Author Topic: Farenheit 911 Palme d'or of Canne 2004 (Read 2357 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #120 on:** May 23, 2004, 09:47:53 AM »

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

Saintaw · « **Reply #121 on:** May 23, 2004, 10:30:50 AM »

Yup Ouaibe, you got it right. I sometimes wonder why I keep reading stuff here. Maybe I'm getting into SM with older age.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #122 on:** May 23, 2004, 11:55:53 AM »

Quote

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..

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #123 on:** May 23, 2004, 11:57:39 AM »

Quote

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?

Toad · « **Reply #124 on:** May 23, 2004, 11:59:01 AM »

Well, you'd still be a mindless pro-Bush facist Amreekan pig-dog, of course!

Duh!

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #125 on:** May 23, 2004, 12:02:04 PM »

Quote

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.

Actually Ouaibe has been pretty fair here for the most part, but he made himself an easy target.

Ouaibe · « **Reply #126 on:** May 23, 2004, 12:05:59 PM »

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!) ...

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #127 on:** May 23, 2004, 12:08:56 PM »

~~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.~~

lazs2 · « **Reply #128 on:** May 23, 2004, 12:24:52 PM »

your pourpse was to stagnate and be exhastive?

lazs

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #129 on:** May 23, 2004, 12:27:36 PM »

Quote

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.