Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ouaibe on May 22, 2004, 01:34:53 PM
-
that and the pole of Renault / Trulli in F1 at Monaco make my weekend.
-
I look forward to seeing this film. I wonder if America's NRA will be contesting the award, as they did with Moore's previous documentary, "Bowling for Columbine". :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I look forward to seeing this film. I wonder if America's NRA will be contesting the award, as they did with Moore's previous documentary, "Bowling for Columbine". :rolleyes:
Only if he grossly misrepresents and blatantly lies about them and their cause again.
-
THIS is gonna be a good thread :D
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Only if he grossly misrepresents and blatantly lies about them and their cause again.
Well, it didn't work for them last time. Why should it work for anyone this time?
-
Eurotwats swoon for anti-American propaganda films?
Shocking I say, just shocking.
-
I think the film is anti-Bush, not anti-American.
Think I'll have to see it. This strikes me as the kind of film that is so controversial no one will be able to give it an objective review -their politics will get in the way.
-
This strikes me as the kind of film that is so controversial no one will be able to give it an objective review -their politics will get in the way.
So true!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Eurotwats swoon for anti-American propaganda films?
Shocking I say, just shocking.
naaa dont be so lame
keep shock after you see it
-
Interesting....
-
U don't have to be european to see bush is a fkup.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Eurotwats swoon for anti-American propaganda films?
Shocking I say, just shocking.
No mate - we haven't even seen it yet! But Bowling was good - funny in parts. That cartoon sequence - LOL :lol
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Well, it didn't work for them last time. Why should it work for anyone this time?
I'm not so sure their opposition didn't work. May have opened many eyes to the deceitfulness of Moore and those so willing to swallow whole his lies.
-
The funny part is that the only country where no distributor wants his documentary is USA.
Is there something rotten in the land of freedom?
-
"Show business kids making movies 'bout themselves and they don't give a f*** about anybody else..." - Steely Dan circa 1972
Who cares.....
Quote:
"Is there something rotten in the land of freedom?"
Maybe. BTW, what "leading light of the world" country do YOU live in, pal?? Oh yeah, France. 'Nuff said....
C.
-
Is there something rotten in the land of freedom?
Maybe there's jsut something rotten about Mr Moore.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Who cares.....
When a post has that rare quality wot draws you out and causes you to bless us with one of your rare but always entertaining appearences, the answer to your question is: you do. :D
-
[EDIT] Deleted 'cause double post, sorry...
-
AkWeav,
Maybe there's jsut something rotten about Mr Moore.
Maybe, but you'll never know untill the movie is on the air on your country. Freedom of speech everyone?
Cabby44,
Maybe. BTW, what "leading light of the world" country do YOU live in, pal?? Oh yeah, France. 'Nuff said....
I see no 'Leading light' over Europe or USA my friend. We leave in a period of fear where no one can clame the 'i've got the truth' flag. Being the economical giant doesn't grant USA the 'leading light' as France cannot clame the 'guardian of human rights' as it would like to be.
Open your eyes, every country, people, leaders have their flows. Claming overwise is just stupid.
-
Being anti bush is not anti american. Sorry....
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
The funny part is that the only country where no distributor wants his documentary is USA.
Is there something rotten in the land of freedom?
hehe may be some Ego related problems .... or its not good enough for sutch cool people :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm not so sure their opposition didn't work. May have opened many eyes to the deceitfulness of Moore and those so willing to swallow whole his lies.
Deceitfulness and Lies, Cripes for a moment there I thought you were talking about the star of the movie himself. :lol
...-Gixer
-
doINg great so far....keep it up :)
-
Maybe, but you'll never know untill the movie is on the air on your country.
Moore is so full of bs I don't have to see the movie. Just listen to some of the stuff he spouts. That wacko ain't getting any of my money.
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
Maybe, but you'll never know untill the movie is on the air on your country. Freedom of speech everyone?
Once again, an affirmation that many Europeans have no idea at all what the US Constitution guarantees as "Freedom of Speech".
-
Whaa Toad?
Does Moore's film somehow fall outside of the US constitution's guarantee of free speech?
I thought it was a business thing...
-
Nash, obviously a distributor's decision to take a film and market it is a business decision.
Thus, a comment like:
The funny part is that the only country where no distributor wants his documentary is USA.
Is there something rotten in the land of freedom?
Followed by
Maybe, but you'll never know untill the movie is on the air n your country. Freedom of speech everyone?
from the same poster indicates to me that this poster has no concept of "free speech" as any Yank familiar with our Constitution understands it.
To simplify for those so impaired:
Moore's film is unrestricted in any sense. He's free to film whatever he wants. The decision to distribute/market it here is likewise totally unrestricted.
If a distributor feels this film will make his business some money, I'm quite sure it will be picked up and shown widely.
It's that simple. If the distributors think it'll make money, it'll get wide play.
If not, it'll probably be like Gigli. Gigli didn't get shown much; was that a "freedom of speech issue"? :rofl
-
My only comment on this is that Moore should be held criminally negligible and grossly slanderous should any of his "documentary" turns out to be false...
Sad that politics granted him and award... :rolleyes:
-
Yup I agree with ya Toad.
But how about this...
Maybe freedom of speech is starting to fall outside of the sole perview of the constitution?
I don't know if it's it true, but word on the street was that Disney balked on releasing it because they were in negotiations for tax creds with none other than Boosh's brother in Florida (Disney World).
That may or may not be true.
But the undeniable truth only eluding those most naive is that it could easily BE true.
So the mere citing of the constitution really doesn't mean a lot when it comes to free speech. Lets be realistic.
It's akin to saying thou shall not commit adultry, and that it doesn't happen because it was written.
-
Originally posted by Nash
So the mere citing of the constitution really doesn't mean a lot when it comes to free speech. Lets be realistic.
Realistic is that constitutionally the government cannot stop me from writing a book critical of the government. But I still must find a publisher willing to invest the publishing, distribution, and advertising costs to get the book to the public.
And I must be willing to take a few rotten tomatoes thrown by those who are free to disagree with me.
Freedom of speech means I won't be jailed. It doesn't mean I won't be criticized.
-
Horsepuckey.
If what you say about Disney is true, that would still be a business decision.
If Disney was afraid that releasing it would pork their efforts to feed at the Florida public trough...... that's a business decision.
It's a simple cost/benefit analysis, one made by Disney, not a government.
Now, would it be legal for Jeb Bush to squash a Disney play for tax credits (and don't get me started on that pork barrel politics stuff!) over the release of a film?
Probably not, but I'm not sure the grounds would be the First. But it would be up to Disney to show that as the cause. I'm sure there's a zillion reasons to turn down a huge multi-national looking to suck at the public teat yet again. Additionally, there's a lot of ways to do it "neutrally". Put it up for a vote in the Legislature for instance.
For those who haven't bothered:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And for an explanation of what they meant when they wrote it, try:
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION--SPEECH AND PRESS (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1)
Nice try at stirring up the pot when it's empty Nash. Is this part of your contest?
Ta.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Realistic is that constitutionally the government cannot stop me from writing a book critical of the government. But I still must find a publisher willing to invest the publishing, distribution, and advertising costs to get the book to the public.
...and it might mean your book never gets released.
It's still free speach as far as the constitution is concerned.
But is it really?
-
"Horsepucky"?
HORSEPUCKEY?!
SKUZZY this is OUTRAGEAS! WE NEED A FILTER UPDATE PRONTO-STYLE!!
Frankly? This is free speech run amok.
er okay... play time is over... Let's see...
Basically you say: It's not an infingement on free speech, it's a business decision.
If you can demonstrate such a clean separation from the government and business, then I'd like to see that. Barring that, I think it renders your 200 yr old doc a bit out to lunch.
Lets try and stay within the realm of reality here.
-
So the French love an anti-american movie?
SHOCKING!
-
Didn't read the link, did you Nash?
OK, you have to move over into the group that doesn't understand the US Constitutional guarantee of free speech.
Do yourself a favor. Read the link. It doesn't mean what you're trying to make it mean, no matter how long you try or how earnestly you want it to mean something else.
Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Nash
...and it might mean your book never gets released.
It's still free speach as far as the constitution is concerned.
But is it really?
Yes.
Nash I gather you are in some sort of publishing or PR, right?
Has your firm done any neo-nazi promotional materials lately?
-
Originally posted by Nash
...and it might mean your book never gets released.
It's still free speach as far as the constitution is concerned.
But is it really?
Yup. I can still post it on the internet, xerox it off and self publish, or pass it out in leaflet form like Thomas Paine did.
Mel Gibson coudn't get his movie of a few months ago backed by any outside investors, so he exercised his freedom and paid for it and distributed it himself.
Moore had Disney fund the movie. It was Disney's movie, not Moore's, and the balance sheet said so. So now Disney sells the movie to the brothers who head the Miramax division, and now the movie is owned by those brothers. It is still not owned by Moore.
-
Toad... K, I'll read the link (fully expecting to be buried in 300 pages of Toad-style burial tactics).... but okay.
Grun... I believe funked already did the "shocking" joke. Old.
Yer seriously asking if my firm has done any nazi stuff? That's just nuts. How are we supposed to do that when you keep walking out on our contract negotiations? You're in violation of your NDA here, btw.
-
It's about a one-pager. I think maybe you'll be able to move back to the other group if you read it.
-
HOLY SMOKES!
I just went to your link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1) Toad.
Oh man, walla text. Go figure. Hows about you gimme the short version, you google warrior, you.
Just say what you surmise and make it relevant to what we're talking about. It's not hard.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes.
Nash I gather you are in some sort of publishing or PR, right?
Has your firm done any neo-nazi promotional materials lately?
Wait I thought nash was a fireman.
-
I'm a fire starter.
-
It's not that hard to read it and I've already said it here.
Suffice it to say, from what you've posted, you show you don't understand the First. The reason why is in that article.
If I spoon feed it to you....... you probably still won't "get it" because you'll think I'm not giving you the straight scoop.
Sorry.. take the 5 minutes.
-
Oh, yeah... don't forget to read Footnote 15, because if you don't, you'll probably be subject to yet another mistaken impression.
-
Okay Toad I *will* do this....
You better be damn sure it's supposed to make whatever point yer trying to make... er, its trying to make... which you can't seem to on your own.. er... wotev. I'll read it now.
-
Originally posted by Nash
...and it might mean your book never gets released.
It's still free speach as far as the constitution is concerned.
But is it really?
.
Sure it is. The author is free to publish it himself if he likes. ;)
-
LOL the 15th FOOTNOTE?
READ THE 15TH FOOTNOTE?
Lol dude...
Classic Toad bamboozlement.
"Read it, but unless you scroll down to the 15th footnote you might misinterpret it".
:rofl
That's awesome!!
-
Uh, no. The 15th Footnote will cover the next screaming misconception that you'll return to this thread honking about.
Troll along. I'm not going to educate you.
Au contraire, I enjoy watching you expound on your version of the US Constitution's guarantee of "free speech".
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yer seriously asking if my firm has done any nazi stuff? That's just nuts. How are we supposed to do that when you keep walking out on our contract negotiations? You're in violation of your NDA here, btw.
Very nice dodging of the question... I'll take it that your firm is evil opressor of free speech rights...
-
Okee dokee Toad...
I read it.
So what?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Very nice dodging of the question... I'll take it that your firm is evil opressor of free speech rights...
We happen to love free speech. The more free, the more bettah.
-
So you are saying that no matter what, if the customer can pay, you would a PR campaign for them? No matter how controversual or damaging it could be for your firm's image and reputation?
Right....
But this another one of your "I'm so clever" threads isnt it?
It's obvious that you know its not a free speech violation yet you go on arguing some other point of yourse and just basking in the glory of bashing this country...
-
Simple either you choose to go see this movie or not.
I choose to not see it simply because I really just dont like the guy.
And I want to be entertained by a film not preached to .
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you are saying that no matter what, if the customer can pay, you would a PR campaign for them?
Depends on how much they'd pay hehe...
Reminds me of when me and my brothers went fishing. We bought some stuff to stink up the bait and attract fish. One of my brothers said "Hell I aint using that... that's cheating. I'll only use it if I have to."
Very ethical of him. :D
Anyways.....
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It's obvious that you know its not a free speech violation yet you go on arguing some other point of yourse and just basking in the glory of bashing this country...
Sure it's not a free speech violation. Nice to see you catch up to the rest of the group, Grun.
But speech = what is heard.
Thars more to it nowadays than your constitution. But go ahead... play dumb. It's what you know.
-
And you go on patting yourself on the back about just how clever you think you are...
There is no issue here Nash, you're just pissed that somebody thought different than you like and decided to reject this anti-american piece of lying crap...
-
What's with you and this constant patting-me-on-the-back thing?
You ghey?
You think I'm pissed that someone thought different than me and decided not to release the movie? Get over your sweet self.
It's you doods who get all worked up when someone thinks different than you. Take... erhm... this movie for one example.
Like I said before. John Wayne would be rolling over in his grave at the current crop of sensitive republican cry babies.
-
Originally posted by Nash
But speech = what is heard.
No speech is what is said. We are free to talk. Others are free to listen or not.
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear, has it's right to make a sound been infringed? Nope.
Moore doesn't own his own film, Harvey and Bob Weinstein own the rights to the film.
Moore sold his rights to the film (originally to Disney thru Miramax) willingly for the up front production money. Nobody forced him to sign on thhe bottom line.
-
Free speach is more than just the ability to talk.
For example, in China ya can talk all ya want. Just don't expect anyone to hear ya...
If we wanna get all obtuse, a dude with a ball gag and half a roll of electrician tape wound 'round his head can still eek out a few words, if only by blinking.
The matter in front of us is if the Gov can control what gets heard.
I think yes. Constitution be damned.
Disney is one example. Clear Channel is another. And it's just the start.
Holden, yer a smart guy...
-
No Nash..
In China, you speak, someone hears you - people are listening - and then you go to jail....
But you knew that.... This thread is just another opportunity for you to bash the USA....
Thats all you know how to do...
-
rofl yeah I HATERZ TEH US EF EH!
quit being a goof.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The matter in front of us is if the Gov can control what gets heard.
That is why totalitarian governments jail the one who speaks out. They control the speaker.
Moore has not been hushed up and the movie has undoubtedly received more publicity than it could have ever hoped for had the distributor paid for it all.
The reason I believe that this whole thing hit the fan is a power struggle between Disney HMFIC Michael Eisner and the Weinsteins at Disney’s Miramax subsidiary.
The Weinsteins wanted more independence from the Disney Corporation and Eisner wanted to reign them in. Eisner told them not to fund Moore’s film in the first place and the Weinsteins did it anyway.
This is not a free speech issue, it is a intra-corporate pissing contest.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Clear Channel is another. And it's just the start.
Clear Channel is evil.
-
Eisner is totally under seige.
This movie is gonna make a killin'.
Whatever grudge he has with Miramax, it's so much worse with his BOD. Miramax isn't an issue. Eisner hasn't even got that kind of lateral movement. It'd be in his best interests to release the film.
But wait, maybe not....
I'm focusing on the "not" part.
-
I'm curious Nash why do you care if Disney rejected this pos?
Surely somebody else will pick it up and show the truth to the masses...
Right?
Are you saying that Disney had to market it JUST because its controversial trash, and so not attract the anger of usa hater conspiracy nits like you?
-
Grun... yer last sentence is such a train-wreck I can't even understand it, and ponder how you managed to scrape by in highschool.
Like, how am I to respond?
Yes!(?) "Disney had to market it JUST because its controversial trash"
If it were merely trash and not controversial trash they would erhm, not be contractually bound to market it. Can you figure that one out? Me neither. Ask better questions. Garbage in - garbage out.
I am being totally 100 percent up-front with you when I say that I laugh at you.
:D
-
I liked the bit where everyone has judged the film on it's accuracy without even actaully seeing it....
I hope Canne doesn't give any more awards to film I want to see...if it gets an award...it's "obviously" crap
Tronsky
-
Ohhh lil nash cant read....
Anyway for the reading impaired:
You say it's evil censorship because disney refused to take this trash. Trash which you like. And because of that you are upset, and because of your hatred of bush you grope for far fetched conspircy theories as to why disney did not take the movie.
So I'm asking you if it is your belief that disney had to market it, this controversial trash, just to avoid this accustion of censorship by ignorant people like you.
Now that should be clear enough for even a clever chap like you to understand...
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
I liked the bit where everyone has judged the film on it's accuracy without even actaully seeing it....
I hope Canne doesn't give any more awards to film I want to see...if it gets an award...it's "obviously" crap
Tronsky
Yea just like how Bowling for Culumbine got an award from them and the oscars as a documetary when most of it was full of staged scenes, highly edited and timeshifted footage, lies etc...
But agin it always comes down to what you want to see and if it confirms your existing biases and prejudices, which columbine did in spades for you ignorant america haters...
Andd the best of it is yoiu all consider yoursels somehow sophisticated and specially enlighened with the real truth by watching that trash...
-
i maed a movy with my 8mm camra and disnie wont distirbute it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it has clay figyers and amination!!!! CENSARSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Now that should be clear enough for even a clever chap like you to understand...
Clear huh?
Let's have a close look...
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So I'm asking you if it is your belief that disney had to market it, this controversial trash, just to avoid this accustion of censorship by ignorant people like you.
Righto. Clear as mud.
Why don't you just ditch the invective and try to actually get your point across in a decipherable manner?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
i maed a movy with my 8mm camra and disnie wont distirbute it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it has clay figyers and amination!!!! CENSARSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take it to nash's company, I hear they will take anything regardless of financial or publicity concerns.
The company he works for is the last bastion of free speech in north america...
-
Funked... are you serious?
(Prolly not.)
Or are you saying Moore's flim was shot on 8mm with animated clay figures?
(prolly not)
So what are you saying?
-
i dimand free speach!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Funked... are you serious?
(Prolly not.)
Or are you saying Moore's flim was shot on 8mm with animated clay figures?
(prolly not)
So what are you saying?
I am saying that a movie studio choosing not to distribute someone's film does not violate that person's rights. Nobody forced Mooron to sign on the dotted line with the Mickey Mouse folks.
-
Nash don't you think it's time that you start reading the big books?
I cant belive you are so ignorant as not understand such a simple sentence.
-
Lol Grun you tool.
Give me enough money and you will start wearin' bell bottoms and not even know why!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I am saying that a movie studio choosing not to distribute someone's film does not violate that person's rights.
It is only evil censorship if that person is an america hating left wing nutbag beloved by sphisticate euros and canadians... Otherwise you are correct.
-
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
For some a pretty funny site, for others incandescent rage!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Lol Grun you tool.
Give me enough money and you will start wearin' bell bottoms and not even know why!
:rofl
Once again, there you are, thinkig you are somehow clever... :rolleyes:
-
I don't think he is a left wing nutbag. It's probably all just a put-on so he can sell movie tickets to the only people stupid enough to pay to watch his crappy movies. Women, Euros, and Euro-wannabees. :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I cant belive you are so ignorant as not understand such a simple sentence.
Simple sentence?
Look at your simple sentence. Right there.
That's okay though... I can't spell either. It's when ya try and string two or more of them together that gets ya into real trouble.
Funked, it doesn't violate your rights. Yeah. It doesn't even violate the rights of those whose work is muffled. Technically. Constitutionally.
It prolly should violate your sense of well being, however.
(Don't answer... I know it doesn't.)
-
Let me ask you this.
Do you think Disney had the right to decide whether or not to market this film?
-
Whattya think I'm stupid?
tool..
Of course they have the right. I think we've been over that.... umpteen times.
-
Do you think they made the right decison in not marketing it?
-
Well, yes absolutely I think they made the right decision in not marketing it.
I mean, why spend all that money marketing it IF YER NOT THE ONES DISTRIBUTING IT?
tool....
-
I belive Disney owns Miramax. To the best information I have it was Miramax who refused to distribute the film. I think you made mention of Eisner's troubles as part of your argument so I'm gonna refer to the responsible company as Disney...
Sorry for the big words.
Back to Nash level talk:
Do you think Disney made the correct decision in not marketing/distributing this film?
-
Look: the bottom line is that the people attending Cannes are not real people. Just look at the last 10 winners:
2004--Fahrenheit 9/11
2003--Elephant
2002--The Pianist
2001--The Son's Room
2000--Dancer in the Dark
1999--Rosetta
1998--Eternity and a Day
1997--The Taste of Cherry
1996--Secrets and Lies
1995--Underground
I mean come on... not one Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwartzenegger extravaganza?
-
Trust me Grun when I say that Disney made the best possible decision in not having anything to do with this film.
Again, that's been discussed already.
You are catching up though... which is a good sign,
-
THANK YOU HOLDEN for the.... well, just the suspicion of sanity in this thread.
-
I knew you were the suspicious sort.
-
Hey man... This is the AH BBS... Can't be too careful....
Are you lookin' at me funny?
-
People in this thread are calling F911 a POS...
... but how many have actually seen it?
-
Nash I think you are trying to have it both ways...
On one hand you said that it was purely a businss decision and now you say thats its also a correct business decision you agree with..
However the other half of your posts try to make some fringe argument that somehow the company and/or the government commied an evil act of censorship in not allowing the message of the film to be "heard."
Those are two conflicing message coming from you. And while I cant ask you to decide black/white which one you prefer I think some clarificatyion is order because your current stance is far too fragmented and ambigous.
-
People are also goin' bat-***** over "flip-floppers"... But how many people have actually looked at things for themselves?
Nobody, basically...
s'why I love threads like this...
It's like the Borg debate team in here.
-
I gotta give ya credit Grun cuz I barreled through yer post and this time my eyebrows didn't do the wtf dance.
Disney/whoever decided not to distribute this film. Yes? Yes.
This film is going to make money. Yes? Yes.
Disney is a perfect example of one of these vaunted private companies which seems to mean everything to you. Yes? Yes.
Disney the private company turned down money. Yes? Yes.
Why? Why?
-
Why?
Government Censorship - far fetched.
Bad publicity and loss of revenues due to protest- far more likely.
Disney/ABC etc have to serve a very wide market of mostly Americans, they have to keep them happy in order to take their money.
A film about 911 that makes such accusations and distortions as Moore has always done in his other works would piss a lot of people off. Maybe not you, but it would piss of a lot of average Disney customer Americans - basically the sort of people not in attendance at Cannes. Because 911 is avery sensitive topic in this country. I'm not sure if its the same in Canada but I assume you are aware that it is so here in the USA...
The difference here is and this is my take on it, is that people on the modern day left are not used to seeing messages they like baing rejected and protested against and so are very upset about this...
We saw this with the huge protests and boycotts of the Dixie Chicks afther they made controversial political comments, the left went apechit over these consumer protests and made all sorts of accusations of free speech violations and censorship. Yet all these people did was exactly what liberals do all the time, protest and boycott buisnesses they disagrered with for ideological or moral or ethical reasosns.
-
Did you know that you can watch Love Boat on nine different levels?
That is... There are nine distinct ways with which to view it. Each one offering its own layer of meaning, of truth.
Sawry... my eybrows broke into disco inferno on yer post.... wore me out... gotta get to bed.
-
Man you just cant read unless its all really easy... :)
I write a lot, far too much in fact. This quarter alone I probly wrote enough for a small novel and it's all extremely good. So I'm really tired of writing watermelon carefiully, editing, condesnsing and generally writing to a high standard, dont make me do it here...
OK?
-
k.
niters. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yea just like how Bowling for Culumbine got an award from them and the oscars as a documetary when most of it was full of staged scenes, highly edited and timeshifted footage, lies etc...
But agin it always comes down to what you want to see and if it confirms your existing biases and prejudices, which columbine did in spades for you ignorant america haters...
Andd the best of it is yoiu all consider yoursels somehow sophisticated and specially enlighened with the real truth by watching that trash...
lol.....:rofl
oh wait....you're serious...
:rofl
Tronsky
-
This is the ridicule stage, right?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
This is the ridicule stage, right?
No that was the what the hell are you on stage...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm curious Nash why do you care if Disney rejected this pos?
its simple
since they have a lot of costumers like you, they dont wanna loose them...
Your media has been made to generate profit, so they will sell stuff whitch will create big profit.
If they will start some discusion about sutch things now, average american like you will say ..... ANTIEMREKANS bastards, i will NOT buy even toilet paper from THEM. No matter if they print out true or half true or BS.
Sutch things prove that country whitch is ruled by profit will never be free.
-
I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw that yesterday (thinking about thise BBS of course) :D
From the Cannes website (http://www.festival-cannes.fr/index.php?langue=6002)
The Palme d'Or of this 57th edition of the Festival de Cannes was presented by Charlize Theron to Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore.
"I can't begin to express my appreciation and my gratitude to the jury, the Festival, to Gilles Jacob, Thierry Frémaux, Bob and Harvey at Miramax, to all of the crew who worked on the film. [...] I have a sneaking suspicion that what you have done here and the response from everyone at the festival, you will assure that the American people will see this film. I can't thank you enough for that. You've put a huge light on this and many people want the truth and many want to put it in the closet, just walk away. There was a great Republican president who once said, if you just give the people the truth, the republicans, the Americans will be saved. [...] I dedicate this Palme d'Or to my daughter, to the children of Americans and to Iraq and to all those in the world who suffer from our actions. "
(http://a69.g.akamai.net/7/69/7515/v1/img5.allocine.fr/img_cis/images/festivaldecannes/img/vign/photocannes2004_gb_2821_05222348307053.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lada
Sutch things prove that country whitch is ruled by profit will never be free.
The only true expression of freedom and the people's will is through dictatorial communism!!!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I am saying that a movie studio choosing not to distribute someone's film does not violate that person's rights. Nobody forced Mooron to sign on the dotted line with the Mickey Mouse folks.
BTW Folk do you know that you wonderfull Donald has been painted for loooong years by Communist painters ??
So in the middle of cold war Trully free emrekans were watch Disney stuff whitch has been painted in Former Soviet union ...
How could you watch that Communist trash eeeh ???
-
Originally posted by lada
How could you watch that Communist trash eeeh ???
Beacause deep down inside we all know communism is the best.
Cue The Internationale..
Yes it's true, rejoice lada, rejoice!!!
-
Disney stuff is McDonald's???
You would think that would have made the news on Wall Street.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The only true expression of freedom and the people's will is through dictatorial communism!!!
Aahhhh you reconize only black and white color....
anyway since you spoke about big books, you must know this (http://www.oliverwillis.com/amazon/amazon_products_feed-item_id-8420636460-search_type-AsinSearch-locale-us.html)
Its not nothing new that democracy is porked system, whitch is one of most worst
and if love dictatorial, move to cuba
-
Originally posted by lada
Its not nothing new that democracy is porked system, whitch is one of most worst
and if love dictatorial, move to cuba
So if you do not want to elect your leaders and you do not want a dictator, you therefore think anarchy is the perfect form of government?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Disney stuff is McDonald's???
You would think that would have made the news on Wall Street.
naaah remove Mc
-
Yes we must have some sort of mythical socialism, a somehow perfect yet elusive and undefined solution to all our problems...
Tell me lada you seem to great at whining about the evils of democracy and the evils of capitalism..
But what is your suggestion?
-
i post you link on the book. I agree with author's suggestion.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So if you do not want to elect your leaders and you do not want a dictator, you therefore think anarchy is the perfect form of government?
WTG you already know 3 systems....
keeep up good work
anyway you are better that Grun, he only knows Democracy and Socialism.
no anarchy rule contemporary Iraq, i think its very clear that its not way to go.
-
I dont have time to read that now.
Summarize it for me. What does he suggest? What do you feel are the most important points aristotle makes?
-
Originally posted by lada
WTG you already know 3 systems....
You can either have elected leaders, non-elected leaders, or no leaders.
All governments of non-elected leaders are forms of dictatorship, whether it is ptochocracy, the government beggars or paupers; phylarchy, the government by a specific class or tribe; phallocracy, the government by men; or adhocracy, the government in an unstructured fashion, or some other form.
If unelected, it is a form of dictatorship. It dictates to it's citizens what is law with no redress from the citizenry.
Still trying to figure out why Donald Duck is a commie though. Those who painted him in Anaheim I am pretty sure accepted the capitalist form of economy.
(sorry for the Mc I thought it was a translation thing. Most use Mickey when anthropormophising Disney.)
-
democracy is the least suckin system.
-
Good, Nash.
So you finally understand that
The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress, and not to the actions of private persons.
And, of course, Footnote 15:
Through interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prohibition extends to the States as well.
?
Niether the US Congress nor the State of Florida has passed any law or taken any action that restricted Moore, Disney, Miramax, etc., etc., etc.
But, I must say, you've done a lovely job of stirring an empty pot.
-
if this movie has even half the lies and made up scenes in it as his last one... well... Disney probly looked at it's vehemence with that in mind and said.... "pass".
as an art crowd film it will get away with all the lies and misrepresentations... no deep pockets to sue. Look at the trash that gets viewed at those "art" houses... if a major deep pocket did it they would be broke.... and deservedly so.
lazs
-
To sums it up :
- Pro-bush (or ultra as i call them) : hate moore, all what he has done and call bs even without seeing or wanna see the movie.
- neutral (as i place myself) : wanna see the film to made up an opinion.
- anti-bush (and not anti-USA as some ultra wanna see them) : love moore, praise the movie.
in 2 years nothing have changed here...
-
why would moore have access to anything more than the liberal media has allready smeared the front pages with? Why would moore change his stripes now and suddenly become truthful?
He has a history of never telling the truth in his films. I will wait and see tho. stranger things have happened and he may not be pandering this time.
lazs
-
Yup Ouaibe, you got it right. I sometimes wonder why I keep reading stuff here. Maybe I'm getting into SM with older age.
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
- anti-bush (and not anti-USA as some ultra wanna see them) : love moore, praise the movie.
...without seeing the movie.
I think the Anti-USA would fall in this group too. You can't deny their existence..
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
To sums it up :
- Pro-bush (or ultra as i call them) : hate moore, all what he has done and call bs even without seeing or wanna see the movie.
What about those of us who don't really care for Bush but don't like Moore, because he has a demonstrated record of dishonesty in his supposedly "documentary" films and acts like an ******* in every public appearance?
-
Well, you'd still be a mindless pro-Bush facist Amreekan pig-dog, of course!
Duh!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, you'd still be a mindless pro-Bush facist Amreekan pig-dog, of course!
Duh!
Yep, clearly I am the black-and-white neanderthal and Ouaibe and his ilk are open-minded to a continuum of opinion. :rofl
Actually Ouaibe has been pretty fair here for the most part, but he made himself an easy target. :)
-
Ok Funked you owned me ;) My purpose wasn't to be exaustive but to stigmate some of the population here (and me in the same time!) ...
-
:D
MiniD trained me well. When you can't refute someone's entire argument, find a little tiny part of it and attack that, regardless of relevance to the larger discussion.
-
your pourpse was to stagnate and be exhastive?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
your pourpse was to stagnate and be exhastive?
lazs
He means he was trying to classify the majority of the population into different groups, but he didn't intend for his classifications to cover the entire population.