Jump to content


Photo

The Michael Moore Movie

Uh oh here is comes...

83 replies to this topic

#51 CheeseNerfer

CheeseNerfer

    Member

  • Members
  • 246 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA

Posted 15 July 2004 - 02:55 PM

For all of you that now hate Michael Moore and think the movie sucked, why did you go see the damn movie if you knew you would disagree with it and hate it? Oh and don't make up some bullshit about how you wanted to see the other side of the whole thing because obviously you didn't if you are now debating and saying the movie sucked.
  • 0
"Ahh The Power Of Cheese"


#52 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 15 July 2004 - 04:35 PM

airapache, am i reading this right? you thought the president was bullshitting about telling us he was wrong? "i believe that when bush announced that they were wrong...that was bullshit(apache, 3)". okay, wtf? on the other hand, i'm sure your amazing english report has better information, proving that the president pulled a big "J/k" about lying, just to show how funny he is. so much "friggin" evidence...like....hmm....none. not a single WMD - all they found was a model plane in a shed, that had the capacity to carry a toxic agent. i'm personally going down to Hobby Shack tomorrow to arrest everyone in there with a model plane.

I think that Bush started to turn his focus on getting favor from the public (seeing as elections were coming up soon). So he decided that if he kept saying that there were WMDs, then that would be bad, because they havent had much luck finding them, have they?

Merlinski, your points are great. I won't argue with them, except the inspector part. We had recent inspections that found traces of them in warehouses, as well as computer documentations of them. I don't think Saddam would do that just for fun.

Cx you got a point there. But I think that Bush (besides the whole political part) was trying to free Iraq from a dictator, a sick one at that. That's good and bad. THe good part is obvious. THe bad part is that in the past decades, American hatred has been fueled because of our belief that we should 'police' the world, being the #1 power. It would be a different story if they asked us to help them.

This [the former] isn't a good image, because it says "Hey, you aren't smart or strong enough to take care of your own business, so we need to invade you and help you." I personally thought that going in to remove WMDs had some validity in it, and I think I said earlier that I thought toppling a dictator was a good idea. I still think it is. After reading many of your posts, I'm forced to believe that the negatives of Bush outweigh the positives.

The topic is the Michael Moore movie. I still pull through with my thoughts on making a movie that defaces your own president. This movie, itself, is unamerican, and unpatriotic. I've noticed that this year's elections focus a lot on insulting and pointing out the bad points of the other candidate, instead of telling what good qualities you have. Saying that Bush lies is a huge thing to say. The President of the United States probably tries his best to stay honest.

I'll say the following about the movie, as well. If you weren't Christian, and you saw the Passion of Jesus Christ, you thought to yourself "what a piece of bullshit, it's just a crapload of stories that were turned godlike by a church." It would reinforce your belief that Christianity is a load of bull. If you were a Christian, it would reinforce your belief that you needed to practice your religion more deligently, and it also took away some doubts that you might have had.

ALthough your posts have made me believe that Bush has a lot of negative areas, I still slightly feel inclined (if I could) to vote for him. Someone with a strong political family, and someone who has been elected by his own people wouldn't try to let us down. BUt since I can't vote, I'll sit back and "watch the fireworks."

AA

Politics makes me dizzy. I hope I never become involved 'when I grow up.'

AA
  • 0
Indiana '11

#53 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 15 July 2004 - 05:04 PM

I still pull through with my thoughts on making a movie that defaces your own president. This movie, itself, is unamerican, and unpatriotic.

The president is a servant of the people.

If he is doing a bad job, true patriots are duty bound to call him on it.

You are saying that criticism of the president is universally unpatriotic. I say that you are missing out on the whole point of our freedom. What have our soldiers fought for all these years if not for the ability to tell our elected officials what we want?

Please don't confuse the man with the country. America is great. Bush is a dipshit.

The first step to regaining the trust of the world is rejecting our president for his actions in office.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#54 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 July 2004 - 05:11 PM

Aren't you just a walking oxymoron?

You're saying that you only want people who want to fight to fight. But then you turn around and say that those in the military, but don't want to fight should also fight.

Please don't join the military unless you want to fight. Even for education purposes. It's not an oxymoron.

In the film, Moore interviews a few kids from the ghettos, and ask them what they think about enlisting, and they mention the possibility of getting killed, so don't say that people who enlist for education do not know what they might be getting themselves into.

I am not implying that everyone who enlists fails to recognize the consequences. I am referring to those who complain about going overseas, because they joined the military for free education, not to fight.

Basically there are two themes here from the conservative camp:

  • It's biased! It's not a documentary at all because it's biased! He picked the people he would interview so it's biased!
  • OMG Moore is an asshole! OMG Moore is unpatriotic! OMG Moore is UNAMERICAN!

Nice...when have I been in either of these 'profiles' in this thread?
  • I never claimed that it's not a documentary, I merely stated that I don't LIKE documentaries due to yours and my points about about all of them being biased.
  • I never said Moore was an 'asshole, unpatriotic, or unamerican.' I said he was extreme left wing.
I hate how everyone is now labeling the other side. Make your points to specific members, and please try not to generalize your audience.

They're here to defend our country. Let them know exactly when Iraq invaded us and I'm sure they'll be happier to be sacrificing their lives for the cause. As it is, they're dying for politics not freedom.

If we are only supposed to attack nations that physically attack us, then why do we have CIA intelligence? We have the freakin CIA to prevent such invasions, cxwq. They claimed to have found WMD's in Iraq. What stupidity would it take for our president to NOT respond to this. When Saddam refused to let the UN inspect for them, you think we should have ignored the threat? I don't care if you think the reasons for war were more than what the CIA handed Bush, but based just on what the CIA said, even a democrat should demand disarmament.

Last one...

For all of you that now hate Michael Moore and think the movie sucked, why did you go see the damn movie if you knew you would disagree with it and hate it? Oh and don't make up some bullshit about how you wanted to see the other side of the whole thing because obviously you didn't if you are now debating and saying the movie sucked.

Under that logic, why did Oroku_Saki go to see the movie? I know he already gave his reasons, but he hated Bush before he saw the movie, so why would he need to see the movie?

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#55 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 15 July 2004 - 05:16 PM

You are saying that criticism of the president is universally unpatriotic. I say that you are missing out on the whole point of our freedom. What have our soldiers fought for all these years if not for the ability to tell our elected officials what we want?

America is great, yes, but our image has been hurt throughout the years, to other countries. (Especially countries without much power).

Hmm. I'm not saying that criticism of our president is unpatriotic. Having different ideals is part of what keeps a democracy together. I'm saying that trying your best to make your own president appear like a piece of shit is not exactly patriotic. After all, we voted for him. Vintage does have a point, (even though you presented it quite harshly...) You can't say "Bush sucks, Bush is a liar, Bush is trying to hurt America." After all, his actions aren't solely his, as he has to win the vote of the senate, and he has to have sufficient backup from the CIA and other government organizations. It wasn't just Bush. But he DID have a big factor in it.

The first step to regaining the trust of the world is rejecting our president for his actions in office.


This is where the views of opposing parties come in. If you are a rep., you may believe that Bush is transforming America for the better, and if you are lib or dem, you may think that (the quote).

We thought that Bush would be great, and apparently not anymore. What makes John Kerry any better, or more honest? If he has something to prove his worthiness, then by all means, I'm for John Kerry. I'm not exactly pro-Bush, but currently I'm definately not pro-Kerry. My family has mixed ideas, (I have both strong republicans and democrats in my fam) so I'm not being influenced or made biased for or against either.

AA

[EDIT] Let's not kill each other for something that we have only small control over. Arguing doesn't mean stabbing each other's throats.[/EDIT]

Edited by AirApache, 15 July 2004 - 05:22 PM.

  • 0
Indiana '11

#56 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 15 July 2004 - 07:40 PM

Dubbya, don't elect him in 2004 either.

Meaning (for the slower of the bunch) I demand a recount.

They're here to defend our country. Let them know exactly when Iraq invaded us and I'm sure they'll be happier to be sacrificing their lives for the cause. As it is, they're dying for politics not freedom.

If we are only supposed to attack nations that physically attack us, then why do we have CIA intelligence? We have the freakin CIA to prevent such invasions, cxwq. They claimed to have found WMD's in Iraq. What stupidity would it take for our president to NOT respond to this. When Saddam refused to let the UN inspect for them, you think we should have ignored the threat? I don't care if you think the reasons for war were more than what the CIA handed Bush, but based just on what the CIA said, even a democrat should demand disarmament.


We can use our intelligence in order to stop things, like 9/11, <sarcasm> where we had oh so good intelligence </sarcasm>
However, I find attacking places okay, but not really when its for revenge of a murder attempt on your dad...

With this talk of CIA, remember when tenet resigned for, "private" issues or something...Sure makes me feel great about our inteligence.

Heh, he lives like down the street from me.



Crank'

Edited by crankymonky, 15 July 2004 - 07:41 PM.

  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#57 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 15 July 2004 - 08:58 PM

If we are only supposed to attack nations that physically attack us, then why do we have CIA intelligence? We have the freakin CIA to prevent such invasions, cxwq. They claimed to have found WMD's in Iraq. What stupidity would it take for our president to NOT respond to this. When Saddam refused to let the UN inspect for them, you think we should have ignored the threat? I don't care if you think the reasons for war were more than what the CIA handed Bush, but based just on what the CIA said, even a democrat should demand disarmament.


Hehe, I need to look at this again, specifically:

They claimed to have found WMD's in Iraq. What stupidity would it take for our president to NOT respond to this. When Saddam refused to let the UN inspect for them, you think we should have ignored the threat?


Ok, let's look at countries with anti-american sentiments who might have WMD's:
Iraq
Iran
Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Syria
Pakistan

We haven't responded to 5 out of the 6, so, by your logic:

What stupidity would it take for our president to NOT respond to this.


Our president is stupid. I'm glad to see you agree with me.

Edited by merlinski, 15 July 2004 - 08:58 PM.

  • 0

#58 Kuhlschrank

Kuhlschrank

    Member

  • Members
  • 452 posts

Posted 15 July 2004 - 10:04 PM

Let me just say that i never will see this movie because Michael Moore is a douchebag.

Anyone who thinks the insurgents should win against our soldiers.(I dont give a shit what party you are, an "true patriot" would never wish for our soldiers to be killed) and compares them to the Minutemen of the American Revolution does not deserve my $8.50.
  • 0
+Kuhlschrank+ of the ~Lawnchair Mafia~

#59 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 15 July 2004 - 10:19 PM

Let me just say that i never will see this movie because Michael Moore is a douchebag.

Anyone who thinks the insurgents should win against our soldiers.(I dont give a shit what party you are, an "true patriot" would never wish for our soldiers to be killed) and compares them to the Minutemen of the American Revolution does not deserve my $8.50.

Could you show me when Michael Moore says our soldiers should be killed? Oh wait, you're criticizing a movie you haven't seen. I forgot that you were a hypocrit for a second.

CXWQ, I think we have one that fits into the second category.
  • 0

#60 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 July 2004 - 10:40 PM

Ok, let's look at countries with anti-american sentiments who might have WMD's:
Iraq
Iran
Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Syria
Pakistan

Might have, and do have are two separate things. The CIA said that Iraq DID possess WMD's (right before we called the UN to council), which was in violation of the disarmament treaty. If our CIA can positively find WMD production in one of those other countries, we should call for inspections. [edit]People keep stating it in terms of "we thought their were WMD's so we attacked," but we didn't attack until they blew off the UN inspectors.[/edit]

However, I find attacking places okay, but not really when its for revenge of a murder attempt on your dad...

As I said, the fact that Iraq was hiding stuff from UN inspectors was enough reason to use force.

...Michael Moore is a douchebag.

Kuhlschrank, calling people names without backing it up in the same post is not going to convince anyone. Too many people have fired names at one another already in this thread. We have Moore the douchbag, Bush the dipshit, Dan Wask the asshole, and myself, the walking oxymoron. Let's keep this clean.

~Vintage

Edited by Vintage, 15 July 2004 - 10:43 PM.

  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#61 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 15 July 2004 - 10:45 PM

Under that logic, why did Oroku_Saki go to see the movie? I know he already gave his reasons, but he hated Bush before he saw the movie, so why would he need to see the movie?

Why is my personal need to see the film relevant to this debate? I sat down, saw the film, and am now discussing the points with others to see what they think, as well as share my personal thoughts. What's wrong with that? I am not trying to flame anyone, but I do admit being biased, but isn't everyone when it comes to politics? Every debate has opposing point of view, and I am merely showing mine, as you are.

Hmm. I'm not saying that criticism of our president is unpatriotic. Having different ideals is part of what keeps a democracy together. I'm saying that trying your best to make your own president appear like a piece of shit is not exactly patriotic.


Holy Bill of Rights, Batman! Making fun of our political leaders has been around probably since our country was created. Who remembers all of the negative press Clinton got about his intern blow jobs? Were any of those people responsible for creating this image labeled unpatriotic? Not that I remember, so why are conservatives labeling Moore in this way? In my opinion, exercising your first amendment rights is one of the most important things about being a true patriotic American. If an activist like Moore can't openly talk about what he does not agree with about our government, then who is?

After all, we voted for him. Vintage does have a point, (even though you presented it quite harshly...) You can't say "Bush sucks, Bush is a liar, Bush is trying to hurt America." After all, his actions aren't solely his, as he has to win the vote of the senate, and he has to have sufficient backup from the CIA and other government organizations. It wasn't just Bush. But he DID have a big factor in it.


In the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, so even back then, most Americans didn't want Bush in office.

As I said before, it is not just the president that is responsible for all of the problems of our country, but his entire administration. To take care of the administration, we must choose a different one in November, which means not voting for Bush.
  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#62 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 July 2004 - 10:53 PM

Why is my personal need to see the film relevant to this debate? I sat down, saw the film, and am now discussing the points with others to see what they think, as well as share my personal thoughts. What's wrong with that? I am not trying to flame anyone, but I do admit being biased, but isn't everyone when it comes to politics? Every debate has opposing point of view, and I am merely showing mine, as you are.

Sorry about my wording there. I was not questioning your reasons for seeing the movie, I was just challenging CheeseNerfer's logic using you as an example. Again, sorry if that offended you.

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#63 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 15 July 2004 - 11:07 PM

Might have, and do have are two separate things. The CIA said that Iraq DID possess WMD's (right before we called the UN to council), which was in violation of the disarmament treaty. If our CIA can positively find WMD production in one of those other countries, we should call for inspections. [edit]People keep stating it in terms of "we thought their were WMD's so we attacked," but we didn't attack until they blew off the UN inspectors.[/edit]

Ok, let's look at the list of countries:
Iraq
Iran
Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Syria
Pakistan

Iran has used WMD's in the past - mustard gas in the Iran-Iraq war. In addition, there is intelligence suggesting that they have a far more advanced nuclear program than Iraq ever had. Better intelligence than we had in Iraq. In fact, they are by most estimates 2 years from being nuclear capable, which is less time than Iraq needed. It's chemical weapons production capacity is estimated at as much as 1000 tons per year.

Saudi Arabia has purchased Ghauri Nuclear delivery missiles from Pakistan.

North Korea has medium range missiles that it has successfully tested, as well as a number of nuclear reactors that are capable of producing weapons grade plutonium and uranium. Estimates from the State Department say that they have between 2 and 20 usable nuclear warheads.

The CIA has estimated Syria to possess several hundred liters of chemical weapons with hundreds of tons of agents produced annually.

It is well known that Pakistan has a formidable nuclear arsenal, no where near that of western countries, but enough to reak havok on India.

They didn't blow off the UN inspectors, the inspectors report said that they found no WMD's. Bush just didn't believe that was sufficient, and apparently wanted to make sure for himself.
  • 0

#64 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 16 July 2004 - 03:17 PM

Wow, so many replies in half a day.

Merlinski, the fact that 5 of the 6 countries haven't been checked yet doesn't mean that our president is stupid. It means that we finally got it together (yes, this was when Bush came into office) and decided it's time to do something about it. Let's start with a big potential enemy: Iraq.

They didn't blow off the UN inspectors, the inspectors report said that they found no WMD's.


Incorrect. They did 'blow off' the UN inspectors at least once, and when they were inside, they found quite a bit of evidence (I think I've said this many a time before).

Kuh...shut the hell up. Notice that most of these posts (would have been all, until you decided to say something) have some intelligent reasoning. Although I'm arguing slightly for Bush, I don't think that anyone can simply be classified as a douchebag. Well...maybe some particular people. :blink:

Holy Bill of Rights, Batman! Making fun of our political leaders has been around probably since our country was created. Who remembers all of the negative press Clinton got about his intern blow jobs? Were any of those people responsible for creating this image labeled unpatriotic? Not that I remember, so why are conservatives labeling Moore in this way? In my opinion, exercising your first amendment rights is one of the most important things about being a true patriotic American. If an activist like Moore can't openly talk about what he does not agree with about our government, then who is?


When I referred to making fun of political leaders, this definately hasn't been around since the beginning of our country. You stated it yourself, this has only started to show up a lot in recent decades.
Doing something unpatriotic is doing something that's not good for the country. So,
there are two views.
  • Michael Moore is extremely patriotic because Bush is not. The fact that Moore is showing this proves that he is doing what is best for our country: getting rid of a bad leader.
  • This was my view. Perhaps it was a little too one-sided: Michael Moore is unpatriotic because Bush is. By trying to remove potential threats from the outside world, Bush is serving his country and keeping it safe, thus making him patriotic. The fact that Moore is trying to deface Bush is highly unpatriotic.
Unfortunately, I don't think either of these views (which is what most of us are taking) are all correct. Bush obviously wants to help the United States, but some of us feel that he is not doing a good job. Therefore, Moore's documentary makes him seem as if he's serving the country. However, at the same time, it's bad because of point two.

I really don't think this movie is debatable. It really depends on, as we've seen, which side you come in from at the beginning. I came in thinking Moore was not doing good. I came out with the reminder that this isn't really a 'movie.' It's a documentary. It's what Michael Moore has chosen to show about the president. More power to him. It doesn't change which side I'm on.

AA
  • 0
Indiana '11

#65 Nello

Nello

    Member

  • Members
  • 106 posts

Posted 16 July 2004 - 06:06 PM

What makes John Kerry any better, or more honest?

The fact that he didn't lie to the American Public, strip them of many of their civil rights, or call those who opposed him traitors or unpatriotic.
  • 0
"The older you get the more and more like yourself you become." D. Krell

#66 Groove

Groove

    Certified Badass

  • Founders
  • 1,673 posts
  • Fucks Given:0
  • Location:Irvine
  • State:California
  • Country:United States

Posted 16 July 2004 - 06:20 PM

Actually AirApache, political cartoons have been around since the colonial times...
  • 0

"Too close for missiles, I'm switchin' to guns"


#67 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 16 July 2004 - 10:29 PM

Merlinski, the fact that 5 of the 6 countries haven't been checked yet doesn't mean that our president is stupid. It means that we finally got it together (yes, this was when Bush came into office) and decided it's time to do something about it. Let's start with a big potential enemy: Iraq.

My point is that you have 5 countries where the WMD program is as advanced or more advanced than Iraq's, and there is equivalent or better intelligence to support this. That means that you have 5 much bigger potential enemies. So why did he go after Iraq? It certainly wasn't because they have the worst human rights situation, it certainly wasn't because they were the biggest threat. We have to look at what we know:

After 9/11, Bush wanted to find a connection to Iraq. Not Iran or Saudi Arabia (which would have been easy), Iraq.

Before 9/11, Bush had been pushing to find a justification for a war in Iraq.

The only conclusion I can draw is that our real rationale for the war was something only Bush himself knows and doesn't care to share with the American people. I wonder why that is?
  • 0

#68 Alexthebeast

Alexthebeast

    Member

  • Members
  • 728 posts

Posted 16 July 2004 - 10:47 PM

Or of course a revenge thing because Sadaam Tried to kill his Daddy.
  • 0
<Fooz> In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.

#69 taita cakes

taita cakes

    Member

  • Members
  • 943 posts

Posted 17 July 2004 - 05:57 AM

Michael Moore is copping a bit of crap over here only because the movie doesn't compare to his others. Most of the reviewers don't care about the content and didn't mind the issues raised, just that it wasn't as good as his other stuff :P

The classic quote on tommorrow's 60 Minutes [Aus Version] is:

George Bush is an idiot. What is John Howard doing in bed with an idiot?


Nothing beats that "now watch this drive scene" everyone is talking about :P
  • 0
Oh Kentucky, you are so fuggin awesome...

#70 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 July 2004 - 10:47 PM

Actually AirApache, political cartoons have been around since the colonial times...


Oh yeah...ok you got me, I'm wrong on that.
  • 0
Indiana '11

#71 rawray7

rawray7

    Member

  • Members
  • 549 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 02:39 AM

I really don't think this movie is debatable.

I'm sorry, you just lost whatever arguments you had going for you. You can scroll the last 5 pages of this topic to see why.

Edited by rawray7, 18 July 2004 - 02:39 AM.

  • 0
You, nerfboi, are the suckest gun. -neonerfer

#72 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 19 July 2004 - 03:22 PM

It seems Iran is next on Dubya's hit list.

"We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved [in the 9/11 attacks]" he said.

"I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all, it is a totalitarian society where free people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings."

Ok, let's look at the list of countries:
Iraq
Iran
Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Syria
Pakistan


Conclusion: Dubya reads NerfHaven. Saudi Arabia has got to be shitting bricks.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#73 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 19 July 2004 - 05:56 PM

It seems Iran is next on Dubya's hit list.

"We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved [in the 9/11 attacks]" he said.

"I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all, it is a totalitarian society where free people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings."

Ok, let's look at the list of countries:
Iraq
Iran
Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Syria
Pakistan


Conclusion: Dubya reads NerfHaven. Saudi Arabia has got to be shitting bricks.

I'm wondering where he plans to get the troops for that invasion ^_^
  • 0

#74 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 19 July 2004 - 06:25 PM

I'm wondering where he plans to get the troops for that invasion ^_^

You're 18 right?

November can't come soon enough.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#75 Kuhlschrank

Kuhlschrank

    Member

  • Members
  • 452 posts

Posted 19 July 2004 - 08:18 PM

Let me just say that i never will see this movie because Michael Moore is a douchebag.

Anyone who thinks the insurgents should win against our soldiers.(I dont give a shit what party you are, an "true patriot" would never wish for our soldiers to be killed) and compares them to the Minutemen of the American Revolution does not deserve my $8.50.

Could you show me when Michael Moore says our soldiers should be killed? Oh wait, you're criticizing a movie you haven't seen. I forgot that you were a hypocrit for a second.

CXWQ, I think we have one that fits into the second category.

He didn't say it in the movie you dumb fuck. How would I know if he said it in the movie. I was merely saying why i wouldnt see it.

Edited by Kuhlschrank, 19 July 2004 - 08:19 PM.

  • 0
+Kuhlschrank+ of the ~Lawnchair Mafia~


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users