing things out when they don't suit you.

If Moore is such a "liar" then how come no one has taken him to court for defamation as Wess asked you?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2005)

The Oracle said:
			
		

> Funny you should say that, but this is how Hollywood has programmed us with their action movies, to use violence as a way to solve problems.
> 
> How many of you enjoy Hollywood action movies? Or will be able to enjoy watching the gratuitous violence in the future knowing that the American hero in the end will triumph over the evildoers, with magnificent one liners such as “Go ahead make my day” or “we will smoke em out”
> 
> Oh yeah don’t forget it the Christian way too.



Aye, these films sell by the truckload and all of them are roughly the same. I hate action films: too much shouting, car chases and mindnumbingly dull dialogue.

But you're right: they are incredibly simplistic with their 'good v. evil' message.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 14, 2005)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Dear old Clint.
> 
> What was the name of that film where he was the hero and dragged a woman into a barn and raped her?   She wanted to be raped though...all women do.



High Plains drifter.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 14, 2005)

On the topic of M. Moore, I was talking yesterday to someone who's lived in the part of Toronto Moore visits in Bowling for Columbine, and he says the stuff about people leaving their doors unlocked is rubbish.

Toronto's like any big modern city, you'd have to be a damn fool to leave your door unlocked.


----------



## X-77 (Jan 14, 2005)

The Oracle said:
			
		

> That there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction In Iraq, hence the stated reason for the war.
> 
> The White House finally quietly admitted this today, but also added the War was still the right thing to do.



It's strange that it was Harry's antics that whizzed all around the world's media yesterday when it shoulda been this. Funny that...


----------



## pbman (Jan 14, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Go ahead Mike make my day.
> 
> Isn't that just what Trigger (Rentonite) said.
> Shit now he'll think he really is that Dirty Harry character he hides behind on here.
> ...



Its not free speach that pisses us off, it people like moore intentionaly lying to nieve people for propaganda puropses.

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

And that would piss you off as well, if we did it.


----------



## The Oracle (Jan 14, 2005)

Another thing mentioned in the Fareinheit911 film was that prior to 9/11 that not one American civilian had been killed by an Iraqi.


The movie also contains some interesting special features; Dr. Rice’s using double-speak in her testimony before the 9/11 commission. She says something such as the president had no advanced notice that terrorist were determined to attack within the United States. 
Then she says that the name of the August 6th PDB was titled “Bin laden determined to attack within the United States”. And she dismisses it as old historical evidence, that to this day will not be declassified even for our Senators to review.

The special features had the full film of the house raid that was in the film; I believe a Norwegian journalist filmed it. Prior to Abu Graibh prison story, no journalist organization was interested in airing this footage.

Also among the special features were Middle Eastern Comedians doing stand up comedy centered on the Arab and terrorist stereotypes. They also poked fun at how they were treated by their fellow Americans after 9/11.


----------



## pbman (Jan 14, 2005)

The Oracle said:
			
		

> Another thing mentioned in the Fareinheit911 film was that prior to 9/11 that not one American civilian had been killed by an Iraqi.
> 
> 
> The movie also contains some interesting special features; Dr. Rice’s using double-speak in her testimony before the 9/11 commission. She says something such as the president had no advanced notice that terrorist were determined to attack within the United States.
> ...



http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

So are you saying you belive his lies and mistruths?


----------



## The Oracle (Jan 14, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> http://www.fahrenhype911.com/
> 
> So are you saying you belive his lies and mistruths?


I have watched the film in an effort to be balanced; it was very boring and did revile the hype in his movie.

But what MM film does is ask some very good questions, questions the have yet to be answered.


----------



## pbman (Jan 14, 2005)

The Oracle said:
			
		

> I have watched the film in an effort to be balanced; it was very boring and did revile the hype in his movie.
> 
> But what MM film does is ask some very good questions, questions the have yet to be answered.



Read the link then they have been addressed.

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

Its third rate propaganda with 59 major deceits.

Look though thoes and tell me what is left to "belive" in.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 14, 2005)

peebs. just to check ... michael moore is hated right? I mean honest, god-fearing Americans fucking hate the guy. You're all pulling together on the war on terror thingy? The US liberal elite are so out of touch it's untrue.

Then why the hell does Michael Moore keep winning these things? selling books? making the largest grossing documentary of all time?


----------



## mears (Jan 14, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> peebs. just to check ... michael moore is hated right? I mean honest, god-fearing Americans fucking hate the guy. You're all pulling together on the war on terror thingy? The US liberal elite are so out of touch it's untrue.
> 
> Then why the hell does Michael Moore keep winning these things? selling books? making the largest grossing documentary of all time?



Who cares why he wins these "things", his boy lost the election.

Four more years Michael Moore.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 15, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> Who cares why he wins these "things", his boy lost the election.
> 
> Four more years Michael Moore.



jeez, will you ever switch on your brain and actually engage with the question I'm asking? Couldn't give a toss what happened in your election.

I'm talking about the picture you lot, your media, the european media, paint of the American people. You're all flag-waving patriots, who can't wait to string up all the liberals. You use "liberal" like a swearword for god's sake. The only liberals as far as I gather are urban intellectuals.

Yet there simply isn't a right-wing demagogue in Moore's league. At all. And there's sure as hell more than urban intellectuals watching his movies, reading his books, voting him for people's choice awards etc.

As for you taunting him about four more years; like he gives a fuck, he's a media whore who's obscenely rich beyond your wildest dreams. Four more years of easy bucks doing the easy digging on your shithead president. And now he's going to be paying less taxes!


----------



## spikey_r (Jan 15, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> Good for Mr. Moore.
> 
> I will take our victory in November.
> 
> Four more years!



you might not like this then: only 4 years left...


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> A bit like you eh peebs? Editing things out when they don't suit you.
> 
> If Moore is such a "liar" then how come no one has taken him to court for defamation as Wess asked you?



AS i've explaned to you before

We have differnt laws, you can lie all you want about public officles, and gov't policy.

Google around a bit.


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> Then why the hell does Michael Moore keep winning these things? selling books? making the largest grossing documentary of all time?



CAuse we have a lot of american hating liberals, who are not smart ehough to see thou his crap.

Hell most of them don't even care if its true or not, same as most people here.

The like what he says, regardless of the factual content.


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

> That all changed in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.





> And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.



http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

For those of you who still havn't realized the us is a different country than the UK. 

I don't belive a public officle has ever sued succesfully on libel in the last 30 years.   





Ever.


----------



## spikey_r (Jan 15, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm
> 
> For those of you who still havn't realized the us is a different country than the UK.
> 
> ...



intersting reading. and it offers an interesting hypothesis as to why nobody has sued Moore. 

however, _"knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not._
still expects that any publisher is liable to ensure that what they are publishing is not with malicious intent?

_"they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies. "_

surely this would give the libeled party impetus to show that no effort had been made to distinguish fact from fiction


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> intersting reading. and it offers an interesting hypothesis as to why nobody has sued Moore.
> 
> however, _"knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not._
> still expects that any publisher is liable to ensure that what they are publishing is not with malicious intent?
> ...



It not just a hypothesis.

No presidents ever sue for libel in the us, or other public officles.

Clinton never did it as well, when many of us, called him a rapist and worse.

We are differnt countries.

I said this several times, and many here still don't get it.

So come up with some examples, or give it up.


----------



## spikey_r (Jan 15, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> It not just a hypothesis.
> 
> No presidents ever sue for libel in the us, or other public officles.
> 
> ...



where in *writing* is clinton referred to as a rapist?


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> where in *writing* is clinton referred to as a rapist?




http://www.google.com/search?source...s=GGLD,GGLD:2004-21,GGLD:en&q=clinton+rapist+

TAke your pick, you have 53,000 choices.


----------



## spikey_r (Jan 15, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> http://www.google.com/search?source...s=GGLD,GGLD:2004-21,GGLD:en&q=clinton+rapist+
> 
> TAke your pick, you have 53,000 choices.



your country is fucked up! but what would i know? only being a brit!


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> your country is fucked up! but what would i know? only being a brit!



Sorry but libel suits can be and are used to intmidate people, into keeping quite.

I don't care to give any public fuigures more power.

Why do you?


----------



## spikey_r (Jan 15, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Sorry but libel suits can be and are used to intmidate people, into keeping quite.
> 
> I don't care to give any public fuigures more power.
> 
> Why do you?



you've missed the point i think. Moore has more than enough coverage. maybe that is why nobody has _attempted_ to take him to court?


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> you've missed the point i think. Moore has more than enough coverage. maybe that is why nobody has _attempted_ to take him to court?



No you missed the point that the only ones who can really sue for libel in the us, is actors sueing the tabloid, and that kind of thing.

Thats it.

No polititions sue.

Why you give them that power  is beyond me.


----------



## spikey_r (Jan 15, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> No you missed the point that the only ones who can really sue for libel in the us, is actors sueing the tabloid, and that kind of thing.
> 
> Thats it.
> 
> ...



like you say; we are different countries.


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> like you say; we are different countries.



So you can't justify letting politions use the threat of lawsuits to intimidate people, and are so used to it, you it expect it to be the same in the us?

Thats strange, but not surpriseing considering you don't have a consitution.


----------



## spikey_r (Jan 15, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So you can't justify letting politions use the threat of lawsuits to intimidate people, and are so used to it, you it expect it to be the same in the us?
> 
> Thats strange, but not surpriseing considering you don't have a consitution.



if you say so


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> if you say so



I do, and i know far more about it than you do.

It's come up many times.


----------



## spikey_r (Jan 15, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I do, and i know far more about it than you do.
> 
> It's come up many times.



your modesty and wisdom set you aside from many others


----------



## pbman (Jan 15, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> your modesty and wisdom set you aside from many others



I see no reason to ignore the fact that i've disscused it at lengh, and that is my conclution, than none so far, can successfuly deny.   

You don't have a real constitution, you have a colection of laws/rules, that can be easily changed with a simple majority vote.

Deal with it.


----------



## mears (Jan 16, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> jeez, will you ever switch on your brain and actually engage with the question I'm asking? Couldn't give a toss what happened in your election.
> 
> I'm talking about the picture you lot, your media, the european media, paint of the American people. You're all flag-waving patriots, who can't wait to string up all the liberals. You use "liberal" like a swearword for god's sake. The only liberals as far as I gather are urban intellectuals.
> 
> ...



If cetain media outlets in the US and Europe are so dumb as to generalize that Americans are all flag waving patriots who can't wait to string up the liberals they can't be helped. Its like saying all Europeans are  pacifist, secular dreamers whose only complaint is their loss of influence in the world. 

Are you implying that the plump Mr Moore with his Michigan state spartan's hat is a left wing demagogue? I think you give him too much credit. 

He does give a fuck. Like any national American politician, Mr Moore entered the high stakes game of fighting tooth and nail for his beliefs about where the US should  head in the future. And he lost.

Maybe the problem is he never stated his beliefs, only criticism about everything Bush.

He woulf fit in on Urban 75.


----------



## mears (Jan 16, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> you might not like this then: only 4 years left...



Bill Frist in 2008!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 16, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> AS i've explaned to you before
> 
> We have differnt laws, you can lie all you want about public officles, and gov't policy.
> 
> Google around a bit.



But the fact remains that you keep accusing Moore of lying; if you hate it that much surely there are better things to do than sit there griping; but then that is all you have isn't it?

Don't lecture me on the nature of judicial relativism, I think you'll find that I'm streets ahead of you. What say you JC?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 16, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> CAuse we have a lot of american hating liberals, who are not smart ehough to see thou his crap.
> 
> Hell most of them don't even care if its true or not, same as most people here.
> 
> The like what he says, regardless of the factual content.




What is an "american hating liberal" peebs?  Your reply is likely to be along the lines of 'liberals hate America', but you won't be able to provide one shred of proof apart from some badly written piece by Coulter or some shite from Newsmax. Your proof please.

So I will tell you what it means: it is your way of demonising people whose views you don't agree with. Of course the phrase itself is a conceptually loaded metaphor: anyone who 'hates America' is wither working for a foregn power or working to destroy the country from within. 

And you have the brass neck to come here and tell us that "McCarthyism is a liberal conspiracy" and that you've moved beyond the paranoia and redbaiting of the 1950's. The fact is, you haven't; if you don't have an enemy you invent one. It's not enough to have one enemy either, they have to be everywhere and, preferably, they should be Hollywood actors or academics. It helps to have a number of enemies - all of them constructed.

Do you ever get bored of this shit peebs?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 16, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> Bill Frist in 2008!



Afraid not, it's likely to be Jeb in 2008  

Unless Frist is a fellow Rand cultist as I suspect he is.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 16, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> If cetain media outlets in the US and Europe are so dumb as to generalize that Americans are all flag waving patriots who can't wait to string up the liberals they can't be helped. Its like saying all Europeans are  pacifist, secular dreamers whose only complaint is their loss of influence in the world.
> 
> Are you implying that the plump Mr Moore with his Michigan state spartan's hat is a left wing demagogue? I think you give him too much credit.
> 
> ...



Bollocks - shite - toilet.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 17, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> CAuse we have a lot of american hating liberals, who are not smart ehough to see thou his crap.
> 
> Hell most of them don't even care if its true or not, same as most people here.
> 
> The like what he says, regardless of the factual content.



I'd be interested to know who exactly you're referring to as "America hating liberals" - does it mean the urban intellectual elite/ big city europeanized middle class?

Or are you making a generalized reference to anyone standing to the president's left?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 17, 2005)

mears said:
			
		

> If cetain media outlets in the US and Europe are so dumb as to generalize that Americans are all flag waving patriots who can't wait to string up the liberals they can't be helped. Its like saying all Europeans are  pacifist, secular dreamers whose only complaint is their loss of influence in the world.



Erm... If you're trying to do irony it's traditional to put a smiley in   



> Are you implying that the plump Mr Moore with his Michigan state spartan's hat is a left wing demagogue? I think you give him too much credit.



I'm not sure what your dictionary defines a demagogue as, but I can't think of a more accurate use of the term than to describe Michael Moore. 

And too much credit? I actually think demagogue is a pretty insulting term. I'm sure he'd prefer political commentator or some such. 



> He does give a fuck. Like any national American politician, Mr Moore entered the high stakes game of fighting tooth and nail for his beliefs about where the US should  head in the future. And he lost.



But he's not a politician. So where are his high stakes? In the difference between Kerry and Bush? Bullshit.



> Maybe the problem is he never stated his beliefs, only criticism about everything Bush.



function of being a demagogue not a politician.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 19, 2005)

Much as it kills me to agree with peebs on anything, he is right about the libel laws in the US and UK. People still sue for libel in the US, but unlike the UK the most they can expect back is a public written apology where the libel occured and legal costs, as opposewd to the UK where the libeller is potentially open to ruin (viz: Private Eye vs. Lord Salisbury, The Face vs. Jason Donavan) as the courts will also award punitive damages to the victim. Thus the libel laws in the UK serve to protect the rich rather than safeguard people's reputations (libel has to be a private prosecution and libel lawyers charge a fortune)

All this talk of Moore makes me hanker for Chris Morris to really do something to Bush, Cheney and co...now that would be PROPER satire.


----------



## pbman (Jan 19, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to know who exactly you're referring to as "America hating liberals" - does it mean the urban intellectual elite/ big city europeanized middle class?
> ?



Thats them, but they are not really elites, they just think they are.

Their is a vast difference between the two, its more like they are so ignorant that they think they are Intellectual elites, type of people.

Dumbass undergroud type liberals if you ever been their you know what i mean.


----------



## pbman (Jan 19, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Much as it kills me to agree with peebs on anything, he is right about the libel laws in the US and UK. People still sue for libel in the US, but unlike the UK the most they can expect back is a public written apology where the libel occured and legal costs, as opposewd to the UK where the libeller is potentially open to ruin (viz: Private Eye vs. Lord Salisbury, The Face vs. Jason Donavan) as the courts will also award punitive damages to the victim. Thus the libel laws in the UK serve to protect the rich rather than safeguard people's reputations (libel has to be a private prosecution and libel lawyers charge a fortune)
> .



Why does it pain you to agree on such a simple point, its not even a left/right thing, just the reality of the differences in our laws?

And if they truly only protect the rich, why don't you guys work for changing real procedural things like this?  I'll grant that these are rather borning changes to fight for, but they ought to be winnable and a good way to get meaningfull change. Many around here seam to be several bridges too far, in what they fight for.


----------



## Rocket Romano (Jan 19, 2005)

Intellectuals



> intellectual - one who always contributes more heat than light to a discussion





> intellectual snob - one who can listen to the William Tell Overture and not think of the Lone Ranger


----------



## pbman (Jan 19, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> What is an "american hating liberal" peebs?  Your reply is likely to be along the lines of 'liberals hate America', but you won't be able to provide one shred of proof apart from some badly written piece by Coulter or some shite from Newsmax. Your proof please.
> 
> ?



"America hating liberals" are a distinct subset, of liberals. If you don't know what i'm talking about, you do need to get out more.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> "America hating liberals" are a distinct subset, of liberals. If you don't know what i'm talking about, you do need to get out more.



No peebs, this is all part of the matrix of lies that have been provided for your benefit; of course you lack either the critical skills or the ability to think for yourself to understand this.

You have to have an 'enemy' within to hate; it is all part of the neo-con plan to hold onto power. But why am I telling you this? You are a neo con.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Thats them, but they are not really elites, they just think they are.
> 
> Their is a vast difference between the two, its more like they are so ignorant that they think they are Intellectual elites, type of people.
> 
> Dumbass undergroud type liberals if you ever been their you know what i mean.




You hate anyone who is different to you and the differences are largely imagined.


----------



## pbman (Jan 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> No peebs, this is all part of the matrix of lies that have been provided for your benefit; of course you lack either the critical skills or the ability to think for yourself to understand this.
> 
> You have to have an 'enemy' within to hate; it is all part of the neo-con plan to hold onto power. But why am I telling you this? You are a neo con.



Who said i hated them?

I said they hated their country and clearly they do.

We have a few on the right as well,norwere near as many but we have them.

Its people who hate the flag and its display, and are willing to belive all the anti-american propganda, without any question, clealy they belive it cause they want it to be true.

I see no other possible explination.

So unless you have one that makes sense, your blatantly wrong.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Who said i hated them?
> 
> I said they hated their country and clearly they do.
> 
> ...



These are not sufficient grounds to suggest that the people you call 'liberals' actually hate their country; it's rubbish and you _imagine_ that they are America-haters.

If people don't like jingoistic displays of nationalism, their views should be considered. In this country you have to apply for a permit to fly the Union flag, people don't love their country any less for it either.

Why is it so important for you to continually remind yourself of your nationhood; are you so insecure with your own national identity that you simply have to do these things? That's a perfectly straightforward question too.

I am using the 'you' in a collective sense.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 20, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Thats them, but they are not really elites, they just think they are.
> 
> Their is a vast difference between the two, its more like they are so ignorant that they think they are Intellectual elites, type of people.
> 
> Dumbass undergroud type liberals if you ever been their you know what i mean.




but that doesn't describe most of the American left does it? and it doesn't describe most of the people who watched Fahrenheit 9/11


----------



## pbman (Jan 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> These are not sufficient grounds to suggest that the people you call 'liberals' actually hate their country; it's rubbish and you _imagine_ that they are America-haters.
> .



Don't be silly.

Why would you think these commies love the us anymore than you do?   



> If people don't like jingoistic displays of nationalism, their views should be considered. In this country you have to apply for a permit to fly the Union flag, people don't love their country any less for it either.



We don't do "nationalism" like you europeans do, so quit being silly. We are a colection of people from other nations, do try and keep up.



> Why is it so important for you to continually remind yourself of your nationhood; are you so insecure with your own national identity that you simply have to do these things? That's a perfectly straightforward question too.



Cause the liberals no longer teach accuret Us history. And really as a goup they  now so little that they fall victume to beliving much of their own bullshit........to may americans have sacrificed to much, for them to show such nieve disrespect. If they were fully informed i could respect them,( a bit) but as a group, they know so little.........



> I am using the 'you' in a collective sense.



Thats fine i do the same, it saves typing time.


----------



## pbman (Jan 20, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> but that doesn't describe most of the American left does it? and it doesn't describe most of the people who watched Fahrenheit 9/11




I didn't say it was most of them.

It is the fringe.

I have several liberal friends (from church) and in no way does it apply to them. In the main they are politicaly nieve or almost even a-political, i've given up talking to them about politics long ago, as they know so little that its not possibel to discuse things with them. And the shocking part is one of them is a teacher with a masters degree.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 20, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Its people who hate the flag and its display



bear in mind that middle-american flag displays are culturally unique. No real affection for a flag doesn't necessarily imply that you hate your country.




> and are willing to belive all the anti-american propganda, without any question, clealy they belive it cause they want it to be true.


It's hardly necessary to invent anti-american "propaganda" is it? There's plenty of objections to be had with the United States without having to invent things. After all, half the bloody world hates you. 



> I see no other possible explination.



well, you wouldn't. 



> So unless you have one that makes sense, your blatantly wrong.



That's a touch of a stupid question. You're a close-minded patriot, no reason could ever make sense to you ...


----------



## pbman (Jan 20, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> bear in mind that middle-american flag displays are culturally unique. No real affection for a flag doesn't necessarily imply that you hate your country.



I don't have a problem with people with "no real affection" for the flag, thats not that unusual even for conservative circles.  Its the one's who cross over into activley dis-respecting it.



> t's hardly necessary to invent anti-american "propaganda" is it? There's plenty of objections to be had with the United States without having to invent things. After all, half the bloody world hates you.



That may be, but they rarely hate the us for the same reasons "the world" does. Their reasons are much more petty and self centered.



> That's a touch of a stupid question. You're a close-minded patriot, no reason could ever make sense to you ...



And thats a weak cop-out, my understanding of veriouse things is pretty good, i just rarely agnoledge such things, or give them much crediblity. I've lived in such places as "the peoples republic of boulder", and i wasn't a religiouse conservative at the time. I was republican, but mainly cause of my views on gun control and a few things like that. I supported abortion and dind't support any of the religiouse rights agenda.

Most of the liberals i have know belived very stronlgy that the mainstream would agree with them, if they knew were they were coming from and understood them, and the reality is far from that. Many of us know were they are coming form and strongly dissagree.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 20, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Its the one's who cross over into activley dis-respecting it.



When _was_ the last time an American burnt the stars and stripes?



> And thats a weak cop-out, my understanding of veriouse things is pretty good, i just rarely agnoledge such things, or give them much crediblity.



It's not a cop out. It's an accurate appreciation of the situation - I could point out any number of reasons to hate America that make perfect sense; believing in the welfare state, hostility to big business, the many sensible reasons to have opposed the dozens of wars that the US has started, fuelled or participated in over the past 6 decades. But they wouldn't 'make sense' to you.



> Most of the liberals i have know belived very stronlgy that the mainstream would agree with them, if they knew were they were coming from and understood them, and the reality is far from that. Many of us know were they are coming form and strongly dissagree.



But you clearly think that you are _the_ mainstream. I think Michael Moore's ongoing success and profile undermines that view. 

As for liberals believing they know best but the people don't understand; welcome to the rootless garbage that is the modern centre-left. They stopped standing for anything or anyone about 20 years ago. That's why they'll die off in the coming years - but I'm not sure you'll like the consequences of that ...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Don't be silly.
> 
> Why would you think these commies love the us anymore than you do?
> 
> ...




More bollocks from the shitemeister: you're a hardwired cultist peebs there's no denying it. This post says it all. What is it they say? Follow the leader.

If you had a mind of your own you'd be dangerous.


----------



## spikey_r (Jan 21, 2005)

*He just won't go away!!!*

more (   ) about Moore:

_Michael Moore has been nominated by the Directors Guild of America for directorial achievement in documentary filmmaking for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his assault on President George W Bush's actions regarding the September 11 attacks._

there are still some Americans who think his work is valuable    

the rest, and a piece about Moore's bodyguard (concealing his 'piece'    )

the winner will be announced on 29 January


----------



## pbman (Jan 21, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> When _was_ the last time an American burnt the stars and stripes?
> 
> ...



It happens enough that we recently tried to get an amendment to the constituion.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/flagburning.htm

It was is the news last year, and we disscused it here, in a long thead.



> But you clearly think that you are the mainstream. I think Michael Moore's ongoing success and profile undermines that view.



Of course i do, my values and belifes are mainstream republican, and we control both houses of congress and the presidency and a majorty of state gov'ts.



> As for liberals believing they know best but the people don't understand; welcome to the rootless garbage that is the modern centre-left. They stopped standing for anything or anyone about 20 years ago. That's why they'll die off in the coming years - but I'm not sure you'll like the consequences of that ...



I saw a good coment on fox news on this today, someone said the liberals used to be the optomistic party, and we republicans were the pessimists.

Now it has flipped, and we americans are very optomistic so their not that poular, and you are right they have no ideological base, they are all over the place on what they belive.

And hear in the us, as they die, we go forward more, we may have to split the republicna party in order to have to viable parties.

That was what was done pre-civilwar, we used to have the democrat/republican party. And i don't have a problem with spliting off the a-hole wing of the republican party.

What europe does in this regard is rather pointless and self-limiting, the european secualr left doesn't have the birth-rate to replicate itself.


----------



## pbman (Jan 21, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> more
> 
> there are still some Americans who think his work is valuable



This is nothing.

I've argued threads on moore for 20-30 pages.    

And yessome americna do thing his work is valuable, they are know as dumbass crack heads.

http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

And when the facts don't suport his views thier is nothing else to call them.

http://www.moorelies.com/

And maybe you ought to read this by noted lefty hitchens.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/



> To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.



And this is interesting, i guess his veiws changed when he wanted a popular movie.



> In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.


----------



## pbman (Jan 21, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> More bollocks from the shitemeister: you're a hardwired cultist peebs there's no denying it. This post says it all. What is it they say? Follow the leader.
> 
> If you had a mind of your own you'd be dangerous.



Yawn.

Do you have anything new to say?  

These are the same childish insults you were flinging two years ago.  

Say something of interest on topic or hit the road jack.


----------



## pbman (Jan 21, 2005)

Anyways here's a post c&ped off the dumbass of an american hating dumbass.

That should clear it up, if you need help with some of their historical missconseptions i will be glad to help you out but they should be fairly obviouse.

************************

XXXX(name x-ed out to protect the stupid. (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-20-05 02:29 PM
Original message 
Traditional American values are unethical 


In ancient Greece, democracy was really meant only for certain tribes of property owning men. Anyone else was the property of the free, democracy enjoying males, whether wives, children, serfs or slaves. 

Traditional American values are unethical because they are rooted in class elitism, racism and sexism much as democracy was in ancient Greece. Our founding fathers, who penned the Constitution of the United States, were steeped in this tradition. In the same way, the founding fathers wrote the Constitution to benefit the white gentleman farmer and plantation owner preferably of English ancestry.

Since Native Americans and African slaves were considered inferior human species, it didn’t cross their minds very often that these people could also be entitled to the same rights they enjoyed. When they said “all men are created equal”, it was really an exclusive club and didn’t embrace all of humanity including women. 

Even the women of their station, who were acceptable as wives and mothers of their children, were considered inferior in intellect and therefore not to be trusted with a vote. Instead they were treated as another child, economically dependent on them and protected from harm, but not allowed to make any decisions about their lives without the approval of a father, husband or brother.

Immigration was allowed only because the elitist, white Americans needed a working class when owning another human being as a slave became distasteful, first in the north and forced upon the south after the Civil War.

These are the traditional values embraced by the Republican Party handed down from generation to generation. Democracy to them is really an elite club of white men and those who walk in lockstep with those privileged white men. Anyone else is here to serve that elite club. 

This is why the Republican administration in power today wages war on other nations with impunity. Of course they are entitled to anything those invaded nations own. God put all that oil in the Middle East for entitled white men to take for their own use. This is why there is no really meaningful action taken about illegal immigration. Those entitled Republican business owners need the cheap labor without having to give back anything in return, like decent wages and benefits.

The bread and circuses inauguration display today only confirms this attitude. On a day when American lives are being lost because of a war born of greed and entitlement, when innocent Arab lives are being ruined and lost, the balls, cocktail parties and celebrations will go on because the people who considered themselves entitled to all that the world has to offer are dancing on the graves of those whose lives they have treated like a cheap commodity.

We need a real moral majority to bring us into the twenty-first century, not a repeat of Roman, elitist imperialism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com       /discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2979797


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 21, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Anyways here's a post c&ped off the dumbass of an american hating dumbass.




You've become a parody of yourself, pbman...


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2005)

does peabrain actually know that Washington, Abe Lincoln, Tom Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt are ALL classic American liberals, and would recognise todays 'liberals' as their true successors?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 21, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> It happens enough that we recently tried to get an amendment to the constituion.
> 
> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/flagburning.htm
> 
> It was is the news last year, and we disscused it here, in a long thead.



 What the hell has that got to do with it?  



> Of course i do, my values and belifes are mainstream republican, and we control both houses of congress and the presidency and a majorty of state gov'ts.



Eligible Non-Voters 87,115,458
Bush Voters 60,934,251

Who's mainstream now?



> and you are right they have no ideological base, they are all over the place on what they belive.



That too, but I'm referring to the lack of a practical popular base; not in the sense that no-one will vote for them, but in the sense that they aren't at the head of 'movement'. They're just a group of politicians trying to sell a set of policies, it's rootless and the demise is pretty inevitable IMO.



> And hear in the us, as they die, we go forward more, we may have to split the republicna party in order to have to viable parties.
> That was what was done pre-civilwar, we used to have the democrat/republican party. And i don't have a problem with spliting off the a-hole wing of the republican party.



But I don't think that's what will happen. The problem is not that a certain set of views isn't being represented, it's that a certain set of people isn't being represented. Manual workers, the bottom rung of the service industry, people getting outsourced and casualised. I'm not sure any wing of the Republican party can represent those kind of people because they're all supply-siders (and the key element to supplyside is to force money away from bottom end consumption and into investment to stimulate economic growth). And to be honest, these kinds of people don't live in swing states, generally they live in safe blue states, so no one bothers about them (which is why they make up a fair proportion of those _mainstream_ non-voters). A growing proportion of them are also drawn from Latin America, a region with a political culture prone to direct action, radical leftism and used to a much more activist political system. 



> What europe does in this regard is rather pointless and self-limiting, the european secualr left doesn't have the birth-rate to replicate itself.



you do keep pushing this one don't you...
It's not going to happen in your lifetime peebs, so I shouldn't worry about it


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 21, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Yawn.
> 
> Do you have anything new to say?
> 
> ...



No childish insults peebs, you accept the idea that there are 'enemies' within the US who are out to do you harm and who 'hate' America. This is the sort of thing that is propagated by your favourite media organs and commentators, together with your leading politicians.

You accept all that is told you by your leaders. In that respect you are a cultist.

Again, where is your proof that these people _hate_ America? That's right, you have none.


----------



## pbman (Jan 21, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> does peabrain actually know that Washington, Abe Lincoln, Tom Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt are ALL classic American liberals, and would recognise todays 'liberals' as their true successors?



And do you know that todays liberals wouldn't recognize them as their own.

Teh diffenitionof "liberal" has changed radicaly.

If i lived in washingtons time, i would be a liberal as well


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> And do you know that todays liberals wouldn't recognize them as their own.
> 
> Teh diffenitionof "liberal" has changed radicaly.
> 
> If i lived in washingtons time, i would be a liberal as well


just because illiterates like you decide to redefine an 'ism' for your own dishonest ends, that does NOT mean the meaning has changed. 'isms' DON'T. that's why they are 'isms' i.e. belief systems. why should the english-speaking world suffer from your inability to respect the language and use it properly? 
And the core principles of liberalism - as laid down by its' inventors, Paine, Rousseau etc are *exactly* the same in Washington's thinking (give or take slavery) as they are in the liberals of today - and for that matter - the english Liberals of the start of the last century. You are 100% wrong when you say today's 'liberals' wouldn't redcognise them - I suggest you read your first ever history book (or any book), and enlighten yourself. and find out about the origins of liberalism whilst you're at it. 

and - for fuck sake - there is no such word as 'diffenition'. I don't think you're in ANY position to lay down 'diffenitions' of any words when you can barely spell a single one yourself, you ignorant moron!


----------



## pbman (Jan 21, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry but when they woun't admit to being who they are they are diffently in the minority.



> But I don't think that's what will happen. The problem is not that a certain set of views isn't being represented, it's that a certain set of people isn't being represented. Manual workers, the bottom rung of the service industry, people getting outsourced and casualised. I'm not sure any wing of the Republican party can represent those kind of people because they're all supply-siders (and the key element to supplyside is to force money away from bottom end consumption and into investment to stimulate economic growth). And to be honest, these kinds of people don't live in swing states, generally they live in safe blue states, so no one bothers about them (which is why they make up a fair proportion of those mainstream non-voters). A growing proportion of them are also drawn from Latin America, a region with a political culture prone to direct action, radical leftism and used to a much more activist political system.



Well the democrats have abodoned and ignored their base, so many of them have become republicans. And  in case you hadn't noticed the republicnas are flinging money at the base, in the same way the democrats did. Social spending is up all across the board. Since this is the reality, why wound't they vote republican.



> you do keep pushing this one don't you...



I'm not worry about it,it isn't my problem.

And I'm still waiting for one od you guys to come up with a response to it.


----------



## pbman (Jan 21, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> just because illiterates like you decide to redefine an 'ism' for your own dishonest ends, that does NOT mean the meaning has changed. 'isms' DON'T. that's why they are 'isms' i.e. belief systems. why should the english-speaking world suffer from your inability to respect the language and use it properly?
> !



Try to get out more,these are the main points of "classic liberalism."

an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society, 
the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system, 
the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and 
the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html

********************

And those are all republican today.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 21, 2005)

spikey_r said:
			
		

> MM's acceptance speech:
> 
> http://michaelmoore.com/_media/pcaawardslong.mov
> 
> it was up against spiderman2, shrek2 and the incredibles...



Michael's in good company. Other People's Choice Awards winners:

Dolly Parton. 

Burt Reynolds  

Mel Gibson

Celine Dion

Bruce Willis

Tony Danza




Liar Liar

Passion of the Christ

Spiderman

Friends


----------



## vimto (Jan 22, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> And those are all republican today.


Big Arnie from California (Rep)...accused of sexual harrassment on numerous occassions...Clint Eastwood from Carmel (Rep) depicts an act of rape on film that  many others would find totally unacceptable in any civillised society, yet big Clint attempts to justify the rape by saying that "she wanted it really"

Big Clint publicly stating that he would KILL Michael Moore if he ever turned up at his door at any time... Why are you people so frightened?


----------



## vimto (Jan 22, 2005)

Fucking wimps


----------



## The Oracle (Jan 22, 2005)

The people choose Al Gore in 2000 and Michael Moore in 2004.  This has some significance. It obviously dispels the notion of there being an overwhelming mandate.


----------



## vimto (Jan 22, 2005)

How's it going Johnny


----------



## The Oracle (Jan 22, 2005)

vimto said:
			
		

> Big Arnie from California (Rep)...accused of sexual harrassment on numerous occassions...Clint Eastwood from Carmel (Rep) depicts an act of rape on film that  many others would find totally unacceptable in any civillised society, yet big Clint attempts to justify the rape by saying that "she wanted it really"
> 
> Big Clint publicly stating that he would KILL Michael Moore if he ever turned up at his door at any time... Why are you people so frightened?



Lets not forget other members of the morally superior republican party.
Bill O’Rilley unwanted sex-capades with a producer.
The Republican demigod Newt Gingrich, shagging one of his aids while his poor wife laid bed ridden with MS the seeking to abandon and divorce her.

These last two cons have written books on how to be morally superior.


The O'Reilly Factor for Kids: A Survival Guide for America's Families

Winning The Future: A 21st Century Contract with America"the removal of God from American public life"


----------



## vimto (Jan 22, 2005)

The Oracle said:
			
		

> Lets not forget other members of the morally superior republican party.
> Bill O?Rilley unwanted sex-capades with a producer.
> The Republican demigod Newt Gingrich, shagging one of his aids while his poor wife laid bed ridden with MS the seeking to abandon and divorce her.
> 
> ...


Hehehe


----------



## pbman (Jan 22, 2005)

vimto said:
			
		

> Fucking wimps



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html

NEW YORK — Filmmaker Michael Moore's (search) bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night. 

Look at the hypocrite.


----------



## The Oracle (Jan 22, 2005)

*The dissent is growing and we like it,*

Forget Michael Moore what will the *"Chicken Hawks"* have to say when these films hit theaters? 

Are they going to lash out and attack the brave young men and women who are featured in them and who are now being used as pawns in this latest energy industry boondoggle?

Corporate America should have shown it's generosity to the people who really deserved it, by donating money for extra armor instead of blowing it on a record 50 million dollar Inaugural celebration.



> *Gunner Palace Opens March 4th *
> Mike Tucker's new film, "Gunner Palace," which chronicles his two-month stay with the 2/3 Field Artillery in Baghdad. "With total access to all operations and activities, Tucker's insider footage provides a rare look at the day-to-day lives of these soldiers on the ground -- whether swimming in Uday's pool and playing golf on his putting green or executing raids on suspected terrorists, enduring roadside bombs, mortar attacks, RPGs and snipers." You can see a trailer at the film's website


. 




> *The Ground Truth Coming Spring 2005 *
> The Ground Truth  interviews many soldiers coming home and lets them tell their own stories - good, bad and everything in between. It is a up-close look at what soldiers think, feel, and are doing with all that being in a war brings to bear - benefits, family, PTSD, injuries, amputations, and their experiences in a life changing war - that in some cases, they are preparing to do all over again. March 19, 2005



Other War Videos


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jan 22, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html
> 
> NEW YORK — Filmmaker Michael Moore's (search) bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night.
> 
> Look at the hypocrite.


  Eh?  The weapon is licensed in two other states, and the bloke is a bodyguard.  The one person you'd expect to be armed.


----------



## TomUS (Jan 23, 2005)

vimto said:
			
		

> Big Clint publicly stating that he would KILL Michael Moore if he ever turned up at his door at any time... Why are you people so frightened?


Scared of the freedom & liberty they & Bush claim to crusade for.  Scared of anyone who challenges their 'my country right or wrong' simple-mindedness.  Scared they have fallen for a pack of lies from leaders they believed in.  Scared that someone has been able to use the mainstream entertainment media to help open the eyes of millions & thereby has some power.  

This fear breeds the truly insane hatred of a guy who just makes movies.


----------



## pbman (Jan 23, 2005)

The Oracle said:
			
		

> Forget Michael Moore what will the *"Chicken Hawks"* have to say when these films hit theaters?
> 
> Are they going to lash out and attack the brave young men and women who are featured in them and who are now being used as pawns in this latest energy industry boondoggle?
> 
> ...



You are vimito, and i claim my 5 pounds.


----------



## pbman (Jan 23, 2005)

DarthSydodyas said:
			
		

> Eh?  The weapon is licensed in two other states, and the bloke is a bodyguard.  The one person you'd expect to be armed.



A "bodyguard' in the us, is any yahoo, who call's himself one.

In any event, most of us, can't afford body guards, and yahoo's like moore, would like to dissarm us, and that just really pisses us off. And him having a licences in california really, realy pisses me off, as you have to be politicaly connected to the demcrats to get one, and donate a large check to the local democrat. We americans don't belive some people should have special privilages that the rest of us don't.

And FYI i'm licenced in a lot more states than that.

And so is moores bodyguard, as florida has reciprocity with many other states.

In any event, NYC is noted for it tought gun laws, you really have to be rich and connected to get a permit their, so moore and his man had to have known they were breaking the law.

You want to bet any money on weather he gets away with it?


----------



## pbman (Jan 23, 2005)

TomUS said:
			
		

> Scared of the freedom & liberty they & Bush claim to crusade for.  Scared of anyone who challenges their 'my country right or wrong' simple-mindedness.  Scared they have fallen for a pack of lies from leaders they believed in.  Scared that someone has been able to use the mainstream entertainment media to help open the eyes of millions & thereby has some power.
> 
> This fear breeds the truly insane hatred of a guy who just makes movies.



No we just don't like lying pieces of shit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> No we just don't like lying pieces of shit.



In which case you should hate your president and his _number two_ with a passion.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jan 23, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> In any event, NYC is noted for it tought gun laws, you really have to be rich and connected to get a permit their, so moore and his man had to have known they were breaking the law.


 Why Mr Moore?  Its the bodyguards weapon.  His responsibility to make sure its above board at all times.


----------



## pbman (Jan 23, 2005)

DarthSydodyas said:
			
		

> Why Mr Moore?  Its the bodyguards weapon.  His responsibility to make sure its above board at all times.



It hypocritical to hire others to do what he said is wrong for everyday people.

End of story.

He should make the cover next month.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jan 23, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> It hypocritical to hire others to do what he said is wrong for everyday people.
> 
> End of story.


  He never hired the guy to carry a firearm without a license.


----------



## TomUS (Jan 23, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> It hypocritical to hire others to do what he said is wrong for everyday people.


When did Michael ever say it was wrong for people to arm themselves for self-defense?


----------



## pk (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html
> 
> NEW YORK — Filmmaker Michael Moore's (search) bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night.
> 
> Look at the hypocrite.



Damn shame he didn't get to kill that senile old twat Charlton Heston first...

Hope he does get away with it though.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> Damn shame he didn't get to kill that senile old twat Charlton Heston first...
> 
> Hope he does get away with it though.



Yawn


----------



## pk (Jan 24, 2005)

That's what I do whenever I see one of your retarded posts, pbman.

I yawn, and wonder idly how long it will be before you have a hunting accident.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html
> 
> NEW YORK — Filmmaker Michael Moore's (search) bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night.
> 
> Look at the hypocrite.



Erm. AFAIK he's in the NRA, has a gun licence and is pretty good shot. You've evidently not actually watched Bowling for Columbine, the conclusion of which has bugger all to do with gun control (hence why he spends a good part of the movie explaining that Canada has guns but virtually no gun crime). 

Which I guess, makes you look a bit of an idiot. I mean you've spent god knows how long pushing your "Michael Moore is a liar" websites, ignoring any kind of comeback on the points those websites raise (and then, in characteristic style, swearing blind that you won those arguments and that nobody raised any questions whatsoever) and carrying those quotes and links onto thread after thread after thread. The fact that you've decided that Michael Moore is a hypocrite for having a bodyguard who has a gun shows that (a) you've not watched the movie and that (b) you've not investigated the movie thoroughly enough to grasp what its content was. 

"Moore's 2003 Oscar-winning film "Bowling for Columbine" criticizes what Moore calls America's "culture of fear" and its obsession with guns." Screams the Fox article in the same misrepresentation of BfCs' position. Makes you look exactly like the kneejerk idiot who believes everything he sees on Fox, that everyone says you are.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

TomUS said:
			
		

> When did Michael ever say it was wrong for people to arm themselves for self-defense?



http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=432

But he does a lot of weaseling he never out right call it wrong, but he supports laws that severly restrict the practiality of people defending themselves........


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=432
> 
> But he does a lot of weaseling he never out right call it wrong, but he supports laws that severly restrict the practiality of people defending themselves........



OK Rolleyes
Where in that article does Moore expose himself as anti guns. Sorry's right i guess you haven't seen the film. Bit like you'd never read any Chomsky but you had very extreme views about him too. On that basis i'd prevent you from having a gun, you react too much to hearsay, shit before we knew it you'd be popping a cap in Micheal Jacksons ass because someone said he was a nonce. 

Moores support for sensible gun laws doesn't equate to "severly restricting your right to defend yourself" does it PB. What's wrong with having sensible gun laws, especially in the US. 
Good for the Aussies good for you. 
How many times have you had to kill someone by shooting them. Why do you feel so scared you need a gun, aren't all the injuns friendly now.

I could understand the need for you to be armed when your gov comes along to round you all up into the FEMA camps but do you really believe that introducing sensible gun laws would make you feel more safe or more scared.

What and who do you fear?

I know, i know, i really should get out more, 
you've covered this before in other threads, 
 

Do try and keep up.
How old are you anyways?

Pieces of eight, pieces of eight


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> OK Rolleyes
> Where in that article does Moore expose himself as anti guns. eight



So the very fact that the brady center praises him and his film doens't tell you anything?

FYI they used to be called HCI- handgun control inc. but they had to change their name after they faild to actually register their name.

And FYI we have sensable gun laws, tens of thousands of them as a matter of fact. HCI and their minions, like moore, want to outlaw all guns.

But they lie, cause so many democrats are gun owners.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 24, 2005)

Any bloody excuse!


----------



## The Oracle (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> FYI they used to be called HCI- handgun control inc. but they had to change their name after they faild to actually register their name.
> 
> And FYI we have sensable gun laws, tens of thousands of them as a matter of fact. HCI and their minions, like moore, want to outlaw all guns.



It’s the Hypocrite republicans who are in power now and want to take away your guns and other civil liberties.


> *Gonzales Backs Assault Weapons Ban*
> Tuesday, January 18, 2005WASHINGTON — Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales (search) told the Senate on Tuesday that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban (search).
> Gonzales also said he wants Congress to get rid of a requirement that would eliminate part of the Patriot Act this year, despite complaints that it is too intrusive.
> "I believe the USA PATRIOT Act (search) has greatly improved our nation's ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in written answers to questions left over from his confirmation hearing.
> ...


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So the very fact that the brady center praises him and his film doens't tell you anything?
> 
> FYI they used to be called HCI- handgun control inc. but they had to change their name after they faild to actually register their name.
> 
> ...



Peebs; stop digging. There's a very long part of BfC that actually lists all the countries that have both millions of guns and low gun crime. He then concludes that difference isn't guns its culture. It's the same argument that you make for fuck sake!

On a personal note, I found BfC's argument so convincing that it's one of the main reasons why I'm no longer pro-gun-control.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So the very fact that the brady center praises him and his film doens't tell you anything?
> 
> FYI they used to be called HCI- handgun control inc. but they had to change their name after they faild to actually register their name.
> 
> ...



Peebs i saw Maya agreeing with one of your points in the "Help!!! The wolves are coming" thread but that doesn't mean he's a Right-wing, Christian funamentalist gun-nut too does it.

Do try and keep up, you really should get out moore  

Watch the film FFS you might get Sorry's point.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

The Oracle said:
			
		

> It’s the Hypocrite republicans who are in power now and want to take away your guns and other civil liberties.



Don't try to bullshit me.   

If we introduced some gun control laws,you would have a point.

But you don't.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Peebs i saw Maya agreeing with one of your points in the "Help!!! The wolves are coming" thread but that doesn't mean he's a Right-wing, Christian funamentalist gun-nut too does it.
> 
> Do try and keep up, you really should get out moore
> 
> Watch the film FFS you might get Sorry's point.



So you didn't notice kerry going hunting with a gun he proposed banning during last years election?

Thats standard hypocracy for democrats to pretend to be pro-gun.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> Peebs; stop digging. There's a very long part of BfC that actually lists all the countries that have both millions of guns and low gun crime. He then concludes that difference isn't guns its culture. It's the same argument that you make for fuck sake!
> 
> On a personal note, I found BfC's argument so convincing that it's one of the main reasons why I'm no longer pro-gun-control.



So why did he so viciously attack charilton heston, and make all the bizzare KKK references to the NRA?

Thats the shit most people remmber.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> Erm. AFAIK he's in the NRA, has a gun licence and is pretty good shot. You've evidently not actually watched Bowling for Columbine, the conclusion of which has bugger all to do with gun control (hence why he spends a good part of the movie explaining that Canada has guns but virtually no gun crime).
> 
> Which I guess, makes you look a bit of an idiot. I mean you've spent god knows how long pushing your "Michael Moore is a liar" websites, ignoring any kind of comeback on the points those websites raise (and then, in characteristic style, swearing blind that you won those arguments and that nobody raised any questions whatsoever) and carrying those quotes and links onto thread after thread after thread. The fact that you've decided that Michael Moore is a hypocrite for having a bodyguard who has a gun shows that (a) you've not watched the movie and that (b) you've not investigated the movie thoroughly enough to grasp what its content was.
> 
> "Moore's 2003 Oscar-winning film "Bowling for Columbine" criticizes what Moore calls America's "culture of fear" and its obsession with guns." Screams the Fox article in the same misrepresentation of BfCs' position. Makes you look exactly like the kneejerk idiot who believes everything he sees on Fox, that everyone says you are.



He joined the NRA just so he could attend the yearly meetings.

He has no gun licence they are not required or issued.

And their plenty of lies in BFC.

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


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So why did he so viciously attack charilton heston, and make all the bizzare KKK references to the NRA?
> 
> Thats the shit most people remmber.



He doesn't like Heston or the people who run the NRA but resolutely doesn't conclude that gun ownership is the problem, but like a few people have suggested; watch the movie and make up your own mind, rather than obsessively searching out counter-propaganda to impress us all with.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> He doesn't like Heston or the people who run the NRA but resolutely doesn't conclude that gun ownership is the problem, but like a few people have suggested; watch the movie and make up your own mind, rather than obsessively searching out counter-propaganda to impress us all with.



That doesn't give him a free pass, to insinuate that they are racist or whatever.

And he did.

So that puts him equal to dog crap on the bottom of my shoe.








> Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.



And form my site.



> 10. Guns (supposedly the point of the film). A point worth making (although not strictly on theme here): Bowling's theme is, rather curiously, not opposed to firearms ownership.



But he attacks and riducless those who do activly support the second amendment..........

So if you shoot the messanger the message doesn't get out.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> He joined the NRA just so he could attend the yearly meetings.
> 
> He has no gun licence they are not required or issued.
> 
> ...



even if there are (and I can't be arsed debating this with you again), that doesn't make you any less of a gullible moron for saying he was anti-gun ownership just because Fox told you so, and makes the fact that you believe anything any random website tells you obvious to pretty much anyone.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> even if there are (and I can't be arsed debating this with you again), that doesn't make you any less of a gullible moron for saying he was anti-gun ownership just because Fox told you so, and makes the fact that you believe anything any random website tells you obvious to pretty much anyone.



He is anti-gun.

But like most high profile democrats, they pretend not to be.

Thats the reality of life, when so many of us own guns.

They are forced to lie like dogs in the sun.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 24, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> He doesn't like Heston or the people who run the NRA but resolutely doesn't conclude that gun ownership is the problem, but like a few people have suggested; watch the movie and make up your own mind, rather than obsessively searching out counter-propaganda to impress us all with.




The attack on Heston at his own home was a low blow extraordinaire. I'm not a Heston fan, but even I could see the blatant unfairness of that move.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> That doesn't give him a free pass, to insinuate that they are racist or whatever.
> And he did.
> But he attacks and riducless those who do activly support the second amendment..........
> So if you shoot the messanger the message doesn't get out.



You're missing the point.

The point being that you are ignorant moron, who parrots any old website despite not knowing anything about the topic. Something that you've just illustrated by your demonstrably innacurate depiction of Moore's views. You're further illustrating this point by failing to grasp what exactly it is I am accusing you of, and the irrelevance of whether or not you think Moore is a liar.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 24, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> The attack on Heston at his own home was a low blow extraordinaire. I'm not a Heston fan, but even I could see the blatant unfairness of that move.



I'm inclined to agree, especially given that attacking Heston had very little to do with the rest of the documentary.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> You're missing the point.
> 
> The point being that you are ignorant moron, who parrots any old website despite not knowing anything about the topic. Something that you've just illustrated by your demonstrably innacurate depiction of Moore's views. You're further illustrating this point by failing to grasp what exactly it is I am accusing you of, and the irrelevance of whether or not you think Moore is a liar.



And you miss the point that you know little about how democrats act when it comes to guns.

We've had lots of congressmen here in oklhoma, talk progun when they are here, and then vote for extremaly radical anti-gun shit.

Its the only way they can attack something thats popular.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> I'm inclined to agree, especially given that attacking Heston had very little to do with the rest of the documentary.



So why was it done then?

Heston marched with king, emplying he's a racist is and the NRA is the eqivilant of the KKK, is pushing the agenda of the far left.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> He is anti-gun.
> 
> But like most high profile democrats, they pretend not to be.
> 
> ...



How can you not see the ridiculousness of your position?
Just admit that you're wrong, there is no evidence that Moore is anti-gun-ownership. BfC probably convinced more hostile people that gun-ownership wasn't the real problem than charlton heston has done in his entire life.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> And you miss the point that you know little about how democrats act when it comes to guns.
> 
> We've had lots of congressmen here in oklhoma, talk progun when they are here, and then vote for extremaly radical anti-gun shit.
> 
> Its the only way they can attack something thats popular.



let me explain something to you. 

Hypocrite is when you say one thing, then do another.
If Michael Moore says he has no problem with gun ownership, please explain why it is hypocritical for his bodyguard to carry a gun?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 24, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So why was it done then?
> 
> Heston marched with king, emplying he's a racist is and the NRA is the eqivilant of the KKK, is pushing the agenda of the far left.



so what? he's a leftist, who isn't against gun ownership. Lots of us about.


----------



## pbman (Jan 24, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> How can you not see the ridiculousness of your position?
> Just admit that you're wrong, there is no evidence that Moore is anti-gun-ownership. BfC probably convinced more hostile people that gun-ownership wasn't the real problem than charlton heston has done in his entire life.



Cause i live here and am very used to democrats who pretend to be pro-gun.

And vote anti-gun.

Thats most of them btw.

Theirs is no other reason to attack heston and the NRA if you were pro-gun.

Why would they do that when the NRA's gun safty and training have cut the rate of gun accidents in half or more?

So if you can't explain why a "pro-gun" person do that, your point,and the movie is inconsitante with its stated "position"


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> Lots of us about.



Yet damn few of you would admit this in one of my many threads on the topic.


And you can't be pro-gun, and so anti-NRA, they do some much for gun safty, and they are such wimps, when it comes to lobbying. Clearly him and his friends appse the NRA cause they NRA aposes their (slightly)secret gun grabbing agenda.


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> let me explain something to you.
> 
> Hypocrite is when you say one thing, then do another.
> If Michael Moore says he has no problem with gun ownership, please explain why it is hypocritical for his bodyguard to carry a gun?




He's never said he has no problem with gun ownership.

His kind like to have registration first, and then they move to take them away like they did in the UK.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Cause i live here and am very used to democrats who pretend to be pro-gun.
> 
> And vote anti-gun.
> 
> Thats most of them btw.



And yet, in his professional life as a documentary film maker, Moore doesn't campaign against guns. 

So (a) you don't know whether or not he's pro or anti-gun and (b) It doesn't particularly matter because his public position matches the behaviour that you described as hypocritical. 



> Theirs is no other reason to attack heston and the NRA if you were pro-gun.
> 
> Why would they do that when the NRA's gun safty and training have cut the rate of gun accidents in half or more?
> 
> So if you can't explain why a "pro-gun" person do that, your point,and the movie is inconsitante with its stated "position"



In the movie (which you haven't watched), he explains his problem with the NRA (insensitivity toward the victims of colombine and other massacres, because they held large high profile rallies in these towns shortly after them), which regardless of whether you agree with it or not, is palpably a reason not to like the NRA, other than being anti-gun.


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> In the movie (which you haven't watched), he explains his problem with the NRA (insensitivity toward the victims of colombine and other massacres, because they held large high profile rallies in these towns shortly after them), which regardless of whether you agree with it or not, is palpably a reason not to like the NRA, other than being anti-gun.



And that is bullshit. The NRA annual meeting was schedualed for denver years in advance, and they can't be canceled, for legal reasons.

By law those meeting had to take place.

and the fotage of heston wasn't from that meeting, it was a year latter.



> Moore plays the famous cold dead hands line right after a somber scene of crying children to paint Heston as insensitive to gun tragedies. The emotional appeal of cutting a scene of low key music and crying children with a triumphant Heston makes the association that Heston is reveling in death.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> And you can't be pro-gun, and so anti-NRA, they do some much for gun safty, and they are such wimps, when it comes to lobbying. Clearly him and his friends appse the NRA cause they NRA aposes their (slightly)secret gun grabbing agenda.



What a ridiculous comment. You can support a cause and still object to its most prominent advocate.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> And that is bullshit. The NRA annual meeting was schedualed for denver years in advance, and they can't be canceled, for legal reasons.
> 
> By law those meeting had to take place.



Like I said "*regardless of whether you agree with it or not*, is palpably a reason not to like the NRA other than being anti-gun."


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> He's never said he has no problem with gun ownership.
> 
> His kind like to have registration first, and then they move to take them away like they did in the UK.




Is Michael Moore a hypocrite because his bodyguard carries a gun? If so, please explain why ...


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> What a ridiculous comment. You can support a cause and still object to its most prominent advocate.



Yes you can.

But on this issue in american, they just pretend to support them.

And i've known this long before fox news or the network even was around.

And long before talk radio.

Its easy to see.


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> Is Michael Moore a hypocrite because his bodyguard carries a gun? If so, please explain why ...



He is/was anti-gun regardless of his lying to the contrary.


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> Like I said "*regardless of whether you agree with it or not*, is palpably a reason not to like the NRA other than being anti-gun."



Come on, he's just blowing smoke. He has never done or said the slightest things to support gun rights.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Yes you can.
> 
> But on this issue in american, they just pretend to support them.
> 
> ...



OK.

You've said it's possible to be a Democrat and pro-gun. 
You've said it's possible to be pro-gun and hate the NRA.  

So why are you still clinging to your moronic position?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> He is/was anti-gun regardless of his lying to the contrary.



And you know that he's lying because Fox News told you so. Because you're a credulous idiot who can't think on his own. 

How the hell can he be hypocritical regarding something he's never advocated? 

It's hypocrisy when you say one thing and do another. He says he supports gun ownership and ... here's the kicker... owns a fucking gun!


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> OK.
> 
> You've said it's possible to be a Democrat and pro-gun.
> You've said it's possible to be pro-gun and hate the NRA.
> ...



Yes its possible, but its not very probable.

Do you see the differnce?

I've seen to much liying by democrats like moore, to belive he is pro-gun.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Come on, he's just blowing smoke. He has never done or said the slightest things to support gun rights.



apart from make a movie arguing to leftists that gun ownership wasn't the real issue in violent crime. And in the process convince at least one leftist (myself) that gun ownership really wasn't the real issue in violent crime.


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> And you know that he's lying because Fox News told you so. Because you're a credulous idiot who can't think on his own.
> 
> How the hell can he be hypocritical regarding something he's never advocated?
> 
> It's hypocrisy when you say one thing and do another. He says he supports gun ownership and ... here's the kicker... owns a fucking gun!



Lost of democrats own guns and support very strong gun control.

So that means nothing.

And i fuigred out democrats lie about guns back in the 70's, long before any conservative media.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Yes its possible, but its not very probable.
> 
> Do you see the differnce?
> 
> I've seen to much liying by democrats like moore, to belive he is pro-gun.



The fact you think he's a liar doesn't make him a hypocrite. You can't just make up what you think his position is and then call him a hypocrite for deviating from it.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Lost of democrats own guns and support very strong gun control.
> 
> So that means nothing.
> 
> And i fuigred out democrats lie about guns back in the 70's, long before any conservative media.



So where the fuck is the hypocrisy in his position?!??!?!


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> apart from make a movie arguing to leftists that gun ownership wasn't the real issue in violent crime. And in the process convince at least one leftist (myself) that gun ownership really wasn't the real issue in violent crime.



Yup.

Thirty years of consistant lying is very hard to overcome.

If one of these "pro-gun" yahoo's would ever vote once for a pro-gun bill i might buy it.

But they don't. Kerry pretended to be pro-gun as well, do you know all the radical anit-gun bilsl he sponsored and or voted for?

I seriousely doubt it, or you would know what liers they are.

Why would you belve they don't lie anyways?


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> So where the fuck is the hypocrisy in his position?!??!?!




Anti-gun person hires someone else to do what he will not let others do, and you have to ask?


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> The fact you think he's a liar doesn't make him a hypocrite. You can't just make up what you think his position is and then call him a hypocrite for deviating from it.



Yes if he's lying, then he is a hypocrite.

If he's not lying then, he isn't.

But seeing how most democrats pretend to be pro-gun, i see no reason to belive he is the very rare exception.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> Thirty years of consistant lying is very hard to overcome.
> 
> ...



Specifically regarding Michael Moore's BfC? I believe he wasn't lying because it was a convincing argument. Why would he make a convincing argument that the problems with violent crime were nothing to do with gun ownership if he wanted people to be anti-gun? Why wouldn't he just omit it? Or make a crap argument? 

Are you really telling me that Moore is so talentless a propagandist that he would 'accidently' make a good case for gun ownership?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Yes if he's lying, then he is a hypocrite.



that's a tautology, all liars are hypocrites; hypocrisy is a feature of lying. 



> If he's not lying then, he isn't.
> 
> But seeing how most democrats pretend to be pro-gun, i see no reason to belive he is the very rare exception.



Other then perhaps some kind of intellectual honesty. You've well and truly savaged that straw man; "If Michael Moore holds the position that he says he does, then he's a hypocrite!" You might as well say "Michael Moore claims to be against Nazism! But I once saw him in a dream having sex with Martin Bormann, the hypocrite!"


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> Specifically regarding Michael Moore's BfC? I believe he wasn't lying because it was a convincing argument. Why would he make a convincing argument that the problems with violent crime were nothing to do with gun ownership if he wanted people to be anti-gun? Why wouldn't he just omit it? Or make a crap argument?
> 
> Are you really telling me that Moore is so talentless a propagandist that he would 'accidently' make a good case for gun ownership?



So give me one good reason for his attacks on heston and the NRA.

Just one.

The one you/he stated is bullshit, as all such orginazions have to have anual meetings to vote on officers and other things.

It could not be canceled or delayed.

Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature, and who thought about it in the slightest would realize this.

And considering how much of the NRA's buisness is to activly promote very real and effective gun safty programs, i don't see how a "pro-gun" person could attack them in that way.

Being agait them is the same as being against gun safty, as no one else does anything in that regard.


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> that's a tautology, all liars are hypocrites; hypocrisy is a feature of lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Other then perhaps some kind of intellectual honesty. You've well and truly savaged that straw man; "If Michael Moore holds the position that he says he does, then he's a hypocrite!" You might as well say "Michael Moore claims to be against Nazism! But I once saw him in a dream having sex with Martin Bormann, the hypocrite!"



Its not my fault if you don't understand the american two party system.

Democrats can't openly be aginst all guns, and still get elected much anywere.

So they lie.

It standard american politics.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So give me one good reason for his attacks on heston and the NRA.
> 
> Just one.



Why does it have to be a good reason? Maybe he just hates Heston for being a right-wing fruitloop and the NRA for having a right-wing fruitloop as a president? 

Doesn't effect the facts that he has (a) made a convincing argument against the gun-prohibition lobby in his most high profile movie to date and (b) owns a gun.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Its not my fault if you don't understand the american two party system.
> 
> Democrats can't openly be aginst all guns, and still get elected much anywere.
> 
> ...



What elections has Michael Moore stood in recently?


----------



## Dandred (Jan 25, 2005)

Didn't Heir Heston and the NRA stage several pro gun rallies in places where terrible murders had been commited, showing no concern for the familes of the dead children. What was Heir Heston said "from my cold dead hands" too late for the children of Columbine hey pbman.


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> What elections has Michael Moore stood in recently?



He doens't have to "stand" to support the democratic agenda.

Why would you think that?


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Dandred said:
			
		

> Didn't Heir Heston and the NRA stage several pro gun rallies in places where terrible murders had been commited, showing no concern for the familes of the dead children. What was Heir Heston said "from my cold dead hands" too late for the children of Columbine hey pbman.



No thats just his propganda.

It was the NRA's annual meeting.

You can't cancele such things.

And the "cold dead hands" speach was one year latter,reegardlesss of the impretion you got form his editing.

I would think one year is long enough myself.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> He doens't have to "stand" to support the democratic agenda.
> 
> Why would you think that?



No one's voting for him, how the fuck does his position on gun control matter? It's not like he's even an 'on message' democrat. He's just a demagogue who sells books and movies that attack rightists


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> No one's voting for him, how the fuck does his position on gun control matter? It's not like he's even an 'on message' democrat. He's just a demagogue who sells books and movies that attack rightists



It matters tremndousely, as he was and has been trying to influence politics.

He has been extreamly active in trying to get kerry elected.

And he was very active in the cycle before that.

And it also matters, cause if he was openly anti-gun, his book sales would crater and movie attendance woud go down.

So give me one good reason for his behavior, then?

Implying someone or group is racist, when they ar clearly not, is a pretty seriouse thing,you don't do that uneless you have a serioue agneda.

Being pissed about a meeting after columbine isn't even enough, to justify such a mean spirited and uncalled for attack.


----------



## Dandred (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> No thats just his propganda.
> 
> It was the NRA's annual meeting.
> 
> ...



Well there were two meetings after fatal shooting of kids Moore covered I imagine that the propagander machine of the NRA has organised many many more.


----------



## Dandred (Jan 25, 2005)

Anyway this thread is about Moore being nominated for yet another award! 

He must be doing something right!


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Dandred said:
			
		

> Well there were two meetings after fatal shooting of kids Moore covered I imagine that the propagander machine of the NRA has organised many many more.




They don't have many meeting, and the ones they do have are schedualed far in advanced.

I've never attended an NRA meeting and i've been a member off and on, since 1977.

You just can't cancel such things, convention centers are booked and motels are reserved and airline tickets have been purchesed.

Besides the loss to the people who paid for such things it would hurt the airlines and motels and the workers schedualed to work........


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Dandred said:
			
		

> Anyway this thread is about Moore being nominated for yet another award!
> 
> He must be doing something right!



Yes he's insuraning that democrats loose and loose big at the polls.

He helps us "get out the vote" tremndously.


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

Here's a little reality for you about those meeting.

************************

Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: *At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held*. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:

*In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled*.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.

*************************

Clearly the NRA was very sensitive to the tragity, so moore's claim is false.


----------



## TomUS (Jan 25, 2005)

From my cold dead hands!-They are very cold & very dead now.


----------



## pbman (Jan 25, 2005)

TomUS said:
			
		

> From my cold dead hands!-They are very cold & very dead now.



Happens to all of us.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 25, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> The attack on Heston at his own home was a low blow extraordinaire. I'm not a Heston fan, but even I could see the blatant unfairness of that move.



Yeah for sure turning up at the poor old cowboys home and making him out to be a bit of an ass might seem a tadge insensitive but then on the other hand turning up at the home town of a group of parents (Not once but twice), who'd lost their kids to guns, to hold a pro gun rally might seem a little insensitive too. Regardless of how big a show they put on. It's like holding the International Surfing championships in Phucket 15 days after the Tsunami  

The fact that a year later he's still banging the drum with his "cold dead hands" goes to show his so called sympathy to be short lived and purely down to political tact rather than human emotion. 

When you have a problem in your society where a significant proportion of your population die at the hands of a gun does it not tell you that you have a problem in your society.

Maybe the thing to do here would be to open up a debate about that instead of banging on about the finer details of a film you haven't seen. 
Is it not the intention of documentary films to raise the issue for public debate. I thought the movie served that purpose. Careful editing, as you put it, is a tool we see used on the news every night to push a particular view (Truth or otherwise) so given he's a journo you can't stomp all over Moore for applying the tricks of his trade.  

BTW Peebs you might like this quote from moorewatch.com. Seems like they've lumped him into the same kettle of fish as your beloved Annie get your gun.



> Essentially, he has transformed into a leftwing version of loud-mouthed ultra-conservative shock-jocks such as Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter.



Have a nice day.  

frieda


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> No thats just his propganda.
> 
> It was the NRA's annual meeting.
> 
> ...



Stop lying peebs, the NRA rally in Colorado happened immediately after the Columbine shootings. The NRA and Heston, in this instance, proved themselves to be heartless, unfeeling gun nuts who didn't give a shit for those who died or those who lost loved ones. They could have postponed it if they wanted to, they didn't - that is not only irresponsible but inflammatory as well.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> He doens't have to "stand" to support the democratic agenda.
> 
> Why would you think that?


jesus, you thick fuck, repeat after me;
he-is-a-film-maker-he-is-not-a-Democrat-Party-Politician
he-is-a-film-maker-he-is-not-a-Democrat-Party-Politician
he-is-a-film-maker-he-is-not-a-Democrat-Party-Politician


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 25, 2005)

Moore got zero nominations for this year's academy awards:


Michael Moore's gamble to hold his hit film "Fahrenheit 9/11" out of the documentary category - to boost its best-picture prospects - backfired. The movie was shut out across the board.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050125/D87R5NS01.html


----------



## TomUS (Jan 25, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Moore got zero nominations for this year's academy awards:
> Michael Moore's gamble to hold his hit film "Fahrenheit 9/11" out of the documentary category - to boost its best-picture prospects - backfired. The movie was shut out across the board.


Don't think he held it out of the best doc category as a gamble to get best pic.  He had it shown on TV in a pay-per-view arrangement to expose it more before the election, knowing this would make it inelligible for the best doc category.  So, the only category left was best pic.  Had it been entered for best doc, it would have won easily.


----------



## pbman (Jan 26, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Moore got zero nominations for this year's academy awards:
> 
> 
> Michael Moore's gamble to hold his hit film "Fahrenheit 9/11" out of the documentary category - to boost its best-picture prospects - backfired. The movie was shut out across the board.
> ...



Thats funny expically considering how hard he worked for it. He ran around saying if you don't like the election, send them a signal by voting for me.

So i guess they did send a signal just not the one he wanted.


----------



## pbman (Jan 26, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> The fact that a year later he's still banging the drum with his "cold dead hands" goes to show his so called sympathy to be short lived and purely down to political tact rather than human emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> frieda



Read the thread,it was an aunaul meeting schedualed years in advance, and it coulnd't be cancleled and the did cancel al the extra stuff.

   

Once you guys get  a peice of propaganda in your heads you guys never let go of it.



> BTW Peebs you might like this quote from moorewatch.com. Seems like they've lumped him into the same kettle of fish as your beloved Annie get your gun.



Flaming moderates i tell you.

What do you expect?


----------



## pbman (Jan 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Stop lying peebs, the NRA rally in Colorado happened immediately after the Columbine shootings. The NRA and Heston, in this instance, proved themselves to be heartless, unfeeling gun nuts who didn't give a shit for those who died or those who lost loved ones. They could have postponed it if they wanted to, they didn't - that is not only irresponsible but inflammatory as well.



Read the post.   

Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.

*****************************

What part of that don't you understand?

Or deny?


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 26, 2005)

I read the thread, it's right-wing propaganda  

Peebs d'you think if that meeting was to be held the day after 9-11 they could of cancelled it.

Just wondering like


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 26, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Read the post.
> 
> Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.
> 
> ...



One thing I've noticed about you peebs is that if you don't agree with something, you call it 'propaganda'. The NRA and Charlton Heston, in particular, acted callously and selfishly. They could have postponed but chose not to. You cannot argue otherwise; indeed you show yourself to be equally as callous and unfeeling as your NRA brethren and those who carried out the shootings.

Now then, which bit of that did you not understand?


----------



## pbman (Jan 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> One thing I've noticed about you peebs is that if you don't agree with something, you call it 'propaganda'. The NRA and Charlton Heston, in particular, acted callously and selfishly. They could have postponed but chose not to. You cannot argue otherwise; indeed you show yourself to be equally as callous and unfeeling as your NRA brethren and those who carried out the shootings.
> 
> Now then, which bit of that did you not understand?



It has to do with the streagth, of their argument, and how they bend things to fit their personal pholosophy.

In moores case its low rent propganda.


----------



## pbman (Jan 26, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> I read the thread, it's right-wing propaganda
> 
> Peebs d'you think if that meeting was to be held the day after 9-11 they could of cancelled it.
> 
> ...


----------



## pbman (Jan 26, 2005)

Meanwile back in reality, the NRA canceled all parts of the meeting they could.

So M Moore's reasoining is a full of shit as he is.

So if he really suports owning guns, why did he attack hestopn and the NRA?

Clearly he did it just to play to the idots on the left, who know nothing about the NRA, they stronlyg support enforcing existing laws that would have prevented columbine.

Its a shame the left doesn't.


----------



## vimto (Jan 27, 2005)

NRA = KKK

Doh...


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 27, 2005)

*Meanwhile back in cowboy land*




			
				pbman said:
			
		

> No, as their is no exception in the law to cancel such meetings.
> 
> *Here in american the gov't isn't noted for its flexibility. *



Quote of the decade  That's a global opinion too mate. 
They see something black and shiny they just go get it.  




> What are you like 12?


NO I’m 36 but if you want some help with your geography assignments my 5 yr old could probably slip to your level.  
How old are you peebs, does mummy know you've got 3 online personalities with 20,000 posts between them?



> Do you really think people can do what they like



Not in America dude no. Not now George’s got you all under control. Have you learned the goosestep yet rolleyes, it won't be long  

The land of the free hey.  

If you can cancel part of a meeting then how far can you go before it becomes a hangable offence? 
Let me see, you cancel, "all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are cancelled" tell everybody to stay at home and then Cowboy Charlton Heston could turn up and have a meeting with the people who felt so outraged they needed to demonstrate. He could share in their grief and take their views back to his beloved NWA. (Nazis with attitude<< is that right) You still get your meeting and your organisation doesn't look like a bunch of insensitive twats.

Piece of cake.

I suppose had the NRA been intending to have their anual meeting in Thailand this Christmas there'd be an invasion if it wasn't allowed to go ahead.


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Quote of the decade  That's a global opinion too mate.
> They see something black and shiny they just go get it.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

vimto said:
			
		

> NRA = KKK
> 
> Doh...



Thanks for posting.

His message was for intelctuals like yourself..............just telling the idiots what they want to hear.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> It has to do with the streagth, of their argument, and how they bend things to fit their personal pholosophy.
> 
> In moores case its low rent propganda.



You really don't get it do you? Which part of my post did you not understand?

Again, you use the occasion as another excuse to have a pop at Moore. You really are quite pathetic.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Meanwile back in reality, the NRA canceled all parts of the meeting they could.
> 
> So M Moore's reasoining is a full of shit as he is.
> 
> ...



He didn't attack Heston, he merely asked him a series of rather direct questions.  IMO, Heston is a senile auld gun nut, who believes that the civil rights movement was "bad" and "harmed" America. Funnily enough, I've noticed that Ayn Rand held similar views except she equated civil rights legislation with 'communism'.

You'd like to see a return to the bad old days of Jim Crow wouldn't you peebs?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> friedaweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> friedaweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2005)

I think what peebs is trying to tell us is the NRA are above the law and are impervious to the feelings of others. The NRA will do what it does because it has enormous power and influence.

I expect him to come along and tell us, in that Orwellian way he has of doing things, that 'gun control' leads to more gun crime.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2005)

Guys, guys, don't use the large text. JC2 will come along and deliver a withering critique of your childishness!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Guys, guys, don't use the large text. JC2 will come along and deliver a withering critique of your childishness!



That's why I did it!


----------



## Graymalkin (Jan 27, 2005)

Pbman Said:



> So if he really suports owning guns, why did he attack hestopn and the NRA?



You can have a positive attitude towards guns and not support an overarching political block of rightwing gun nuts.  There is no contradiction there.  I'm Canadian, we have no such organization (or if we do, I've never heard of it, it isn't as powerful or prevalent as the NRA) and as Moore pointed out there are lots of guns in my country.  My housemate hunts and owns several rifles and shotguns (they aren't stored in our flat though), I have no qualms with him owning firearms and I oppose the NRA, there no is contradiction in that stance.


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> [SIZE=]YOU CAN POSTPONE A MEETING AND RE-ARRANGE IN "UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES", AND STILL COMPLY, YOU IGNORANT FUCKWIT!!!![/SIZE]



Actually you can't. At least if you are the NRA,and a bunch of liberals are in the Gov't.   If they cancled the meeting who knows what petty gov't harasment they would need to endure.

And i remmber when this happned, the lefties tried to bully the NRA into canceling. But they are always looking to bully people like the petty a-holes they are.

But the main point is they did cancel all activites, except for the voting.

That shouold have been enough for normal people.

But not for naiz control freaks like moore, and he was just grasping at an excuse to demonize the NRA.


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

Graymalkin said:
			
		

> Pbman Said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can have a positive attitude towards guns and not support an overarching political block of rightwing gun nuts.  There is no contradiction there.  I'm Canadian, we have no such organization (or if we do, I've never heard of it, it isn't as powerful or prevalent as the NRA) and as Moore pointed out there are lots of guns in my country.  My housemate hunts and owns several rifles and shotguns (they aren't stored in our flat though), I have no qualms with him owning firearms and I oppose the NRA, there no is contradiction in that stance.



Yes their is, as the NRA isn't just a gun lobby, they are directrly responsible for many gun safty programs. They train most of the firearms instructors for the country. They also lobby strongly for enforceing and charging criminals for violating the gun laws. Adnif the gov't had done its job and prosicuted more fellows that illegaly tried to  buy guns, things like columbine whouln't happen. But the gun laws are a joke to criminals as tens of thousands of them are cought tring to buy guns,and are never charged.

I don't belive many here have the slightest idea what the NRA is what they do or what their misson and focuse is.

http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

http://www.nrahq.org/youth/index.asp

As a practical  matter, if were going to have 300 million guns, (and we are) then guns safty needs to be tought.

Thegov't doesn't do it.

The schools don't.

Many parrents don't.

So who else is going to do it?

And teaching gun safty, has cut down the number of accidental deaths in 1/2, while thenumber of guns in the country has doubled.

Do the math.

Things like that don't happend by accident. Its a lot of hard work and money and time by volunteers...........


----------



## Graymalkin (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Yes their is, as the NRA isn't just a gun lobby, they are directrly responsible for many gun safty programs. They train most of the firearms instructors for the country.




Dude, we have gun safety programs in Canada, no NRA required.


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> YOU CAN POSTPONE A MEETING AND RE-ARRANGE IN "UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES", AND STILL COMPLY, YOU IGNORANT FUCKWIT!!!!



You don't even live here, why should i listen to your insane babbling?

You don't have the slightest clue how the liberals in gov't harrase, conservative groups.     


I don't see any reason why they should be given nmore aportunity to do so.

Quote us law and how it pertains to this situation, or run along like a good boy.


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

Graymalkin said:
			
		

> Dude, we have gun safety programs in Canada, no NRA required.



So who does it then?

And i don't mean just the gov't requiring training, i mean activly promoting it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So who does it then?
> 
> And i don't mean just the gov't requiring training, i mean activly promoting it.



In relation to gun deaths and injuries who has the more effective gun safety programmes, the US or Canada? That would seem to be the place to start when you're thinking about who should run such programmmes surely.

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## pk (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman, talking shit again...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Actually you can't. At least if you are the NRA,and a bunch of liberals are in the Gov't.   If they cancled the meeting who knows what petty gov't harasment they would need to endure.
> 
> And i remmber when this happned, the lefties tried to bully the NRA into canceling. But they are always looking to bully people like the petty a-holes they are.
> 
> ...



As I intimated earlier: is the NRA any different to anyone else? Furthermore, is the NRA a law unto itself? I'll answer that: yes, it is.

So those families who lost children in the Columbine shootings were all liberals and 'lefties' were they? Is this what you are saying; that they were just a bunch of liberal killjoys who were out to destroy the NRA?

The NRA do not need to be demonised by anyone, they do a good enough job of it themselves.

NRA = KKK


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> You don't even live here, why should i listen to your insane babbling?
> 
> You don't have the slightest clue how the liberals in gov't harrase, conservative groups.
> 
> ...



No, and you don't live here. What's your point?


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> No, and you don't live here. What's your point?



WE are disscuing america and american laws, and how americna gov't agencies, apply the law.

And considering that we republicnas wern't running things then, bill clinton and the democrats were, your assertaion that the NRA could cancel the mmeting with no fear of gov't harrasment or touble, looks pretty silly.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> WE are disscuing america and american laws, and how americna gov't agencies, apply the law.
> 
> And considering that we republicnas wern't running things then, bill clinton and the democrats were, your assertaion that the NRA could cancel the mmeting with no fear of gov't harrasment or touble, looks pretty silly.



The law has fuck all to do with this and political parties have fuck all to do with this: we're talking about showing some _compassion_ here; something that is clearly lacking in both you and the NRA. 

Weren't the people of Columbine deserving of some compassion?


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> The law has fuck all to do with this and political parties have fuck all to do with this: we're talking about showing some _compassion_ here; something that is clearly lacking in both you and the NRA.
> 
> Weren't the people of Columbine deserving of some compassion?



WE are not talking compassion, we are talking about liberals misconceptions about the NRA. They could have used the oportunit of the NRA's anual meeting to publizise and promote the NRA message or reposnible gun onwership. And the thing parrrents and other adults need to do to educate kids on gun saftey.

And their hyporcracy on this issue, is rediculess, when in comes to other "killers" like aids they strongly stress education and information.

When it comes to guns they stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes............

Education and information saves lives.

But they are so baised about guns, they will not help send that message, and more kids and people die as a result. Andits extreamly important, the missconcepts kids have on guns, is far worse than sex in the 50's. Kids belive all kinds of stupid shit, that gets them killed. Things like a gun will not shoot if you remove the magazie, or that its safe to load all six chanbers on a single action, i could go on and on. But in this case as in many others what you don't kow could get you killed.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> WE are not talking compassion, we are talking about liberals misconceptions about the NRA. They could have used the oportunit of the NRA's anual meeting to publizise and promote the NRA message or reposnible gun onwership. And the thing parrrents and other adults need to do to educate kids on gun saftey.
> 
> And their hyporcracy on this issue, is rediculess, when in comes to other "killers" like aids they strongly stress education and information.
> 
> ...




That's the worst sidestep I've ever seen anyone do. We were talking about the NRA's lack of compassion and now you confirm this for me. Thanks.

Tell me, do gun controls lead to more gun crime?


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 27, 2005)

Hehe his backs against the wall and he has to start making insulting comments about someone’s age. Again. How big of you!!! You offer a comment for discussion in any form and your told by pea brain that you don'y know shit about anything by someone with far too much time to google his own opinion.

Then he proceeds to post with the writing skills of a ten year old.

At least he'll admit that the NRA are a bunch of right wing gun nuts.



> You don't have the slightest clue how the liberals in gov't harrase, conservative groups.



Comical.

He wouldn't recognise compassion if it accidentally shot him in the foot. 



> they did cancel all activites, except for the voting.
> 
> That shouold have been enough for *normal* people.



People don't *normally* come home from work to find that their flesh and blood have been killed at school by some kids with an arsenal of firearms fuckwit.

Making an ass out of yourself in a wolf thread again PB.

That’s the lamest argument I’ve seen from you yet. 

You need to get out Moore, it's low rate propaganda, how old are you, do try to keep up!!

Pieces of eight, pieces of eight

Nino, Jezza, I’ll see you back of the bike sheds after school


----------



## Graymalkin (Jan 27, 2005)

I found this study which might be of interest.

http://www.wfsa.net/adobe_documents/Cross_Sectional_Study.PDF

It compared guns per capita to homicides, gun homicides, gun accidents and gun suicide.  It found no relationship between gun ownership and gun violence.  Furthermore:



> Examination of the table Based on UN survey shows that the United States has a very high level of gun ownership and also has a very high levels of homicide, gun suicide and gun accidents but with high level of gun homicide. Australia, Canada, Finland, germany, New Zealand and Sweden all have very high levels of gun ownership, Finland's being the highest recorded on the survey.  All these are matched with low or very low levels of homicide, with very low accident levels in all but one case and with very variable suicide rates.


which seems to support the thesis of BFC that there is a cultural problem a foot and seems to cast doubt on pbmans assertion that the NRA is effective at educating gun owners on safety.  I'd also like to point out that Canada has more gun control laws and yet that doesn't seem to stop Canadians from having a high number of guns per capita.


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> That's the worst sidestep I've ever seen anyone do. We were talking about the NRA's lack of compassion and now you confirm this for me. Thanks.
> 
> Tell me, do gun controls lead to more gun crime?



Yes but their "lack of compassion" is only in your mind.   

Meanwile liberals fight tooth and nail agianst gun safty education.

And gun control leads to an increas in crime across the board.


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Hehe his backs against the wall and he has to start making insulting comments about someone’s age. Again. How big of you!!! You offer a comment for discussion in any form and your told by pea brain that you don'y know shit about anything by someone with far too much time to google his own opinion.
> 
> Then he proceeds to post with the writing skills of a ten year old.
> 
> ...




Don't let the door hit you in the ass then.


----------



## pbman (Jan 27, 2005)

Graymalkin said:
			
		

> which seems to support the thesis of BFC that there is a cultural problem a foot and seems to cast doubt on pbmans assertion that the NRA is effective at educating gun owners on safety.  I'd also like to point out that Canada has more gun control laws and yet that doesn't seem to stop Canadians from having a high number of guns per capita.



check the rates of gun accidnets in the us then.

*************************

Firearm accident deaths have been decreasing for decades. Since 1930, their annual number has decreased 76%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 89% since 1975. 

Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time annual low, nationally and among children, while the U.S. population is at an all-time high. In 2002, there were 762 such deaths nationally, including 60 among children. Today, the odds are more than a million to one against a child in the U.S. dying from a firearm accident. 

The firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low, 0.26 per 100,000 population, down 92% since the all-time high in 1904. 
Firearms are involved in 1% of all deaths, and 1% of all deaths among children. Deaths involving firearms have decreased 19% since 1993. 
Firearms are involved in 0.7% of accidental deaths nationally, and in 1% among children. Most accidental deaths involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (41%), poisoning (16%), falls (15%), suffocation (5%), drowning (3%), fires (3%), medical mistakes (2%), environmental factors (1%), and bicycles (1%). Among children: motor vehicles (44%), suffocation (16%), drowning (16%), fires (9%), bicycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (2%), environmental factors (1%), and medical mistakes (1%). 

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120

Now their have been some other changes in socity,people are getting more safty consense, but thats still and incredible decrease. And a major partof the decrease is do to the work of the NRA, they stress gun safty at their events on with their training, and they train just about all the firarms instructors...............


----------



## hipipol (Jan 27, 2005)

*Fuck the "accidents" PB*

Most of yer Yankee ordnance is fired deliberately
How may dead this week Git-Fucker?


----------



## Graymalkin (Jan 28, 2005)

Pbman what you've posted may well be true (though i'd like to see the same information from a different source) it doesn't address gun crime or the fact countries with stricter gun control consistently have fewer gun accidents per capita (as found in the study I posted), which contradicts the assertion you've made (I believe twice on this thread) that gun control undermines gun education.



> WE are not talking compassion, we are talking about liberals misconceptions about the NRA. They could have used the oportunit of the NRA's anual meeting to publizise and promote the NRA message or reposnible gun onwership. And the thing parrrents and other adults need to do to educate kids on gun saftey.
> 
> And their hyporcracy on this issue, is rediculess, when in comes to other "killers" like aids they strongly stress education and information.
> 
> ...



From a few posts ago.....

Which, again, is not necessarily to say that gun control is the solution (as BFC attempts to argue).  But you seem to have the attitude that the NRA is the only way of educating people on safe gun use, which is not supported by the evidence in the study I found.  My point is that you can have gun education (and apparently better gun education) without a politicized organization of (frankly scary) rightwing gun nuts.  Furthermore the NRA perpetuates the culture that will always keep your rates of gun violence high.  What possible use does it have?


----------



## pbman (Jan 28, 2005)

Graymalkin said:
			
		

> Pbman what you've posted may well be true (though i'd like to see the same information from a different source) it doesn't address gun crime or the fact countries with stricter gun control consistently have fewer gun accidents per capita (as found in the study I posted), which contradicts the assertion you've made (I believe twice on this thread) that gun control undermines gun education.
> 
> ?



I didn't say that gun control undermines, gun education, i said or meant to say that gun control advocates, undermine gun education, and that is true. The resist education and even talking to kids about gun safty, like christians resisted sex education........ They themsleves know little about gun safty and they don't want to learn. But considering how many accidents happen cause kids learn incorect information, its a real tragity. Your allways going to have a certain number of pure accidents, but accidnets cause by kids thinking that a auto is safe if the mag is removed and other such things are easily preventable.



> Which, again, is not necessarily to say that gun control is the solution (as BFC attempts to argue). But you seem to have the attitude that the NRA is the only way of educating people on safe gun use, which is not supported by the evidence in the study I found.



Well as you pointed out, american is a differnt culture, her is is the only way right now, and seeing hwo the left has no interest in teaching gun safty or getting the gov't to do it. For all practiacla reasons it is the only way. Others are perfectly capable of doing so, but they have to have the will to do it.

And they don't.



> My point is that you can have gun education (and apparently better gun education) without a politicized organization of (frankly scary) rightwing gun nuts.



Most NRA members are not hard core gun nuts, most of them are just hunters and ocational shooters. The Gun owners of America, and the Second Amendment sisters, and the Jews for the preserrvatin of firarms, are the hard core political activist groups. Andif you spend the slightest bit of time on the gun boards you can see endless threads by people bitching about what whimps the NRA is, they are freqently accused of selling out........

The NRA is far different that what you think it is.



> Furthermore the NRA perpetuates the culture that will always keep your rates of gun violence high.



No that culture comes from the liberals in hollywood and the music industry and the illegal drug culture....... And these same people like to demonize the NRA.

What a surprise.

I guess they can't even admit it to themselves.

But asyou said other countres have plenty of guns, so just what do you think the NRA promotes, and how are they responsible and not the groups i listed?


----------



## pbman (Jan 28, 2005)

hipipol said:
			
		

> Most of yer Yankee ordnance is fired deliberately
> How may dead this week Git-Fucker?



If i wanted to  repeat/argue the same tired shit about the war, i would be in the mid-east forum.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 28, 2005)

Graymalkin said:
			
		

> Dude, we have gun safety programs in Canada, no NRA required.


can you please give more info on these when you have time? I'm interested in the Canada perspective


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Yes but their "lack of compassion" is only in your mind.
> 
> Meanwile liberals fight tooth and nail agianst gun safty education.
> 
> And gun control leads to an increas in crime across the board.



Hardly, have you understood a single word any of us have typed? Evidently not. 

Their lack of compassion is not "in my mind" as you suggest, rather it is evident in the actions of the NRA. They clearly demonstrated a lack of compassion in the wake of the Columbine shootings; now if you cannot understand that without dragging in spurious arguments about "liberals" to extricate you from the hole you've dug for yourself, then tough. 

Don't bother replying.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Don't let the door hit you in the ass then.



In your case the head and the arse are interchangeable.


----------



## Rocket Romano (Jan 28, 2005)

Not clued up enough on Mr Moore to intervene in the Television Thread but its a bit of a love in for Mr Moore....if anyone cares to go destroy the people, feel free (quietly nudges to peebs)


----------



## pbman (Jan 28, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Hardly, have you understood a single word any of us have typed? Evidently not.
> 
> Their lack of compassion is not "in my mind" as you suggest, rather it is evident in the actions of the NRA. They clearly demonstrated a lack of compassion in the wake of the Columbine shootings; now if you cannot understand that without dragging in spurious arguments about "liberals" to extricate you from the hole you've dug for yourself, then tough.
> 
> Don't bother replying.



Grow up.

Just cause they don't bow down to liberal bulling, doesn't mean they lack compation.


----------



## pbman (Jan 28, 2005)

Rocket Romano said:
			
		

> Not clued up enough on Mr Moore to intervene in the Television Thread but its a bit of a love in for Mr Moore....if anyone cares to go destroy the people, feel free (quietly nudges to peebs)



Were is it?


----------



## Graymalkin (Jan 28, 2005)

My housemate tells me that Canada has a tiered system based on the type of weapon with a special class of liscence for handguns, fully auto's are illegal, semi-auto require a regular liscense.  Then they have aquisition and possession lisences.  You need to take a course (taught by certified people) and pass a test (from the government) and then apply to the government to get accepted, (basically a 6 month backround check).  So basically you're not allowed to own a gun unless you can demonstrate responsible use.


----------



## Graymalkin (Jan 28, 2005)

Oh, by the way, the government has been attempting to create a firearm registry.  It's gone something like ten times over budget and hasn't accounted for a large portion (I don't know how many) of the guns in this country aren't registered.  TBH I don't think it's worth it from the stat's I've found and what my housemate tells me, our system is pretty good.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 28, 2005)

*Another one of the parrots few lines*




			
				pbman said:
			
		

> Don't let the door hit you in the ass then.


pieces of eight


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2005)

Rocket Romano said:
			
		

> Not clued up enough on Mr Moore to intervene in the Television Thread but its a bit of a love in for Mr Moore....if anyone cares to go destroy the people, feel free (quietly nudges to peebs)



I guess you haven't read _all_ the thread then. It's hardly the "love in" you reckon it to be.

Eduted to add: D'oh, you're referring to t'other thread, I do beg your pardon.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 28, 2005)

Farenheit 9/11 winning a people's choice award, like the startling success of the Da Vinci Code and the apparently huge numbers of people that think it's based on fact, is conclusive proof that 'the people' should have as little choice as possible.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2005)

Not had a look at the _Da Vinci Code_, maybe it's the hype. Sounds like bollocks though.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 28, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Farenheit 9/11 winning a people's choice award, like the startling success of the Da Vinci Code and the apparently huge numbers of people that think it's based on fact, is conclusive proof that 'the people' should have as little choice as possible.


 I always thought that the Da Vinci Code was what peebs typed in


----------



## pbman (Jan 28, 2005)

Graymalkin said:
			
		

> My housemate tells me that Canada has a tiered system based on the type of weapon with a special class of liscence for handguns, fully auto's are illegal, semi-auto require a regular liscense.  Then they have aquisition and possession lisences.  You need to take a course (taught by certified people) and pass a test (from the government) and then apply to the government to get accepted, (basically a 6 month backround check).  So basically you're not allowed to own a gun unless you can demonstrate responsible use.



So basicly you are starting down the same road of eventual confinscation, that the UK did. Looks liek the gov't will start incremntaly taking away your rights, and they will be gone.


----------



## Graymalkin (Jan 29, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So basicly you are starting down the same road of eventual confinscation, that the UK did. Looks liek the gov't will start incremntaly taking away your rights, and they will be gone.



I don't think so pbman.  The gun registry programme the government has instituted has been met with considerable resistance (six provinces have publicly stated that they will not charge people who don't register), and at the risk of associating myself with right wingers I agree with the resisters.  From my friends testimony I'm quite satisfied with the system in place now.  Furthermore, it would be political suicide for the liberals to further restrict gun ownership given the failure of the registry and their pusing politically controversial same-sex marriage legislation while in a minority government.  

I found this outlining the liscenses and so-forth required to use or aquire a gun in canada.


http://www.canadianlawsite.com/gunlaws.htm


----------



## Rocket Romano (Jan 29, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Were is it?



Its the Fahrenheit 9/11 on Channel 4 thread in TV/books/radio


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 29, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So basicly you are starting down the same road of eventual confinscation, that the UK did. Looks liek the gov't will start incremntaly taking away your rights, and they will be gone.



So tell us peebs, if gun control is so bad for the UK: how come there haven't been any nutters on the rampage shooting everything in sight (as in Hungerford and Dunblane) as there are virtually every month in the US?


----------



## pbman (Jan 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> So tell us peebs, if gun control is so bad for the UK: how come there haven't been any nutters on the rampage shooting everything in sight (as in Hungerford and Dunblane) as there are virtually every month in the US?



So you prefery the many thousands of other acts of violnece instead?

Why is that?

And really it's that fact that your go'vt lied when it originaly registered peoples guns, they promesed up and down that they would never be confinscated or outlawed.................

If you want to outlaw handguns thats your buisness, but what your gov't did with thier lying about gun registration, and they way they eventually incremtaly outlawed handguns is a fair example to the rest of us.

And that is how i used it.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2005)

We don't need guns though.

We don't have the infantile fear of everything that means we have to keep firearms.

What are you afraid of pbman?

Dying alone? Everyone finding out you are attracted to men?


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 30, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> We don't need guns though.
> 
> We don't have the infantile fear of everything that means we have to keep firearms.


Americans have the right to bear arms because of what happened in Scotland in 1756 with the Disarming Act.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Jan 30, 2005)

hmmm..that's quite a while a go.

If the US govt became a real military tyranny, would armed citizens make much difference?


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 30, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> hmmm..that's quite a while a go.
> 
> If the US govt became a real military tyranny, would armed citizens make much difference?


No but the principle would still stand.  Principles have to matter to somebody at some point whether individuals or governments.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Jan 30, 2005)

it's a principle that contributes to a murder rate obscenely high for a mature democracy, and does nothing.


----------



## pbman (Jan 30, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> We don't need guns though.
> 
> We don't have the infantile fear of everything that means we have to keep firearms.
> 
> ...



I feel lossing liberty, to a gov't like yours, that increamentlay takes away all our rights.

Why don't you fear that as well.


----------



## pbman (Jan 30, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> it's a principle that contributes to a murder rate obscenely high for a mature democracy, and does nothing.



Andhow do you know it doesn't save more lives.

Guns are used defensivly without a shot being fired, far more times than the number who die by them.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 30, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> it's a principle that contributes to a murder rate obscenely high for a mature democracy, and does nothing.


Freedom of speech could be taken away if the government chooses to focus only on the negative side.  For that matter every liberty can be taken away by a government 'acting in the people's best interests'.


----------



## Graymalkin (Jan 30, 2005)

Jo/Joe I did post a study a few pages back that showed that the number of guns per capita could not be conclusively connected to rates of gun violence.  Many countries like Canada, Finland and New Zealand have a large number of guns per capita but very low rates of gun violence.  It's not the prevalence of guns in the U.S. that causes high rates of gun crime/fatality but rather, as Moore argued, a paranoid and racially charged cultural phenomenon.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 31, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So you prefery the many thousands of other acts of violnece instead?
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> ...



You're reinterpreting my post and making up an answer to suit. You cannot hide the fact that you use Orwellian phraseology to justify your belief that guns are good.


----------



## pbman (Jan 31, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You're reinterpreting my post and making up an answer to suit. You cannot hide the fact that you use Orwellian phraseology to justify your belief that guns are good.



Thats a bitch isn't?   

Meanwile, you stil don't have the slightest justification for moores hate filled attaacks on heston and the NRA.

Herston marched with king, and that fat-ass implied he was racist.


----------



## pbman (Jan 31, 2005)

Graymalkin said:
			
		

> Jo/Joe I did post a study a few pages back that showed that the number of guns per capita could not be conclusively connected to rates of gun violence.  Many countries like Canada, Finland and New Zealand have a large number of guns per capita but very low rates of gun violence.  It's not the prevalence of guns in the U.S. that causes high rates of gun crime/fatality but rather, as Moore argued, a paranoid and racially charged cultural phenomenon.



No its the drugs, in most cases. Either they are on drugs or they need money for drugs, or they are fighting drug wars.........

So you would have to factor in the drug problmes these other countries have.

And a lot of this "gun violence" is cops shooting criminals. And that has little or nothing to do with civilian ownership of guns.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 31, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> No its the drugs, in most cases. Either they are on drugs or they need money for drugs, or they are fighting drug wars.........
> 
> So you would have to factor in the drug problmes these other countries have.
> 
> And a lot of this "gun violence" is cops shooting criminals. And that has little or nothing to do with civilian ownership of guns.


Do I detect a note of racism here?


----------



## pbman (Jan 31, 2005)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Do I detect a note of racism here?



ARE drugs a racial problem?

I didn't think so myslef. 

But explain yourself if you think so.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 31, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Thats a bitch isn't?
> 
> Meanwile, you stil don't have the slightest justification for moores hate filled attaacks on heston and the NRA.
> 
> Herston marched with king, and that fat-ass implied he was racist.



You can't help yourself can you? You're making up another answer to a post that you thought you read.

So you have seen the film, or is it what someone else said about the film that has led you to this answer?


----------



## pbman (Jan 31, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You can't help yourself can you? ?



What can is say, i enjoy turning around things people do to me.



> So you have seen the film, or is it what someone else said about the film that has led you to this answer?



I picked that up, by disscussing the film with other urbanites.

They got the impression heston was a racist by watching the film.

Many many times as a matter of fact.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 31, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> What can is say, i enjoy turning around things people do to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You enjoy twisting my posts around leadhead, that's about it. Of course the actual thought of watching the film yourself would what? Render you unclean? I suppose it would Are you one of those who only watches films starring_ patriotic_ Americans? What happens if those patriotic Americans are in films with unclean, filthy Bush-hating commie a-holes?

What do you do then?


----------



## pbman (Feb 1, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> What happens if those patriotic Americans are in films with unclean, filthy Bush-hating commie a-holes?
> 
> What do you do then?



I went a saw an alec baldwin film a couple years ago, cause my mother wanted to see it, and my dod doesn't go to movies.

And your right is was a real chore.

But thats cause it was so bad.


http://video.movies.go.com/pearlharbor/

But it was meant to be intertaining, it wasn't meant to be low rent propganda.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 1, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> What can is say, i enjoy turning around things people do to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Peebs i watched it sunday night, it's on my hard drive so i thought why not watch it again given that were debating it here. 

I don't see where Heston supposedly being a racist is portrayed in the film.

Have you seen it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 1, 2005)

dilute micro said:
			
		

> Americans have the right to bear arms because of what happened in Scotland in 1756 with the Disarming Act.



What do the Highland Clearances have to do with this?  

You realise that many Highlanders wound up working as indentured labour for large landowners and so on? Indeed some were actually sold into _slavery_ in the West Indies.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 1, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> What do the Highland Clearances have to do with this?
> 
> You realise that many Highlanders wound up working as indentured labour for large landowners and so on? Indeed some were actually sold into _slavery_ in the West Indies.


That's what happens when you steal our turf and goalposts jock  

Pinta hearvay please


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 1, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I went a saw an alec baldwin film a couple years ago, cause my mother wanted to see it, and my dod doesn't go to movies.
> 
> And your right is was a real chore.
> 
> ...



So like those peeps in the 30's, 40's and 50's you suspect that there are commies working in Hollywood churning out vile, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda?

Some things never change.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 1, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> That's what happens when you steal our turf and goalposts jock
> 
> Pinta hearvay please



Your turf and goalposts? Those are oors pal!


----------



## pbman (Feb 1, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> So like those peeps in the 30's, 40's and 50's you suspect that there are commies working in Hollywood churning out vile, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda?
> 
> Some things never change.



Yes.

Leat according to this lefty.



> To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.





> It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.



Now he doens't use the term propganda, but that is the term used for such things.


----------



## pbman (Feb 1, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> What do the Highland Clearances have to do with this?
> 
> You realise that many Highlanders wound up working as indentured labour for large landowners and so on? Indeed some were actually sold into _slavery_ in the West Indies.




From that you temporatrily recived your own second amendment type rights.

And we copied that when we wrote our second amendment.


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> From that you temporatrily recived your own second amendment type rights.
> 
> And we copied that when we wrote our second amendment.


Chickenhawk...cluck...cluck...


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

vimto said:
			
		

> Chickenhawk...cluck...cluck...



Poor baby.

Did i insult your hero?


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

I fucking love it when a movie director puts the woolies up you guys...hehehe


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 2, 2005)

vimto said:
			
		

> Chickenhawk...cluck...cluck...



Does Nostradamus have any predictions about any of this?

Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> From that you temporatrily recived your own second amendment type rights.
> 
> And we copied that when we wrote our second amendment.



You don't even _try_ to reply to my post, you just make up an answer that sounds right to you.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> Leat according to this lefty.
> 
> ...



Like I said: some things never change. If you think that ideaa are simply 'injected' into people's minds, then you undestand nothing about how audiences receive the media.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Like I said: some things never change. If you think that ideaa are simply 'injected' into people's minds, then you undestand nothing about how audiences receive the media.



Its in the film regardless of what its called.  What you notice about shuch fills will also very according to your own knoledge and belifes.........



> Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.









And thats far from reality.

******************************

Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan. (Although we'd have to acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that time -- the Klan hadn't been operating legally until 1871, it was operating illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.


----------



## almeria (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan.



So you're saying that this terrorist organisation has existed illegally in the US since 1871? So when can we expect Bush to send in the Army and cart 'em all off to Guantanamo Bay in orange jumpsuits?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

almeria said:
			
		

> So you're saying that this terrorist organisation has existed illegally in the US since 1871? So when can we expect Bush to send in the Army and cart 'em all off to Guantanamo Bay in orange jumpsuits?



Go ahead if you can find any real KKK members.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Its in the film regardless of what its called.  What you notice about shuch fills will also very according to your own knoledge and belifes.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In that sequence in the film, which is a joke BTW, the words the cartoon narrator says "Of course these two groups had nothing to do with each other and this was just a coincidence". It's called satire.

It's a joke peebs in a cartoon sketch done by the south-park bunch. Do you think people watch south park and believe its content to be true?

Have you seen *any* of Moores films Peebs?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> In that sequence in the film, which is a joke BTW, the words the cartoon narrator says "Of course these two groups had nothing to do with each other and this was just a coincidence". It's called satire.
> 
> It's a joke peebs in a cartoon sketch done by the south-park bunch. Do you think people watch south park and believe its content to be true?
> 
> Have you seen *any* of Moores films Peebs?



Thats bullshit.

You can't joke about racism.

At least according to your rules.........


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Thats bullshit.
> 
> You can't joke about racism.
> 
> At least according to your rules.........


Have you seen the film?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Have you seen the film?



I have argued with many an urbanite who drew the wrong conclutions about Heston from watching the film.

Lots and lots of them, this is like the 40th thread on the topic.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

Did you watch the film?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Did you watch the film?



Tell me the point of those personal attacks on heston then?

As i've show earlier the NRA canceld everything but the legal voting, so moores stated objection is a lie.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I have argued with many an urbanite who drew the wrong conclutions about Heston from watching the film.
> 
> Lots and lots of them, this is like the 40th thread on the topic.


Don,t run and hide behind that worn out excuse. 
Have you seen the film?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Don,t run and hide behind that worn out excuse.
> Have you seen the film?



Its not wornout.

You don't seam to even remmber those days..............

FNG


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Its not wornout.
> 
> You don't seam to even remmber those days..............
> 
> FNG


Ahh the fucking new guy gag
Another one you've worn out.

Have you seen the film?
It's a simple question peebs


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

Did you watch the film?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

And on a related note, i've never seen "birth of a nation" but from reading about the film i have no doubt it is racist.

Does someone actually have to watch such vile racist crap to call it so?

I don't think so.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 2, 2005)

Did you watch the film?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

*It's like asking my kid who ate all the icecream *

Have you seen any of Moores films?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Its in the film regardless of what its called.  What you notice about shuch fills will also very according to your own knoledge and belifes.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You take whatever words are reported to you in lieu of what has actually been said; I don't recall any such thing being uttered and besides, the section of the film you refer to is an _animated_ sequence.

Oh, the Klan was pretty much a legal organisation until it was outlawed in the  20's(?) that boasted a massive membership (missus!   ). And Grant, what a fine example of a president (of the US that is), a drunken corporate ninny who got taken for a chump by a load of dodgy businessmen.

The last 'fact' is an interesting one; not many blacks are members of the NRA these days. I wonder why? Do tell me auld fruit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> And on a related note, i've never seen "birth of a nation" but from reading about the film i have no doubt it is racist.
> 
> Does someone actually have to watch such vile racist crap to call it so?
> 
> I don't think so.



You'd love Birth Of A Nation, it possibly the first piece of American cinema that has something of a narrative. It's pretty educational too. Hmmmm, on second thought you'd really hate it just for that!


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

Is this where you got your info on BFC peebs?
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/cartoon.htm

Really impartial stuff from the makers of _Nightmares On Pennsylvania Avenue: Georgie's Return_


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You'd love Birth Of A Nation, it possibly the first piece of American cinema that has something of a narrative. It's pretty educational too. Hmmmm, on second thought you'd really hate it just for that!



Have you seen it?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Is this where you got your info on BFC peebs?
> http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/cartoon.htm
> 
> Really impartial stuff from the makers of _Nightmares On Pennsylvania Avenue: Georgie's Return_




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

This is my usual link on the topic.

What parts of this do you dissagree with?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Have you seen it?


*Have you seen Bowling for columbine ?*

Have you seen any of Moores films?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Have you seen it?



I have as it happens, so there!


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
> 
> This is my usual link on the topic.
> 
> What parts of this do you dissagree with?



Similar site, similar shite.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> *You take whatever words are reported to you in lieu of what has actually been said; I don't recall any such thing being uttered and besides, the section of the film you refer to is an animated sequence.*
> 
> Oh, the Klan was pretty much a legal organisation until it was outlawed in the  20's(?) that boasted a massive membership (missus!   ). And Grant, what a fine example of a president (of the US that is), a drunken corporate ninny who got taken for a chump by a load of dodgy businessmen.
> 
> The last 'fact' is an interesting one; not many blacks are members of the NRA these days. I wonder why? Do tell me auld fruit.



I've got the clip in front of me now. I can understand how if taken out of context someone with a subjective view could make the claim it suggested that the NRA were connected to the KKK. However anyone who's actually watched the film would dismiss it as nonsense because of the humorous way in which its suggested.

Basically you’d have to be a couple of brain cells short of an amoeba to make that leap.

But that’s the problem here isn’t it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> I've got the clip in front of me now. I can understand how if taken out of context someone with a subjective view could make the claim it suggested that the NRA were connected to the KKK. However anyone who's actually watched the film would dismiss it as nonsense because of the humorous way in which its suggested.
> 
> Basically you’d have to be a couple of brain cells short of an amoeba to make that leap.
> 
> But that’s the problem here isn’t it.



To use an Americanism: 'you're damned straight'!

No sense of humour those Bushbot, neo-con fuckers!


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> I've got the clip in front of me now. I can understand how if taken out of context someone with a subjective view could make the claim it suggested that the NRA were connected to the KKK. However anyone who's actually watched the film would dismiss it as nonsense because of the humorous way in which its suggested.
> 
> Basically you’d have to be a couple of brain cells short of an amoeba to make that leap.
> .



Tell that to vimito and PK.........


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Y
> 
> The last 'fact' is an interesting one; not many blacks are members of the NRA these days. I wonder why? Do tell me auld fruit.



The Racist gun laws in america.

http://www.vcdl.org/new/racist.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...GLD:en&q=american+gun+laws+racist&btnG=Search

But those are liberal racist gun laws.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Tell that to vimito and PK.........


So have you seen the film?
Surely it's not a difficult question for you peebs.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> So have you seen the film?
> Surely it's not a difficult question for you peebs.



Do you feel comfortable calling the "birth of a nation" a racist film?

And have you seen it?

http://www.africanamericans.com/BirthofANation.htm


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Do you feel comfortable calling the "birth of a nation" a racist film?
> 
> And have you seen it?
> 
> http://www.africanamericans.com/BirthofANation.htm


I've not seen it peebs so I wouldn't feel comfortable making any comments about it.

It's not that I’m a total believer in seeing is believing but when your talking about movies it helps to have seen it to present an objective view.

Now I’ve answered your question, i might even look out for that film (Is it any good?) but is there any chance you can answer mine.

You'll find it above.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> I've not seen it peebs so I wouldn't feel comfortable making any comments about it.
> .



You wouldn't feel comfortalbe calling this racist crap?



> The Birth of a Nation was first released on February 8, 1915. The film's depictions of blacks as idling and brutish sparked a massive wave of protests from thousands of African Americans. The explosive controversy set off by the film revealed Hollywood's power to reflect and to shape public attitudes about race, while it set the stage for what would be a decades-long struggle to improve the portrayal of blacks on film (see Film, Blacks in American). Unprecedentedly long-three hours (and 12 reels of film)-The Birth of a Nation chronicles the fall of the South during the Civil War (1861-1865) and the reemergence of white political domination over the interracial state governments of the Reconstruction era.



I would.

The facts of what is in the film are not in contention.

And i can't answer your question as i promesed to never tell in this thread.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102834&page=4


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> You wouldn't feel comfortalbe calling this racist crap?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't say i wouldn't feel comfortable calling it racist crap peebs.
I said i wouldn't feel comfortable making comments about something i hadn't seen. 

Your a bit childish really aren't you?


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

Leadbrain...

So...have you or have you not seen _any_ of Michael Moore's movies?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> I
> Your a bit childish really aren't you?



No thats the usual "splitting of hairs" thats so common on urban.

But you said you hand't seen it, and now you call it racist crap.

So you don't have to see the film to comment on it do you?


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

Come on flobba...answer the question.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

vimto said:
			
		

> Come on flobba...answer the question.



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102834&page=4

I did.

Now are you going to still push your crap that heston is a racist?

Or are you going to pretend you never said that?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> No thats the usual "splitting of hairs" thats so common on urban.
> 
> But you said you hand't seen it, and now you call it racist crap.
> 
> So you don't have to see the film to comment on it do you?


Are you for real fuckwit.

I think you may be making an ass out of yourself in a wolf thread again peebs.

Do you realise how stupid you're making yourself look?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

Would you like to show me where i called it racist crap?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Would you like to show me where i called it racist crap?




Its either racist crap or its not.

I will call it racist crap even thou i have not see it.

I don't have to taste dog shit either.

I'll just say it tastes like shit.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Are you for real fuckwit.
> 
> I think you may be making an ass out of yourself in a wolf thread again peebs.
> 
> Do you realise how stupid you're making yourself look?



Read a lttle bit.

I say before that i would not say.

To do so now would make me a lier.


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102834&page=4
> 
> I did.


No you didn't...now answer the question troll boy.

Have you seen _any_ Michael Moore movies?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> The Racist gun laws in america.
> 
> http://www.vcdl.org/new/racist.htm
> 
> ...



Er, are you sure you read that properly? Besides, I was talking about the NRA: not many black members I said...blimey, must I repeat myself?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Read a lttle bit.
> 
> I say before that i would not say.
> 
> To do so now would make me a lier.


 You know what peebs you make me feel like i'm doing a spiffing job on my 5 year old. Not even she is as childish as you appear to be.

Does mommy know your playing on her laptop again?

Have a rewind yourself and tell me where i said a movie i hadn't seen or have no knowledge of was racist crap.

Do you have anything to debate on this board or are you just happy dragging your club behind you and grunting as you have?

BTW whats a Lier, is that where you sleep?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Do you realise how stupid you're making yourself look?



Come on now,you do realize i could start a thread in genreal asking if its birth of a nation is rasist crap, and 99.9999 percnet of the people would think so. and damn few of them would have seen it.

So you have argued yourself into a silly position.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> You know what peebs you make me feel like i'm doing a spiffing job on my 5 year old. Not even she is as childish as you appear to be.
> 
> Does mommy know your playing on her laptop again?
> 
> ...



Wind them up and watch them spin.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Come on now,you do realize i could start a thread in genreal asking if its birth of a nation is rasist crap, and 99.9999 percnet of the people would think so. and damn few of them would have seen it.
> 
> So you have argued yourself into a silly position.


I think you're making yourself look silly PB. 
Start that thread peebs.

I've asked you a simple question and you've squirmed like a worm on a hook. I've not made any suggestions that your not entitled to a view on it whether you've seen it or not. 

You asked me about a film i hadn't seen. I gave you an answer and you come back and tell me i've said something i haven't. 

Do take the time to roll back and read the thread then you could do the respectful thing and retract your comment.

Coming up with "i can't answer that question because i promised not to" just exposes you as a childish person who is not here to debate or discuss but someone who is here to troll the board and disrupt discussion.

Now can you tell me where did i say that the film you refered to was racist crap.

And then perhaps you could answer this question.

Have you seen any of Mike Moore films. 
It's not a loaded question just an enquirery.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Wind them up and watch them spin.


Is that your intention? That is the sort of behaviour normally associated with a troll too BTW.
Anyway It's not working comrade. I'm not sure how your imaginations working there but I’m sitting here quite relaxed watching the football, having a glass of wine and being humoured by your lack of intellectual ability.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Is that your intention? That is the sort of behaviour normally associated with a troll too BTW.
> Anyway It's not working comrade. I'm not sure how your imaginations working there but I’m sitting here quite relaxed watching the football, having a glass of wine and being humoured by your lack of intellectual ability.



Thats not my intention, but i can see it happneing just that same. 

How about "watchng you wind yourself up"?

And its rather funny in your case as i see you dishing it out yourself.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> I think you're making yourself look silly PB.
> Start that thread peebs.
> 
> I've asked you a simple question and you've squirmed like a worm on a hook. I've not made any suggestions that your not entitled to a view on it whether you've seen it or not.
> ...



I've stated that i would not anwer that question priviouesly.

To do so now would be to lie.

Theirs no getting around that evenif i wanted to.

So deal with.

Its just a pointless, way for people to duck my questions about the movie anywyas............


----------



## Wess (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I feel lossing liberty, to a gov't like yours, that increamentlay takes away all our rights.
> 
> Why don't you fear that as well.


Funny you mention that...does the Patriot Act ring any bells pee?....


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

Wess said:
			
		

> Funny you mention that...does the Patriot Act ring any bells pee?....



Funny you mention that as well.

Wheni first came here a couple years ago, you guys were whinning about parts of it being un-consitutional.

I said if they were the courts would rule on that, and they would be struck down.

And they have, and they were.

TRy to keep up.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Funny you mention that as well.
> 
> Wheni first came here a couple years ago, you guys were whinning about parts of it being un-consitutional.
> 
> ...



Aye but the PATRIOT Act doesn't matter much in your case since there's no danger of you reading anything that could be considered subversive. You're also on the right side of the tracks - if you get me.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I've stated that i would not anwer that question priviouesly.
> 
> To do so now would be to lie.
> 
> ...


Is this how you've run up so many posts peebs?

Dodging questions!

Maybe you could reply to the rest of my post then.

Your selctive responses are making you look like a bit of a dick


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Aye but the PATRIOT Act doesn't matter much in your case since there's no danger of you reading anything that could be considered subversive. .



What you don't think Urban is on the "list"?



> You're also on the right side of the tracks - if you get me.



I do get that, but the fact remains that the court did address the constitunality of the patriot act, and struck down major parts of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html

Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
Internet Providers' Data at Issue

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 30, 2004; Page A16 

A federal judge in New York ruled yesterday that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review. 

The ruling is one of several judicial blows to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies in recent months. 


***************************

Just like i said would happen.

Doesn't your press report these things?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> What you don't think Urban is on the "list"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I meant _books_, numbnuts; no danger of you reading _books_, 'cept the New Testament of course and that's just fiction anyway.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Is this how you've run up so many posts peebs?
> 
> Dodging questions!
> 
> ...





> Have you seen any of Mike Moore films.



Thats pretty much  the same question.

But IIRC i did see roger an me, back in the 80's wheni came out.

I saw it with an attorny friend of mine who was also from michigan, and who sister inlaw was/is a vice presidnet of GM.

Moore left out a lot of interesting points in that film as well.

Did you know that the GM pention plan, owns more that 50% of the GM stock?

Are you smart enought to fuigre out how that one fact invalides his intire movie?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I meant _books_, numbnuts; no danger of you reading _books_, 'cept the New Testament of course and that's just fiction anyway.


I bet he has the childrens edition.


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> What you don't think Urban is on the "list"?


What _list_ troll boy


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

Cluck...cluck...cluck...


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> I bet he has the childrens edition.




And i bet you don't know a circle jerk when you see one.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> *Thats pretty much  the same question.*
> 
> But IIRC i did see roger an me, back in the 80's wheni came out.
> 
> ...



No actually I was referring to you pointing out where i said that the film you mentioned was racist crap. 

You used that statement to support some dogshit sentiment of yours but it wasn't true was it.
Maybe you could be grown up enough to go back and acknowledge that you were lying.

That would be the Christian thing to do. Specially since it was your Lord Jesus who gave us the definition of hypocrite.


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> And i bet you don't know a circle jerk when you see one.


So fuck off then...you smell


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> And i bet you don't know a circle jerk when you see one.


Isn't that where you, Ilbemeubu, and JC get together round renty's trailor park to wank over a cookie. I hear last one to cum gets to eat it. Soggy buscuit i think they call it.

Must leave a taste in your mouth Terry Fuckwit.

Have a nice day asshole. I'm off to pull teeth, it seems it would be easier than trying to converse with trolls.

Nighty night

Don't have nightmares, wake up from it.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> No actually I was referring to you pointing out where i said that the film you mentioned was racist crap.
> 
> You used that statement to support some dogshit sentiment of yours but it wasn't true was it.
> Maybe you could be grown up enough to go back and acknowledge that you were lying.
> ...



I rarely bother going back and checking some pointless blather.

Why should I.

Do you show the same respect to other right wingers?

I've seen your petty circlejerks threads.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 2, 2005)

This is why I love Urban--such enlightened reparte--such intelligent and civil discussion of the issues.


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

Hehe...I fucking love these threads


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 2, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I rarely bother going back and checking some pointless blather.
> 
> Why should I.
> 
> ...


Well at least you admit that your comments are "pointless blather".

I'll take that as a concession  

And in response to your last point, i play centre forward so my relationship with my right winger is very important to me. Where would the goals come from otherwise  

Nighty night asswipe


----------



## Wess (Feb 2, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I meant _books_, numbnuts; no danger of you reading _books_, 'cept the New Testament of course and that's just fiction anyway.


LOL...Don't forget that a few months ago pee tried to tell us that he had read Tens of Thousands of books!!.....

So you haven't seen the movie but you have decided it is racist?....Bit judgemental don't you think pee?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

Wess said:
			
		

> LOL...Don't forget that a few months ago pee tried to tell us that he had read Tens of Thousands of books!!.....
> ?



And i have.

I enjoy reading.


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

Wess said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> So you haven't seen the movie but you have decided it is racist?....Bit judgemental don't you think pee?



Who said i hanv't seen it?

I demand a full apology.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Ahh the fucking new guy gag
> Another one you've worn out.
> 
> Have you seen the film?
> It's a simple question peebs



I've seen it; what do you want to know?


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

Yuwipi Woman said:
			
		

> This is why I love Urban--such enlightened reparte--such intelligent and civil discussion of the issues.



You ain't just whisiling dixie


----------



## pbman (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Well at least you admit that your comments are "pointless blather".
> 
> I'll take that as a concession
> 
> ...



Run allong then.


----------



## vimto (Feb 2, 2005)

Hey...who would have thought


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 2, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> To use an Americanism: 'you're damned straight'!
> 
> No sense of humour those Bushbot, neo-con fuckers!




The americanism is 'damn straight'.

Meaning: 'that's right!

It's not the speaker who's damn straight, it's the thing he's saying.

Stay in the wading pool if you can't handle the cultural deep end.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> I didn't say i wouldn't feel comfortable calling it racist crap peebs.
> I said i wouldn't feel comfortable making comments about something i hadn't seen.
> 
> Your a bit childish really aren't you?




 02-02-2005, 11:51 AM  
friedaweed  
Chomsky is my hamster   Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 314  

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbman
Do you feel comfortable calling the "birth of a nation" a racist film?

And have you seen it?

http://www.africanamericans.com/BirthofANation.htm 


I've not seen it peebs so I wouldn't feel comfortable making any comments about it.

...........................................................

Calling a film 'racist crap', is a comment about it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Do you realise how stupid you're making yourself look?



I always wondered what the right answer is to that question.

'No I don't': you look like an unaware fool.

'Yes I do', makes you look like an idiot or psycho.


It's like 'have you stopped beating your wife?'

It's not real argument, it's grandstanding for the peanut gallery.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> I think you're making yourself look silly PB.
> .



Another old truism shown to be correct, then?

'It takes one to know one'?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 2, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> It's not a loaded question just an enquirery.



What is an 'enquirery'?

Is that where you keep horses?

I normally wouldn't stoop this low, but I see you just asked pbman what a 'lier' was.

Like I said, takes one to know one.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 3, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I meant _books_, numbnuts; no danger of you reading _books_, 'cept the New Testament of course and that's just fiction anyway.



So nothing posted on the internet can be considered subversive: it has to be a hardcopy book?

Can you say 'luddite'?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 3, 2005)

vimto said:
			
		

> Cluck...cluck...cluck...



What would nostradamus say about this?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 3, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Isn't that where you, Ilbemeubu, and JC get together round renty's trailor park to wank over a cookie. I hear last one to cum gets to eat it. Soggy buscuit i think they call it.



Nothing in NA would ever be called 'soggy biscuit'.

My guess is it's an English game. So, Frieda, how many protein cookies did you gobble as a kid?

Would help to explain your moniker....


----------



## pbman (Feb 3, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I meant _books_, numbnuts; no danger of you reading _books_, 'cept the New Testament of course and that's just fiction anyway.



So I'm supposed to know what you meant to say but didn't?

And fyi i see chumpski has some books at the local store, i could pay cash,and no one would know............


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 3, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Nothing in NA would ever be called 'soggy biscuit'.
> 
> My guess is it's an English game. So, Frieda, how many protein cookies did you gobble as a kid?
> 
> Would help to explain your moniker....



Hey who let the gimp out. 
Did you need your wickle friend peebs.  


Back in your box gimp.  
This bridge has already got it's troll, go find your own. Peebs is the daddy of all trolls in this thread.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 3, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Hey who let the gimp out.
> Did you need your wickle friend peebs.
> 
> 
> ...



So you don't want to mix it up with me?

That's fine: I understand.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 3, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I rarely bother going back and checking some pointless blather.
> 
> Why should I.
> 
> ...



Why show right wingers 'respect'? Contempt is all you deserve and besides when did you ever give anyone on the left any 'respect'? Never. Now fuck off.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 3, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So I'm supposed to know what you meant to say but didn't?
> 
> And fyi i see chumpski has some books at the local store, i could pay cash,and no one would know............



Playing stupid? Not difficult in your case is it?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 3, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> 02-02-2005, 11:51 AM
> friedaweed
> Chomsky is my hamster   Join Date: Nov 2004
> Posts: 314
> ...




So Johnny Moronic would you like to point out where i called it racist crap then. I don't make a habit of making comments about films i don't have any knowledge of. Unlike some around here who are quite happy to let others do their thinking for them.

I think you'll find i was replying to pb's terms of reference. Is it that difficult for you to figure fruitcake.

Never the less do continue with your little Edwood Woodwood role it's so much more fun when the village idiots come in twos.

Pope JCii (The Equaliser)


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 3, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> So you don't want to mix it up with me?
> 
> That's fine: I understand.


It's like that scene in the Wanderers innit.

"Leave da kid alone"

Featuring Johnny Canuck2. Defending the stupid becuase it makes him feel important.

Do you help peebs and Renty with their homework too big boy.

Enjoy your milk and cookies boys; remember last one gets the treat.


I've had bigger dinners lad


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 3, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> So nothing posted on the internet can be considered subversive: it has to be a hardcopy book?
> 
> Can you say 'luddite'?



Still defending your pet monkey, does Renty know that you've abandoned him?

Can you say 'prick'?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 3, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> So you don't want to mix it up with me?
> 
> That's fine: I understand.



Oh, the tough guy speaks: the defender of the indefensible and hypocrite extraordinaire.

It's my turn now: I'll bet you're a pussy cat in real life, nothing like the tough nut you pretend to be on here.


----------



## pbman (Feb 3, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Playing stupid? Not difficult in your case is it?



You can't properly express you views in a concise manner. And you blame others for your problem.

Typical commie behavior.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 3, 2005)

Was another Michael Moore thread worth 16 pages? Really?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 3, 2005)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> Was another Michael Moore thread worth 16 pages? Really?


Considering most of it was a concerted effort for the resident troll to get closer to his 20,000 posts target, probably not.


----------



## pbman (Feb 3, 2005)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> Was another Michael Moore thread worth 16 pages? Really?



We someone imples that a great american like heston is racist, and smears the name of a great american ogriniztion like the NRA, (of witch i am a proud member), they have made a seriousely pissed off enemy.

And dumabass moore has done so.

So if it wasn't critical to his point, of supporting gun ownership.

He should have left that crap out.

And thats why i call him a dumbasss.


----------



## pbman (Feb 3, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Considering most of it was a concerted effort for the resident troll to get closer to his 20,000 posts target, probably not.



I like many othes have  far more than 20,000 posts.

Try to keep up.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 3, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I like many othes have  far more than 20,000 posts.
> 
> Try to keep up.


My apologies Piss Bollix i forgot to add your other sad little personalities.
Which ones are they ILLBEPB and RentaPB are there any more i should put on ignore You're not Canuck that's for sure, he can spell.   Typo-cop the 2nd  
It must make you feel so important peebs sharing all that knowledge. 
Though if you've managed to accumulate that many in the style in which you have in this thread it suggests that your a bit of a sad twat who needs to get out Moore.

That's some shit you've spread, you could work on a farm dude. But at least you recognise yourself to be the resident


----------



## pbman (Feb 3, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> My apologies Piss Bollix i forgot to add your other sad little personalities.
> [/IMG]



 

If you weren't such a FNG, you would remmber the several times that post counts were lost, when moderators made accidnental mistakes.

FYI the last one was about a year ago.


----------



## vimto (Feb 3, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> If you weren't such a FNG...


Oooh it's like being attacked by a dead sheep. Scary stuff indeed 





> I like many othes have far more than 20,000 posts.


Dontcha just love it when the kintergarden section of freepers incorporated make a stab for a piece of the action   


> We someone imples that a great american like heston is racist


Yeah a dead racist at that   


> I rarely bother going back and checking some pointless blather.


That's because you are a political nobody who thinks not for yourself. You just follow the party line no matter what...baaahhhhh...

Cluck...cluck...cluck


----------



## pbman (Feb 3, 2005)

vimto said:
			
		

> Oooh it's like being attacked by a dead sheep. Scary stuff indeed Dontcha just love it when the kintergarden section of freepers incorporated make a stab for a piece of the action    Yeah a dead racist at that    That's because you are a political nobody who thinks not for yourself. You just follow the party line no matter what...baaahhhhh...
> 
> Cluck...cluck...cluck


----------



## vimto (Feb 3, 2005)

Cluck...cluck...cluck


----------



## vimto (Feb 3, 2005)

Come on flobba...give it the best you've got troll boy.

I could be doing with another round of bashing the fuckwitted freeper contingency.


----------



## vimto (Feb 3, 2005)

FNG


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 4, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> You can't properly express you views in a concise manner. And you blame others for your problem.
> 
> Typical commie behavior.



What is it with you and this word 'commie'? If you don't agree with what someone says you reach for the handy 'commie' word. Weak, juvenile and pathetic.

Your post, as always, misses the point and makes little sense.

Dense as a thicket this one.


----------



## TomUS (Feb 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> What is it with you and this word 'commie'? If you don't agree with what someone says you reach for the handy 'commie' word.


Not a new tactic is it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 4, 2005)

TomUS said:
			
		

> Not a new tactic is it?



Hardly, but it shows how little some minds have progressed since the 1950's.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Hardly, but it shows how little some minds have progressed since the 1950's.


Has Peebs been posting here that long?   
Phew i shoulda paid him more respect, that's how it works isn't it. The more posts you have and the longer you've been here the more valid your point is.  

FOG's


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 4, 2005)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> The more posts you have and the longer you've been here the more valid your point is.



According to peebs it is; it's all about size y'see!


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> According to peebs it is; it's all about size y'see!


Aha well when its a pissing match it does count i suppose.  
Or a buscuit compo  
<Puts weener back in pants>


----------



## pbman (Feb 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> What is it with you and this word 'commie'? If you don't agree with what someone says you reach for the handy 'commie' word. Weak, juvenile and pathetic.
> .



Come on now you have commie thought and conservative thought.

And that was commie thought.

So i use commie like you guys use Neo-con, or whatever.......


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> So i use commie like you guys use Neo-con, or whatever.......



No you don't. Most  people apply neo-con more or less correctly. You (and a large swathe of your countrymen) use "commie" as a catch-all smear on anyone with politics to the left of yours.


----------



## pbman (Feb 4, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> No you don't. Most  people apply neo-con more or less correctly. You (and a large swathe of your countrymen) use "commie" as a catch-all smear on anyone with politics to the left of yours.



I said whatever as well.

LOts of you do missue, the term neo-con.

But lots of you also have very little idea what being a republican is.

Very very little idea.

You think we are torries.

We are not.

But anyways, i use the termy commie, for communist propagand that still lingers with you guys, and communist ideas that are particuly silly, that are in still in use, by the left...........

Anyway, if it walks like a duck and qwacks like a duck, and shits like a duck, the ods are its a duck. And it really seams like many lefties are still in love with communism.............


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 5, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I said whatever as well.
> 
> LOts of you do missue, the term neo-con.
> 
> ...


And here folds the political ability of your standard A-Level student.
Especially when their backs are against the wall. 
"You don't know how it feels being a republican".  

It must be tough fruitcake. Considering your supposed to be a christian too.  All that murdering must really fuck with your ethics


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Come on now you have commie thought and conservative thought.
> 
> And that was commie thought.
> 
> So i use commie like you guys use Neo-con, or whatever.......



They aren't the same thing sunshine. Only someone as terminally dense as you could make such a specious comparison.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> I said whatever as well.
> 
> LOts of you do missue, the term neo-con.
> 
> ...




How do any of us misuse the word "neo-con?" I've never called you a neo con for instance, I may have once referred to you as a 'Bushbot' but that's because you are a Bushbot. I, on the other hand, have never been a member of the communist party; therefore the use of such a word to describe me and my ideas is incorrect - even if you intend it as a perjorative (as many rightist Americans are fond of doing - you included).

What this actually indicates is your lack of reading and education. Only a thick bastard would call someone a 'communist' for fun.

There ought to ba a Godwin-type law for this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> How do any of us misuse the word "neo-con?" I've never called you a neo con for instance, I may have once referred to you as a 'Bushbot' but that's because you are a Bushbot. I, on the other hand, have never been a member of the communist party; therefore the use of such a word to describe me and my ideas is incorrect - even if you intend it as a perjorative (as many rightist Americans are fond of doing - you included).
> 
> What this actually indicates is your lack of reading and education. Only a thick bastard would call someone a 'communist' for fun.
> 
> There ought to ba a Godwin-type law for this.



It's lazy arrogance and ignorance. Ask your average person who uses "commie" as an insult to actually tell you what they mean by it and I'll gaurantee the usual answer (after several minutes hard thinking and the face of the questioned person going more and more apoplectic) will be "fuck you, commie asshole".


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> It's lazy arrogance and ignorance. Ask your average person who uses "commie" as an insult to actually tell you what they mean by it and I'll gaurantee the usual answer (after several minutes hard thinking and the face of the questioned person going more and more apoplectic) will be "fuck you, commie asshole".



It is and it's just as bad when things are reversed with those on the right being referred to as 'fascists' or 'Nazis'. I got a real dressing down for calling Thatcher a 'fascist' when I was a student; I never did it again in fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> It is and it's just as bad when things are reversed with those on the right being referred to as 'fascists' or 'Nazis'. I got a real dressing down for calling Thatcher a 'fascist' when I was a student; I never did it again in fact.



That's what I hate about doctrinaire political groups like the swappies, with their prefixing of the names of political groups they dislike with "fascist", "racist" and "nazi". It actually tends to soften the meaning of the word by repitition until it has the force of a mild insult rather than bearing it's true force.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Feb 5, 2005)

pbman, you've no right to complain if people describe neo-cons as nazis, etc. To do so is hypocritical. Your free use of the term 'commie' is grossly inaccurate. It is demonstrably absurd to call democrats commies, when they are clearly in the pocket of big business. Having social democratic tendencies does not make you a communist. You should show more respect for these terms yourself.


----------



## pbman (Feb 5, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> pbman, you've no right to complain if people describe neo-cons as nazis, etc. To do so is hypocritical. Your free use of the term 'commie' is grossly inaccurate. It is demonstrably absurd to call democrats commies, when they are clearly in the pocket of big business. Having social democratic tendencies does not make you a communist. You should show more respect for these terms yourself.



I just stated that many people missue the term, and have many mis-conseptions about what american conservatives belive in.

And if at least one of you guys would occationaly correct/object to the rampant childish lauguage of some of your own people, i would be tempted to use the term much less.


----------



## pbman (Feb 5, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> How do any of us misuse the word "neo-con?" I've never called you a neo con for instance, I may have once referred to you as a 'Bushbot' but that's because you are a Bushbot. .




You do not. And its not missused that much in p and p, mainly in the non-political forums.

And commie is a valid response to bushbot.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Feb 5, 2005)

> And if at least one of you guys would occationaly correct/object to the rampant childish lauguage of some of your own people, i would be tempted to use the term much less.



You seem to always confuse everyone who is not a neo-con as part of one big club. Your language is equally childish and mistaken at times, so like I say, you've no right to complain. It's hypocritical.


----------



## pbman (Feb 5, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> You seem to always confuse everyone who is not a neo-con as part of one big club..



Thats cause their are in complety agreement all the time,when it comes to the issues discused here.

Or to put it in easier terms for you, anarchist and trot's...... hate the us the same.

So they are in the same club.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> You do not. And its not missused that much in p and p, mainly in the non-political forums.
> 
> And commie is a valid response to bushbot.



Hardly, one is rooted in the truth and the other is not.


----------



## pbman (Feb 5, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Hardly, one is rooted in the truth and the other is not.




Like i said, thinking like a commie.


----------



## Wess (Feb 5, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> And i have.
> 
> I enjoy reading.


Your a liar.....  

Comics don't count btw...nor do republican propaganda pamphlets.
you spend half you day on the internet...and this is only one of the forums you visit pee and look how much time you spend here.

I'm older than you spend a lot of time reading and have done my whole life I also spend a lot less time on the net than you, but I wouldn't even think of trying to tell people such a blatent lie as that...Regardless of what you think of your president pee, the traits he display's ie; lying, is not a decent trait in a person......


----------



## Wess (Feb 5, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> You can't properly express you views in a concise manner. And you blame others for your problem.
> 
> Typical commie behavior.




Bwaaahahahahaaa........jesus H fucken christ......now I've heard it all!!!!


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Like i said, thinking like a commie.


----------



## pbman (Feb 6, 2005)

Less said:
			
		

> Bwaaahahahahaaa........jesus H fucken christ......now I've heard it all!!!!



Read the thread less.


----------



## pbman (Feb 6, 2005)

Wess said:
			
		

> Your a liar.....
> 
> Comics don't count btw...nor do republican propaganda pamphlets.
> you spend half you day on the internet...and this is only one of the forums you visit pee and look how much time you spend here.
> ...



So i spend a lot of time the past couple years on the net.   

You really think that changes the fact that we didn't have cable or computers or silly ass electric games or cell phones...........

When i was a kid?

Anyways, i can read one of these in about 2-3 hours. And i read every single western and science fiction book in our schools library, well before i graduated high school.

And i didn't slow down much for the next 10 years.






And i ve read every single one he wrote as well as many other authors.

John McDonold - every damn book he wrote.

Alister McClean - same thing.

I could list a big shitload of author's. 

But let me do the math for you less, 300 books a year times 34 years is what?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 6, 2005)

So if you call us 'commies' peebs, surely you can not object to us calling you 'fascist' or 'Nazi' (after all you seem to have some sympathy for the BNP).


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 6, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Read the thread less.



What the hell is that supposed to mean?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> What the hell is that supposed to mean?



He thinks he's being witty, substituting the W for an L. Then again, someone who thinks that reading a Louis L'Amour book in 2-3 hrs is unusual (it isn't, they're about 80-120 pages long) would see that kind of childishness as wit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 6, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> He thinks he's being witty, substituting the W for an L. Then again, someone who thinks that reading a Louis L'Amour book in 2-3 hrs is unusual (it isn't, they're about 80-120 pages long) would see that kind of childishness as wit.



Oh right, how thick of me! The sparkling wit of leadhead strikes again.

His choice of reading material is revealing isn't it?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Feb 6, 2005)

> Or to put it in easier terms for you, anarchist and trot's...... hate the us the same.



There have been threads where people here specifically state what they like or dislike about the US. They do not, on the whole, hate the US itself. They just hate the ignorant fucking idiots it produces who trample on others. Again, you misuse what evidence is available, and blow it out of proportion to suit you weak, narrow minded arguments. Classic straw man?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Oh right, how thick of me! The sparkling wit of leadhead strikes again.
> 
> His choice of reading material is revealing isn't it?



Yep, as my missus said when reading this thread over my shoulder (she's dead nosey!), that's on par with boasting about reading "Mills & Boon" romances and other less than original pulp-type fiction. The literary equivalent of "easy listening".
Typical that it's the sort of "rugged individualist with a gun" stuff that misanthropes thrive on.

Jimmy Carter is a big L'Amour fan. Wonder of that makes peebs a "commie"?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 6, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Yep, as my missus said when reading this thread over my shoulder (she's dead nosey!), that's on par with boasting about reading "Mills & Boon" romances and other less than original pulp-type fiction. The literary equivalent of "easy listening".
> Typical that it's the sort of "rugged individualist with a gun" stuff that misanthropes thrive on.
> 
> Jimmy Carter is a big L'Amour fan. Wonder of that makes peebs a "commie"?



I guess even the incredibly macho Hemingway is something of a 'commie' too in his eyes. Having said that, Hemingway is a bit too _classical_, rather something more contemporary with bigger text and fewer pages (and maybe pictures) - yeah, Mills and Boon!  

Peebs a 'commie'! Nice!


----------



## TomUS (Feb 6, 2005)

I enjoy right wing idiot's rant:



> No, I didn't watch the Oscars. Never have, never will.  But, I did catch that fat ass Commie Pig's Oscars rant on CNN today. I've never seen any of his "documentaries" or "movies" either and after hearing this idiot carry on today, I'm know I won't bother. It's too bad that he had the kind of forum that he did to blather on about his hatred of the United States and it's leadership. But, you know, free speech is a constitutional right, something Mr. Moore wouldn't enjoy in Iraq, or Iran or wherever the hell he'd rather be. I'm no big fan of George W. myself but he is our President and deserves respect.









How is disagreeing with US foreighn policy = hatred of the us?


----------



## pk (Feb 6, 2005)

LMFAO @ pbman - his feeble excuses.

Slagging off Bowling for Colombine *without actually having watched it at all!!!!*

I always knew he was a stupid retarded little gimp, but this is priceless.

Well done pbman - you've excelled yourself.

Now please keep firing your little pistols, one is bound to explode in your face eventually.


----------



## Dilzybhoy (Feb 6, 2005)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> As for F9/11, I wasn't surprised that he didn't mention that when the Taliban came to power in 1996, their rise was cautiously welcomed by Bill Clinton, who said they might be a force for stability (which you need for piplines, of course).



Yes he did. Or rather it was made clear that america and the rest of the west did


----------



## pbman (Feb 7, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> LMFAO @ pbman - his feeble excuses.
> 
> Slagging off Bowling for Colombine *without actually having watched it at all!!!!*
> 
> ...



Who said i didn't watch it?


----------



## pbman (Feb 7, 2005)

TomUS said:
			
		

> I enjoy right wing idiot's rant:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't. I know lots of republicans that dissagree, but they still love their country.

Be he is way over the line, in his blatant proganda.

This from noted lefty hitchens should bring you up to speed.



> To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.



And the film contradicts itself all over the place.



> *In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11*. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. *And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment*



Looks like a ten year old could have done better reseach.


----------



## pbman (Feb 7, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> So if you call us 'commies' peebs, surely you can not object to us calling you 'fascist' or 'Nazi' (after all you seem to have some sympathy for the BNP).



If you don't like commie, don't call anyone else names,and occationaly correct some of the nasty newbies, and i will do the same.

It shouldn't be that tought even for you.


----------



## pbman (Feb 7, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I guess even the incredibly macho Hemingway is something of a 'commie' too in his eyes. Having said that, Hemingway is a bit too _classical_, rather something more contemporary with bigger text and fewer pages (and maybe pictures) - yeah, Mills and Boon!
> 
> Peebs a 'commie'! Nice!



What does macho have to do with right and left?

Ernest Rhom, was a lefty.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 7, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> Who said i didn't watch it?



Don't lie, you never saw it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 7, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> What does macho have to do with right and left?
> 
> Ernest Rhom, was a lefty.



Still promoting the idea that the Nazis were 'commies' peebs? I'm so glad I don't have the limitied abilities of your brain otherwise I'd take that seriously.

Hemingway was a lefty wasn't he? Spanish Civil War and all that.

While I'm here, and since you use the word 'commie' willy-nilly, I may as well call you a 'Nazi'.

You like that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2005)

pbman said:
			
		

> What does macho have to do with right and left?
> 
> Ernest Rhom, was a lefty.



"Ernest Rhom"?  Who the fuck is he?

Perhaps you mean Ernst Rohm (who was not a "lefty")? 

Jism-wit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 7, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> "Ernest Rhom"?  Who the fuck is he?
> 
> Perhaps you mean Ernst Rohm (who was not a "lefty")?
> 
> Jism-wit.



Something peebs has overlooked in his desperation to attack me is the fact that because someone is gay doesn't necessarily mean that that person cannot be macho too. He still subscribes to the notion of the gay man as a camp figure. I guess if he admits that if gays can be just a macho (if not more so) than him, he puts his masculinity into question.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 7, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Something peebs has overlooked in his desperation to attack me is the fact that because someone is gay doesn't necessarily mean that that person cannot be macho too. He still subscribes to the notion of the gay man as a camp figure. I guess if he admits that if gays can be just a macho (if not more so) than him, he puts his masculinity into question.


He should do time in San Quentin for this. That ought to change his outlook on handlebar moustaches and John Inman.

Are you being served one yet Prisoner Pussyboots.

I’m Freeeeeeeee  


If your such an expert on Moore peebs why don't you watch his movies and then tell us what you think. Or is reading cowboy books and googling up your opinion more your thing.  
There's a great cowboy scene in 911.


----------



## pk (Feb 7, 2005)

You haven't watched Bowling for Colombine have you plebman?


----------

