Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:50 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Not going to go into how you misquote.I actually believe this one was an error but that was me and not RC.
Corrected. Copy and paste, forgot to edit the name.
Originally posted by COL.BUKKAKE
I'll repost your quote, would you agree that Moore is extremely left leaning (practically hangin on Communist coattails), then if you agree to that, accoreding to your post, the terrorists dont need Moore's movie, since they have our Media available to fire them up, as you say.
Moore is ultra liberal, no, not almost comminist as not one liberal is even close to true communism, that is just some myth. it would be like calling conservatives Nazis.
Your second part makes no sense. If the media is showing people who dislike the war, then they are showing people who dislike the war. It doesn't have to be left leaning or right leaning.
Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:05 pm
You are more than happy to claim anything that rips on, lets say F 9-11, as 'facts' without researching it, yet demand to know 'facts' from that very movie and how I can tell fact from fiction. Bit of a hypocrite yourself, huh?
I refer you to the following thread
http://forums.powervs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10439
Missed that comment earlier but found it when rereading.
The whole Moore, Limbaugh, Nazi thing was me. Lets not go putting words into anyone elses mouth on that one. I basically said that Moore and Limbaugh were successful graduates of the Joesef Goebbels school of broadcasting.
We can definitely call that one a strong opinion on my part.
Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:29 pm
I think Edwards bring some life to long-faced Kerry's campaign. This is good because everytime Kerry spoke I fell asleep.
Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:47 am
Why must you two continue to argue about nothing? Moore and Limbaugh are both moronic extremists. Leave it at that. The only people who take them seriously are usually either very ignorant or very radical.
Anyway, to make this post on topic, Edwards was the perfect pick to win the election. Not entirely qualified though. Gephardt would have made a better choice in the long-run.
Anyway, to make this post on topic, Edwards was the perfect pick to win the election. Not entirely qualified though. Gephardt would have made a better choice in the long-run.
Fri Jul 09, 2004 8:10 am
Originally posted by cashcow
Edwards was the perfect pick to win the election. Not entirely qualified though.
Understatement of the day. Edwards is completely un-qualified. I hear the Dems try and play up his being on the Senate Intellegence Cmt. but when you look at the record, the only person in the last 6 years that has been absent more than Edwards is Kerry. I'll say it again, he has wanted to run for top office since he was elected. Fine, arguably most polititians do...the only difference is they spend 20+ years of their life working towards the goal. Edwards has come in late and doesn't want to put in the time. I've never had a great deal of respcet for Kerry as he often flip-flops on what he believes in, but what little respect I had is gone. He had said, and I believed him, that he believes the VP must be fully qualified because he's a "heart beat away" from the Top Job. With that in mind, I really thought (along with the NY Post) 
that he would go with Gephardt who at least has the experience to run the country. But Edwards is popular and telegenic and in the end Kerry caved in to the DNC's wishes. Standing for his beliefs probably would have cost him the election...his compromise could end up costing us a lot more if he wins. 
Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:38 am
Anyway, to make this post on topic, Edwards was the perfect pick to win the election. Not entirely qualified though. Gephardt would have made a better choice in the long-run.
But I thought he did pick Gephardt? I was read the NY Post the other day and they said.....
Dat's some funny stuff dere
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040707/ap_on_el_pr/post_gephardt_gaffe