Messages

Good lord you people, as I said before, are crazy!

No, YOU'RE the crazy person, you crazy person, you!



See! Look at how insane you are!

In any case, I agree. For example, I don't think then picked MCD because he was black. I think they picked him because he's a FUCKING HUGE GUY!

See! Look how DAMN HUGE the guy is! He can even cary smaller people on his back:



And if Andre the Giant taught us anything, it's giant people gain respect cause they can not only carry smaller people on their back but can squash the LIVING SHIT OUT OF YOU!

And Jim Carrey as Shaft would be great! "Alllllllrighty then, motherfuckers!"

[UNCERTAIN!]

I don't care whether Lois is black or white. As long as the actor does a decent job, I'm happy.

And Beyonce hasn't got much of a film record to base an accurate judgement.

However, don't base the awfulness of this film on the director, McG, because a director can only do as good a job as the quality of the material he's given. For example, Martin Scorsese has made shitty movies based on shitty scripts.

So, look at the screenwriter: Jeffrey Abrams.

He's a writer for the TV show Alias. He was even nominated for an Emmy.

However, he's also the writer of several crap movies, like Armageddon and Gone Fishin'. He was even nominated for a Razzie for the former.

BUT (and this is a big BUT) he did write the totally awesome Taking Care of Business with James Belushi and Charles Grodin:



After calculating the previous variables, the DGComputer (like the BatComputer, only with more cake) has determined the fate of the Superman project is.......

UNCERTAIN!

Moore's already stated that his film will bring down the Bush administration.

its before you, and its for you.
its in your hands, but you cant hold it.
and even if you dont try, you can mold it.

Spoiler

My genitals?

[close]

'Twas on the good ship Venus,
By gad! You should have seen us...

DGMacphee: I feel very alone in my world of Socialism. I too, hate 90% of the socialists I encounter. Revolution is often the topic in mind, often violent. Most revolution is non-violent, it is the attempt by the overthrown government to regain power which causes most violence. Most Socialists know this, yet they preach violence as a means to establishing Socialism. This is a quick way to Dictatorship in my opinion. Violent revolution will lead to a violent government.

I also find that most socialists in Western societies are pretentious, angsty kids fresh out of high school who develop an overly-moral social conscience and immediately identify with socialism.

Even though they have no real understanding of how socialism and communism work.

Blender sucks.

There's a joke that goes, "I'm okay with God, it's just his fanclub I can't stand."

I think of socialism the same way.

I like a lot of the principles of socialism. However, I find a lot of socialist activists in Western societies (mainly Australia, from my experience) are confronting to the point of being unfriendly.

Go Western Australia! Woo!

and most people (democrats included) agree.

Wow! And I thought the democrat slogan this year was "Anyone but Bush!" but I guess you've just proven me wrong with that small bit of text inside those brackets. You've convinced me! Kerry is a loser! He hates children and puppies! We must protect our children and puppies!

And like everyone else: I mean, honestly, how can you accuse Kerry of lying and not Bush? I mean, you went very easily on Bush in your post. And all this coughing doesn't help.

But let me summerise in an imaginary conversation:

Pro-Bush Guy: "Don't vote for Kerry! He's a lying scumbag!"
Me: "What about Bush?"
PBG: "Well, Bush's lies were justified!"
Me: "Like the weapons of mass destruction?"
PBG: "Yeah, we used that lie so we could invade Iraq and liberate the people!"
Me: "Why didn't you do the same with other dictatorships that harm more people than Iraq?"
PBG: "Cause Iraq was harbouring terrorists! They're the ones who want the US out of Iraq!"
Me: "Don't the people of Iraq want the US military out?"
PBG: "Yes, those are just the evil Iraqis! They're terrorists!"
Me: "Doesn't that mean the majority of the population is evil?"
PBG: "Yes! The majority are deadly terrorists!"
Me: "..."
PBG: "..."
Me: "You're an idiot."

Took 5 mins for me. Me am very smart.

Hopefully there won't be another 4.


On accountability:
I hear a lot of people saying that Bush and Co shouldn't be responsible for what a group of sick soldiers do. Okay, let's just say they didn't know what was going on and didn't give any orders (which is contrary to reports I've read).

However, as the guys at the top, they should know exactly what is going on in their department. For Rumsfeld to not know anything about the torture demonstrates a lack of scrutiny in the department of defense. Stuff like this shouldn't happen, and Rumsfeld is responsible for overseeing that.

As another example, let's just say the manager of a retail store hires a fresh-faced salesperson who demonstrates a great ability at doing his job. The salesperson does his job for two years and is promoted to assistant manager. Everything goes well for another two years. Then one day the assistant manager doesn't show up for work. It turns out he was laundering money from the company for the last four years. Not only that, he's had a history at this kind of thing. Now, granted, the manager wasn't responsible for the money actually disappearing. However, he was responsible for hiring the guy without doing a detailed background check. And the manager is responsible for keeping tabs on the store's finances. Thus, he's accountable.

Rumsfeld is accountable for overseeing the military. If something goes wrong, it shows incompetence on his behalf, just like my example of the store manager.

If you want a better example (and an Australian example), look up the name "Peter Hollingworth" on google. That's a prime example of being accountable for others' actions.

How can you say that the Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for the abuse?

Something called "accountability".

It is a subject that requires a lot of thought, but it shows that no one can provide a "whole picture", as I said.

And Bush's words are his truth, based upon his own observations, relationship's with the world, and the content of his consciousness.

No, his words are the truth of elite corperations and politcal puppet masters (i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) that got him there in the first place, based on their observations, relationships with the world, and the content of their consciousnesses.

And their truth is that average American should remain apathetic, docile, not think for themselves and do what they tell them to do.

Now, if you were American, Barcik, is that the truth you would want?

You're going to look really silly when you find out that blonde woman in the supermarket was a prostitute.

[Plus, I don't have her number...]

Like Colossal said, it'd be more personal if I were to stop over and talk to her in person.Ã,  Plus, I don't have her number...

You can get our coffee.

Sutebi:

A few points to make (and apologies to Evenwolf for my "nitpicking").

Fred Barnes said this interview never happened. He did not even know he was mentioned in the book till a friend of his, who was reviewing the book for the New Republic, asked him if it was true. Barnes told him that not a word of it was.

So, Michael Moore lies, but Republican politicians don't?

Moore quoted one famous Republican president, so I'll quote another.

"I AM NOT A CROOK!"

But while we're talking about politicians, let's throw in a Democrat too:

"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONTIONS WITH THAT WOMAN!"

I like the way you automatically assume Moore is a liar, when for all you know Barnes could be a liar.

I mean, as I've shown, politicians from both sides don't have a good track record at telling the truth.

I do not claim to be an expert on the film, but from what I know about it, it is the same old same old Anti-Bush conspiracy theory. Moore said that the movie broke new ground and showed off amazing new facts and evidence, but from what I've heard from critics (almost all of which liked Bowling for Columbine) is that the movie is nothing new.

The same critics still say it's an important film to see, though. A majority on Rotten Tomatoes give it positive reviews. And let's not forget that Palme D'or he won recently, awarded to him by a jury lead by one of America's top filmmakers.

In reference to Disney "blocking" Moore's film, Moore also alters this. The tax breaks rumor was actually started by Moore's agent, who was quoted in the New York Times saying that. Eisner told ABC news at the beginning of the year that they did not want to be involved in a political film during an election year.

You're probably the last person on Earth to trust Eisner's opinion over any one else's.

Seriously, it may have started as a rumour, but it's a rumour grounded in fact. Disney does get tax breaks in Florida for their Disney World park. It seems a little suspicious to me. And I once heard a critic say in relation to Moore's style of filmmaking (and I'm adlibing) "If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then why beat around the bush -- it's duck!"

As for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders? I mean, say someone made a really offensive game on AGS, would we all blame Chris?

In addition to Eric and junc's comments, the was a news story about a report from the pentagon about training methods for soldiers, including training them in the art of torture.

If not Bush, then at least Rumsfeld should be accountable.