This Is Too Good....

[BigBank_Hank]

Vid I’m going to assume that Busyman is referring to me.

The “assumptions” that you said I made before this movies release weren’t assumptions at all. Unlike Moore I deal with the facts and the fact of the matter is I was right all along. I didn’t base my “assumption” for this movie from nothing. I read articles and heard from people that had seen the movie who documented all the inaccuracies and contradictions.

Its funny how you say you question all political parties but I never hear you saying anything about the Democrats. Clinton for example has been brought up in numerous threads as of late and you haven’t joined in any of the conversations. But this movie hammers Bush and here you are.

You also say that you will be just as tough on Kerry if he becomes elected. He is the lead candidate of your Democratic party and I haven’t heard you say anything about him either.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 21:15
Unlike Moore I deal with the facts

I think it would be more accurate to say that you deal with different facts linked in different ways.

My understanding is that much of the brouhaha concerning the film ( which I have yet to see)centers around the belief that Moore connects (allegedly) unrelated facts together to lead the audience to a certain ( again, allegedly) erroneous conclusion.
The facts he cites are not in dispute.

The conclusions are.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@1 July 2004 - 00:15
Vid I’m going to assume that Busyman is referring to me.

The “assumptions” that you said I made before this movies release weren’t assumptions at all. Unlike Moore I deal with the facts and the fact of the matter is I was right all along. I didn’t base my “assumption” for this movie from nothing. I read articles and heard from people that had seen the movie who documented all the inaccuracies and contradictions.

Its funny how you say you question all political parties but I never hear you saying anything about the Democrats. Clinton for example has been brought up in numerous threads as of late and you haven’t joined in any of the conversations. But this movie hammers Bush and here you are.

You also say that you will be just as tough on Kerry if he becomes elected. He is the lead candidate of your Democratic party and I haven’t heard you say anything about him either.

1. Clinton is not President, Bush is.

2. You will even admit that what's going on during this administration (war and recession), is vastly different from the previous one (smaller war, great economy and blowjobs).

3. I'm not a Democrat.

4. I don't care for Kerry much either.

[j2k4]

I have reached a conclusion:

If we are all still here after a few more administrations have come and gone, and (God forbid) one of them is of Democrat stripe, then we may have a basis for proper debate of the issues.

One particular point strikes me as a winner:

If (again, God forbid) John "Effing" Kerry or Hillary "Rob 'em" Clinton manages to get elected, I am just as sure as I can be that all the anti-Bush crowd on this board will not have ceased talking about and blaming him for any woes continuing to plague the country or the Democrats.

Mark my words, if you are still around.

[Rat Faced]

OK, just to make you feel better J2k4....

Bush got a bad deal on Arsenic Levels in the water, as he was merely continuing Clintons Policy.

True is the same for Oil Drilling in places like Alaska.

And Clinton was the 1st US President since the early 70s not to put pressure on the Motor Industry not to increase mpg.... and that lasted 2 terms.

In fact, if you look at most of Clintons Policies and at the way the "Democrats" voted in the early years of Bush's tener..... I really cant see that much between them.



What Clinton had in abundance, which Bush has none of....is Style, Tact and Diplomacy. He also had the Trust of most of the world... when Bush came into power US approval Ratings had never been so high.

Then the sympathy vote after 911.... so he lost the Trust of a planet TWICE, a real achievement, considering he wasnt DOING much that was different.

In Short,

the difference is with Clinton...He could screw you over and you'd still like the guy, whereas Bush.... is just a Total Analretentive...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 July 2004 - 16:33
What Clinton had in abundance, which Bush has none of....is Style, Tact and Diplomacy.

You were doing so well, Rat; right up 'til here...












Now you've gone and made me piss myself laughing.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+1 July 2004 - 21:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 1 July 2004 - 21:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@1 July 2004 - 16:33
What Clinton had in abundance, which Bush has none of....is Style, Tact and Diplomacy.

You were doing so well, Rat; right up &#39;til here...












Now you&#39;ve gone and made me piss myself laughing. [/b][/quote]


This is dangerous near electrical equipment. We must keep quiet about such "accidents" lest those who care about our welfare come up with stringent laws on the use of humour near computers.





Come to think of it they have already got to our IT department

[j2k4]

Luckily, I was sitting at my keyboard and not on it.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@1 July 2004 - 06:47
1. Clinton is not President, Bush is.

2. You will even admit that what&#39;s going on during this administration (war and recession), is vastly different from the previous one (smaller war, great economy and blowjobs).

3. I&#39;m not a Democrat.

4. I don&#39;t care for Kerry much either.

1. Clinton used to be a politician. You said that we should question our politicians but you never have anything to say about any Democrats. I pointed out to you there Clinton had been a topic of discussion as of late and you never posted in any of those discussions. I guess because Clinton has left office he is off limits to criticism now?

2. I will admit that what’s going in this administration is vastly different from the previous. The war on terror wouldn’t even be a war on terror if Clinton worried about Osama as much as he did Monica. We had three chances to get take him out and we let them all get away.

3. You say that you aren’t a Democrat but I distinctly remember you consider yourself liberal. I remember that you voted yourself a 4 in my poll before it got deleted. Now if you lean towards the left but you’re not a democrat what does that make you?

4. I don’t blame you for not liking Kerry. No one seems to be all that impressed with him. So I guess you’ll be voting for Nader then?

[protak]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@30 June 2004 - 00:43
It&#39;s not a documentary. It irks me that these films are being classified as such, but until someone creates a more appropriate category (something along the lines of an editorial), films like this will continue to be misclassified.

Do you mean a more appropriate, or a Moore appropriate category.
Tim