Micheal Moore is the biggest...you get the picture

[Fritzo]

[QCommonly known as Executive Privilege...the same thing Clinton's Cabinet member used during Lewinsky-Gate and which Condy could have hidden behind easily & which the dems were banking on...glad she ripped them a new one...bi-partisan my ass, more like a witch-hunt[/quote]


They could've used that Executive Privilege and testified one at a time, but they had to go in together, what's your logic behind that?[/quote]

i love your desperate logic To you, how does them testifying together have any negative influence on the judicial process?[/quote]

It's easier to lie that way......[/quote]


Yeah...that's right! Cheney was having Bush move his lips while Cheney used ventriloquism to answer the questions! :roll:

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. It's the president and vice president...not a couple of kids corroborating stories before getting sent to the principal's office!

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox

Originally posted by: AgentOrange

Originally posted by: Fritzo
From what I read, Moore's latest turd tries to link Bush and his family to Arab oil families and even Osama Bin Laden! Kind of like a demented "Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon" thing. I don't blame Disney for not showing it. It would be as bad a judgement call as it was for the media to show the Iraqi torture pictures while our troops are over there.

So are you saying we should hide the fact that prisoners were abused? I would hope not.

This administration is hiding a lot more that you know, and anyone who doesn't think so is a fool. Bush and Cheney had to testify together in front of the 9/11 commission, hand in hand, no camera's, no recordings, no transcripts, no oath. Why is that?

Heres American Government 101:
the same reason that clinton and gore had no cameras, no recordings, no transcripts, because of the seperation/balence of powers of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. For the president or vp to testify underoath, cameras, recordings and transcripts to the legislative branch would be an example of the legislative branch enacting power over the executive branch; thereby, violating the balance of powers between the three branches of government.

Commonly known as Executive Privilege...the same thing Clinton's Cabinet member used during Lewinsky-Gate and which Condy could have hidden behind easily & which the dems were banking on...glad she ripped them a new one...bi-partisan my ass, more like a witch-hunt

They could've used that Executive Privilege and testified one at a time, but they had to go in together, what's your logic behind that?

Dang you're dense. I hope for your sake that you're only about 10 years old.

 

[amcdonald]

This is exactly why I don't look at the P&N boards.
Thanks for reminding me of the futility of arguing with an idiot.

 

[lokiju]

If so many people agree against it then they should show that by voting in the poll on the link, show CNN whats up.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: Aquaman
Don't think Disney stopping the movie just because it bashs Bush.......... they are thinking of $$$ by stopping this movie.

If Disney allowed Miramax (the distributor) to release the film............ I think good old Jeb down in Florida would have something to say about the tax breaks Disney gets.

What's worth more to Disney......... a movie that could break even or make some money? or the tax breaks it gets in Florida?

And that's the biggest reason that Disney is trying to keep it in the can!

They certainly are not doing it because they're afraid of what Moore was going to do it on or what he might say, they must have known before they forked over all the money required to make it. (Okay, Miramax payed, but Disney could have pulled rank.) Hell. I knew what it was going to be about when he was still trolling for a distributer for the idea after finishing Bowling!

This is either Disney cowering in fear of the Bush dynesty or Disney using the negative publicity to hype the hell out of their movie. Very difficult to see which, considering we've seen how vindictive the Bushes can be and how well the Passion did, respectively.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Gimme a break, you guys make it sound like if Micheal Moore is allowed to spread his so-called "lies", that people would be brainwashed and turn liberal. You give him too much credit. Don't you have the intelligence to look at his materials and then decide (like Foxnews)?

I read his books, they sucked big time; I watched Bowling for Columbine, I like it because It made Cananda like a good place to live. He did made a few good points, I don't think it is anti-gun, it is more of anti-society film. Personally, I still want to save up enough money to get a cool para-military rife and no film can convince me otherwise.

His other view points are over the top, I heard him bashing left and the right, he's like in the same league as what's her name on Air America? Geez, talk about an angry woman.

Al Franken is more moderate compare to those two.

I think Ann Coulter is his arch nemesis. My beef is with him spreading lies and dissent, he's giving the terrorists and Iraqi "insurgents" hope and making them kill more of us.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Gimme a break, you guys make it sound like if Micheal Moore is allowed to spread his so-called "lies", that people would be brainwashed and turn liberal. You give him too much credit. Don't you have the intelligence to look at his materials and then decide (like Foxnews)?

I read his books, they sucked big time; I watched Bowling for Columbine, I like it because It made Cananda like a good place to live. He did made a few good points, I don't think it is anti-gun, it is more of anti-society film. Personally, I still want to save up enough money to get a cool para-military rife and no film can convince me otherwise.

His other view points are over the top, I heard him bashing left and the right, he's like in the same league as what's her name on Air America? Geez, talk about an angry woman.

Al Franken is more moderate compare to those two.

I think Ann Coulter is his arch nemesis. My beef is with him spreading lies and dissent, he's giving the terrorists and Iraqi "insurgents" hope and making them kill more of us.

LOL, Rummy and the Neocons bumbling of the Occupation has nothing to do with that?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Gimme a break, you guys make it sound like if Micheal Moore is allowed to spread his so-called "lies", that people would be brainwashed and turn liberal. You give him too much credit. Don't you have the intelligence to look at his materials and then decide (like Foxnews)?

I read his books, they sucked big time; I watched Bowling for Columbine, I like it because It made Cananda like a good place to live. He did made a few good points, I don't think it is anti-gun, it is more of anti-society film. Personally, I still want to save up enough money to get a cool para-military rife and no film can convince me otherwise.

His other view points are over the top, I heard him bashing left and the right, he's like in the same league as what's her name on Air America? Geez, talk about an angry woman.

Al Franken is more moderate compare to those two.

I think Ann Coulter is his arch nemesis. My beef is with him spreading lies and dissent, he's giving the terrorists and Iraqi "insurgents" hope and making them kill more of us.

LOL, Rummy and the Neocons bumbling of the Occupation has nothing to do with that?

They are exercising a helluva lot more restraint than I would. I would already be going house to house in Pakistan looking for Bin Laden

 

[Shelly21]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

I think Ann Coulter is his arch nemesis. My beef is with him spreading lies and dissent, he's giving the terrorists and Iraqi "insurgents" hope and making them kill more of us.

The only example I could think of was that Oscar speech, which was a bit extreme for my taste. I can't comment on Ann Coulter until I read her books.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shelly21

Originally posted by: Nitemare

I think Ann Coulter is his arch nemesis. My beef is with him spreading lies and dissent, he's giving the terrorists and Iraqi "insurgents" hope and making them kill more of us.

The only example I could think of was that Oscar speech, which was a bit extreme for my taste. I can't comment on Ann Coulter until I read her books.

I hear Mein Kampf was her best book!

 

[FuzzyBee]

My beef with Moore is that he tries to brand his spew as "documentary", despite making things up.

Oh, wait - he said that "all the facts in his films are true." Really? What else would the facts be? I'm more concerned about his fiction than his facts.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: fuzzy bee
My beef with Moore is that he tries to brand his spew as "documentary", despite making things up.

Oh, wait - he said that "all the facts in his films are true." Really? What else would the facts be? I'm more concerned about his fiction than his facts.

Not me as I know about his agenda and take what he has to say with a grain of salt just like I do with other Political Hacks both on the Left and the Right. Though I haven't seen it and I really have no desire to do so, it seemed to me his "Bowling for Columbine" as much if not more negative responses than it did positive which has led to him being labeled a fruitcake by many. I would think his movies only preach to the chior, by that I mean those who already believe in what he has to say before even hearing him say it. Due to that I see no harm done with his so called Documentaries.

 

[Rilescat]

Originally posted by: SaigonK
Well here we go....

I hate Bowling for COlumbine and I hate Micheal Moore....

I wish some one would shotgun him.

 

I think I would respect him more if he wasn't so fat.

 

[Vic]

It's the right to free speech, not the right to free publication and distribution.

Is Disney infringing on my free speech rights by not publishing me? :roll:

My Gawd, political fanbois (on both sides) are idiots. Ah... to be so blind!

Anyway, I stand by my assertion that this is a staged publicity stunt. It's simply obvious.

 

[AgentOrange]

Originally posted by: SampSon
I think I would respect him more if he wasn't so fat.

:disgust:

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: Balt
One of my biggest problems with this guy is that he goes over to Europe and spreads all this anti-american propaganda using the most sensationalist material that he can get his fat paws on. And of course, Europeans eat it up. As if they didn't dislike us enough already.

Of course I would never argue that he should be censored, but if a private company doesn't want to fund/distribute his crap, then that is their right as a private company.

Edit: If he's so damn honorable by blessing us with his documentaries to make the world a better place, he should just distribute the video on the internet.

Just for the record Europeans don't dislike Americans. Many of them dislike Bush, but not the American people.

Screw Europe. If they hate our leaders, they hate us. We chose them. I'm sick of arguing with Europeans that believe they should have a say in who we elect as President.

 

[Xede]

Originally posted by: Aquaman
Don't think Disney stopping the movie just because it bashs Bush.......... they are thinking of $$$ by stopping this movie.

If Disney allowed Miramax (the distributor) to release the film............ I think good old Jeb down in Florida would have something to say about the tax breaks Disney gets.

What's worth more to Disney......... a movie that could break even or make some money? or the tax breaks it gets in Florida?

Does anybody actually have any proof that this is true (tax break threat), or is everybody just taking at face value the claim made by Michael Moore's agent, as quoted in the NY Times.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

I can see why Moore would want that explanation used, since it is unfavorable to Bush and conservatives. The more likely explanation is that Disney didn't want Moore's far left views to be associated with the company, leading to criticism/boycotts/lower sales from the conservative portion of the general public that is unhappy with Disney's actions.

I have no special insight--it could be true, but I am skeptical about an unsupported claim like this when it is made by the person who has most reason to want to slam Bush.

 

[Fritzo]

Just to add in information, Disney's official response as to why they won't release the film is becuase it "Does not follow the standards that Disney sets for it's movies." Basically, they're saying they want entertainment movies, not politically motivated movies.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox

Originally posted by: AgentOrange

Originally posted by: Fritzo
From what I read, Moore's latest turd tries to link Bush and his family to Arab oil families and even Osama Bin Laden! Kind of like a demented "Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon" thing. I don't blame Disney for not showing it. It would be as bad a judgement call as it was for the media to show the Iraqi torture pictures while our troops are over there.

So are you saying we should hide the fact that prisoners were abused? I would hope not.

This administration is hiding a lot more that you know, and anyone who doesn't think so is a fool. Bush and Cheney had to testify together in front of the 9/11 commission, hand in hand, no camera's, no recordings, no transcripts, no oath. Why is that?

Heres American Government 101:
the same reason that clinton and gore had no cameras, no recordings, no transcripts, because of the seperation/balence of powers of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. For the president or vp to testify underoath, cameras, recordings and transcripts to the legislative branch would be an example of the legislative branch enacting power over the executive branch; thereby, violating the balance of powers between the three branches of government.

Commonly known as Executive Privilege...the same thing Clinton's Cabinet member used during Lewinsky-Gate and which Condy could have hidden behind easily & which the dems were banking on...glad she ripped them a new one...bi-partisan my ass, more like a witch-hunt

They could've used that Executive Privilege and testified one at a time, but they had to go in together, what's your logic behind that?

Dang you're dense. I hope for your sake that you're only about 10 years old.

Well, he IS a Red Sox fan.

 

[thomsbrain]

well there's another crappy buisness decision from Disney. i mean like him or not, his movie was gonna make a lot of money (they don't exactly cost a lot to make).

need i remind you all that this is the same company that refused to finance the lord of the rings AND cut their ties with Pixar? s.t.u.p.i.d.

 

[MaxDepth]

Moore still calling his stuf "documentaries"? that'as a hoot.

Ahhh, that's right he won an oscar for his "documentary" so that makes him always right.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Ness
Moore making an anti-Bush film would probably have a better effect rallying votes for Bush just to spite Moore.

(yes, that was a joke, for all you tools out there that thought I was serious, but the point still stands. Moore always manages to destroy his credibility quite well.)

There's a problem though... a lot of the population is too stupid to figure out things that actually do destroy hes credibility.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: BostonRedSox

Originally posted by: AgentOrange

Originally posted by: Fritzo
From what I read, Moore's latest turd tries to link Bush and his family to Arab oil families and even Osama Bin Laden! Kind of like a demented "Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon" thing. I don't blame Disney for not showing it. It would be as bad a judgement call as it was for the media to show the Iraqi torture pictures while our troops are over there.

So are you saying we should hide the fact that prisoners were abused? I would hope not.

This administration is hiding a lot more that you know, and anyone who doesn't think so is a fool. Bush and Cheney had to testify together in front of the 9/11 commission, hand in hand, no camera's, no recordings, no transcripts, no oath. Why is that?

Heres American Government 101:
the same reason that clinton and gore had no cameras, no recordings, no transcripts, because of the seperation/balence of powers of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. For the president or vp to testify underoath, cameras, recordings and transcripts to the legislative branch would be an example of the legislative branch enacting power over the executive branch; thereby, violating the balance of powers between the three branches of government.

Commonly known as Executive Privilege...the same thing Clinton's Cabinet member used during Lewinsky-Gate and which Condy could have hidden behind easily & which the dems were banking on...glad she ripped them a new one...bi-partisan my ass, more like a witch-hunt

They could've used that Executive Privilege and testified one at a time, but they had to go in together, what's your logic behind that?

Dang you're dense. I hope for your sake that you're only about 10 years old.

Blinded by propaganda, what a fool. Idiots like you in this country are a scary, scary thing. Slowly but surely, little by little, your constitutional rights are being taken away without you realizing it because you're too stupid to realize it, and you continue to bend over and take it in the a$$ with a smile on your face. Stupid, stupid person, I pity you.

 

[mangled]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Just to add in information, Disney's official response as to why they won't release the film is becuase it "Does not follow the standards that Disney sets for it's movies." Basically, they're saying they want entertainment movies, not politically motivated movies.

I don't get that from that statement...it doesn't say they only want entertainment movies. It just says it doesn't follow the standards they set for their movies. My question is, what are those standards? They release extremely violent movies such as "Kill Bill", but not this? Where's the standard?