|
|
Post by pissin2 on Sept 16, 2004 12:26:36 GMT -5
That was HILARIOUS!! hahahah ROTFLMAO!! LOL!! OH MAN LOFL!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Sept 16, 2004 12:30:10 GMT -5
Did you forget your medication today, Pissin?
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Sept 16, 2004 12:40:07 GMT -5
That what you think I did was jump down your throat with zero provocation, totally unjustifiedly is simply further proof of this untouchable self-conferred sainthood....ta. The Theme:
"Can't Touch ThisMe"
...don't dare lest I drown you in my unquenchable compassssion....Come again? I don't comprehend "gibberspeak". |
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Sept 16, 2004 12:40:26 GMT -5
Did you forget your medication today, Pissin?
No, that last one just killed me! I'm still ROTF and LMAO!! Out loud!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Sept 16, 2004 12:41:38 GMT -5
Yeah you and me both Pissin, I've rolled over on the floor laffin my eyes out I need a fuckin lintbrush now.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Sept 16, 2004 12:42:06 GMT -5
Good for you. Laughter is the best medicine.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Sept 16, 2004 12:46:48 GMT -5
I got rugburn! Ow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 16, 2004 12:47:15 GMT -5
Moore's a jerk, but his film isn't nearly the loaded sack of lies it's being painted as...it also isn't the masterstroke the left would like to believe it is. Moore beleives his film to be more important then it is. Best picture? Gimme a break. It's problem is not that it's biased it's that it's aimless. It has no other goal then making Bush look bad. It doesn't tie up it's declarations to make a larger charge and in doing so it seems petty. There are alot of things in the film that should be pressed and explained but because of how moore constructed the film they won't be because he's made it completely dismissable. His constant ego stroking and propensity for PR stunts has made him no more realiable then Anne Coulter or Al Franken (or IMO BIll O'Reilly who has completely stopped trying say anything. He's so concerned with appearing "fair and balanced" and patting himself on the back for being so that he has become completely impotent) the only thing keeping this movie from being everything Hitchins describes it as is the sheer fury and number trying discredit it. Moore has struck a nerve and accomplished nearly everything he set to and in Nov. we'll see if it worked. All he had to do was set up the pins and he knew the pubs would fall all over themselves to knock them down.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Sept 16, 2004 12:50:27 GMT -5
see now that makes sense
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 16, 2004 12:54:39 GMT -5
DED, I agree with a lot of what you said there. You're absolutely right tha both sides have peopole who will set the pins up to watch the other frantically try to knock them down. But I have to be honest here -- I honestly think that the Republicans do a much better job of knocing pins down these days. I'm not sure if it's because the pins put up for them are just weaker, or that they're better organized for knocking down. But if you look at things from the Reagan movie, to the Moore movie, to the Kitty Kelley book, to the 60 Minutes report, the Republicans have been direct in pointing out what is not accurate, what is not reliable, and knocking them down. The Democrats on the other hand seem to take a "stop picking on me" approach, and that leaves too much room for wondering if they're not taking the "this is not true" approach because the accusations are actually true.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Sept 16, 2004 12:57:28 GMT -5
you big meanies do need to stop picking on us
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 16, 2004 13:05:11 GMT -5
The republicans are undoubtedly more organized. They are better at deflecting charges. The democrates have tried become everything that's not republican and that covers alot of ground and rarely brings alot of them together on one point, on the same page. I can understand how it looks, I don't think I'd know how to fight the republican machine. I just read an article where shortly after Kerry was annouced as the dems choice a high ranking (and conviently anonamous) republican said "When the white house finishes with him we won't even know which side he was fighting on in Veitnam". This has been a very dirty compaign for both sides and for better or for worse the republicans are better at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Sept 16, 2004 13:10:57 GMT -5
republikinz 4ever! kill teh poor!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 16, 2004 13:13:33 GMT -5
Perhaps we just have a different definition of dirty. IMO, if you're attacking someone, and that attack is based on facts, and regards the person's record, then it's not a dirty campaign. So for the Democrats to come after Bush for deficit spending, it's a criticism, but it's fair. For the Republicans to come after Kerry for his votes against defense spending, or his protesting the Vietnam war, it's fair. Dirty politics to me is things like planting scandals that really don't exsist, stealing information from the other side to get an advantage, or attacking things that aren't relevant. If the Republicans started trying to open up Kerry's divorce records, or claiming that he beat his ex wife and that's why she divorced him, that'd be dirty politics. Criticizing strongly thingsthat you opponet HAS done ... that's fair game in my book.
If that's not fair, then how effective would a "clean" campaign be? And what would it look like? Each side just keeps on saying "This is what I'd do", and it's not fair game to question that? What would be the motivation to be honest if you knew the other side wasn't going to keep you honest?
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Sept 16, 2004 13:19:03 GMT -5
let them eat war
that's how to ration the poor
|
|
