3,942 Forum Posts by "D2Kvirus"
At 7/4/04 04:21 PM, Johnnyack wrote:
nah not nader either, im not even gonna bother voting, i think all the candidates are dousches
And I'll just seize the opportunity for a couple of blatant plugs.
At 7/4/04 05:50 PM, darkmage8 wrote: Ban the movie? Should we start burning liberal and socialist books, too?
Well, we have (right-wing, naturally) groups trying to ban the film being advertised, and a chain of cinemas won't show the film, even if it only seems to be Nebraska where they have cinemas. I know people corss state lines to buy fireworks and cheap booze/cigarettes, but to watch a documentary?!?
It'd be funny if it wasn't so terrifying...
At 7/4/04 02:16 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: Africa has loads of materials like oil, gas, diamonds and gold and that's why I don't think Bush attacked Iraq for the oil. Bush did it for Israel who are at war with Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and I'm sure than within a decade the Israeli military will move in on Iraq for "peacekeeping".
The thing is, can you name on African dictator with such a panto villain reaction ("Boo! Hiss!") as Saddam - with the obvious exception of Idi Amin, who was long gone? With a portrayal somewhere between Satan and Michael Moore he already had, it made it just that little bit easier to justify going to war with Iraq, as well as how to handle facts and figures (emotive, and play to the yee-haw sensibilities of the average voter-cum-psychopath.)
Yes, Israel would've been in range of a Weapon of Mass Destruction if Iraq launched one, but there's still the minor question of what weapon was there to launch?
Also, it isn't as PC to move into Africa for such lame-assed reasons. After all, we hear phrases like "towel heads" and "dune coons" on this very board, but what would the derogitary term for the population of, say, Nigeria be? Remember, people: Arabs = BAD!!!
At 7/2/04 05:14 PM, Raptorman wrote:
1. There would be one more murderous dictator in the world, and one that really doesn't like us to boot.
There's plenty of those around that the US aren't interested in (ie, Mugabe), or installed (Pinochet). Of course, the latter liked the US for assassinating the previous President, but do you want to be popular with someone that "disappeared" several thousand of their own people?
2. The psycotic towel heads of the world would not be able to conserve their resources for another strike at the belly of the West instead of spending most of it futilly throwing themselves at our fangs and generating a lot of bad will by killing a lot of their fellow Muslims.
I'm ignoring this for use of the phrase "towel heads."
3. We would continue indefinitely with the steady cash and life drain of enforcing no fly zones ect. While some of our dubious allies continued to profit from clandestine deals made with the Bathists.
So, either way, the Us would be haemorraging cash to Iraq? It's just the minor question over which is preferable - losing it and keeping things ticking along, or losing cash AND lives by wading in like a Joel Schumacher film?
4. The people and infrastructure of Iraq would contine to falter under the ruinous and ineffective UN sanctions.
And I wonder why Saddam wasn't pro-America?
5. Most importantly, we would never correct our calllous betrayal of the Shia' and the Kurds by forrmenting inserection and then abbandoning them to the tender mercies of Saddam.
Oh yes, you've made up for those, haven't you?
At 7/2/04 12:42 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:
a pocket constitution costs $1. I suggest you pick one up.
Why? What possible effect would it have on my life? Apart from 71p (plus P&P) leaving my bank account?
In the beginning people took having free speech as a given. In the US, they use an outdated document as an excuse or, most often, a crutch.
At 7/2/04 11:52 AM, Evark wrote:
What? Did you ever read the Constitution? I'm pretty sure it clearly says right at the beginning of the Bill of Rights that everyone is entitled to free speech. Everyone . It doesn't matter if you disagree with what someone is saying, they still have the right to say it. And infecting our cinema? Thats completely ridiculous, opinions aren't dangerous, its peoples unwillingness to hear them that causes danger.
And, of course, stoking them to make a fast buck isn't remotely dangerous, let alone cynical. By the way, in England, we don't have to have freedom of speech legislated - it's a given.
At 7/2/04 11:48 AM, gem1 wrote:At 7/2/04 11:41 AM, D2KVirus wrote:Excuse me, has the conflict ended? Who says?Your not paying attention.
If you state sending in troops was "a mens to an end", that insinuates that there has ben some form of end product. However, I doubt the intended one was a few hundred dead troops.
At 7/2/04 11:35 AM, gem1 wrote:At 7/2/04 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:Probably not as high as, say, funding a full scale invasionNo but this is the meands to an end, where as before there was no end to the conflict. It was about a lot more than WMD inwhich the medea has focused.
Excuse me, has the conflict ended? Who says?
Oh yes, there's pictures on TV of a new regeime being dumped in place, but why have the entire population of Iraq (as we're led to believe) suddenly stopped clashing with troops and generally bombing stiuff left and right?
Then again, it was announced last April the "war" was over. So, why is money still being spent sending troops over to iraq, and shipping the bodies back? Doesn't sound finalised, or indeed an end, to me.
At 7/2/04 02:41 AM, The_SuPa_Pimp wrote: hell, I bet he'll make a movie next about how there's no moon. (hah :P)
Actually, his next project will be entitled Sicko!, about the American health care system. But, hey, that isn't good for little comments of alleged with, is it? Bit of a shame he was only joking about doing one on Bliar, sorry, Blair.
Now, all I have to do is wait another week for the UK release. Oh well, is Shrek 2 any good?
At 7/1/04 06:16 PM, karasz wrote: well does anyone know where you can find a REAL debate on politics?
1997.
without it turning into a flame war?
Oooh, tough one. 1193?
At 7/1/04 05:44 PM, chesspeaceface wrote: I'm a very left of center Democrat, and I have to say that sniping like this is immature and unnecessary.
Sniping is for campaign ads - talk about policies or bodycounts, wherever preferable or more in abundance.
At 7/2/04 10:54 AM, gem1 wrote: Where would we be now if we had not invaded Iraq. By the end of the 90's it was costing us $40 billion a year just to mainain the status in Iraq.
1. How far would that have escaladed
Probably not as high as, say, funding a full scale invasion (for reasons unproven), and the costs that go with increasing security when the locals don't happen to be very happy to have an army there under false pretences. Oh, and then there's the Court Marshalls for the abused prisoners...
2. What other problems would we have from building factions
The factions deserting you. At that point, the shit level rises from around the waist, where it currently resides, to around the chest.
3. What ultimatems would the UN now be dictating
If you have any WMD, can you demonstrate using them? If anything, they should've been giving them to Bush long ago - stop rattling that sabre of yours for little or no reason, as it makes you look like a war-mad dictator. Emphasis on "dic".
4. Would terrorest be building groups in Iraq
Nope - hey, even the 9/11 Commission casually pissed on the bullshit about Osama and Saddam being in cahoots.
Where would we be now if we had not took care of Iraq?
A Lot Better Off.
At 7/1/04 02:46 PM, SCHMEGULTON_MACGEE wrote:At 7/1/04 10:21 AM, D2KVirus wrote: So, I manage to get a two-pager started on title alone?It has "Iraq" in it.
Exactly - that is so last year - it has to have "Michael Moore" or "Farenheit 9/11" (and varied appalling spellings of) in it.
tell me, why did no-one else even bother to mention the alleged handover before? It's news and has plenty of scope for conspiracy theories, so surely had to be a viable topic?We did! I wrote one about the 'upcoming' transfer on, I think, the 27th, and Reiper(right?) made one on the 28th after it was "handed over"!
Still, I get the medal for use of sarcasm. God, why are they a sovreign state, according to all the press coverage? To make them feel good as all the hacks climb over each other, probably crushing a few underfoot, to get footage of Saddam's show trial?
And, if anyone has been following Milosevic's for the past few months, you'd know that'll be a farce and nothing else. Even his introduction, saying hje was the true president of Iraq and Bush should be the one facing trial, echoed events in The Hague. So there go my hopes for a War Crimes trial for Maggie Thatcher, then...
Besides, three topics? How many topics in the past 18 months have been bagging on al-Jazeera, Michael Moore's Oscar acceptance speech, or Anti-War protests and/or parties? I haven't seen anything so lopsided since The Poseidon Adventure...
At 7/1/04 01:02 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:
Honestly, a whole book simply to piss on Micheal Moore. Its gonna have alot of filler, that I can guarantee.
Just like the lamest documentary in some time (if you can call it a documentary), Michael Moore Hates America. Honestly, we need to start muzzling the American Fundamentalists, they're infecting our cinema...sorry, video stores - bottom shelf.
"If you get caught with a video camera in our theatres, we will give you a huge fine, and you may face a possible ten year prison sentence." - Yet another reason I'm boycotting the new Harry Potter flick. TEN YEARS FOR VIDEO PIRACY?!?
"I won't be travelling to Athens for the Olympics, in case terrorists blow me up." - Serena Williams. What she should've said is that Daddy Williams said that it's her brother, Venus', turn for an Olympic gold. Check the history of the Grand Slams and you'll see what I mean...
At 6/30/04 11:33 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Cats are truly an odd bunch. You can never tell if they're in a good mood or not. Sneaky bastards.
Sure you can - when they roll on their backs with all four feet in the air, they're in a good mood. Either that, or one of my cats is a total whore...
"I did it because I could." - Bill Clinton, justifying Zippergate.
"I did it because I could." - The best excuse Dubyuh could ever give for the Fifth Crusade. After all, he could send armies to the local Kwik-E-Mart for a regeime change if he said it on C-Span...
At 6/29/04 04:57 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:
From your post it is obvious that you are 16 and don't know jack shit
At a guess, you wrote it. So there's another reason this alleged book won't be topping the NY Times Bestseller list...
So, I manage to get a two-pager started on title alone? tell me, why did no-one else even bother to mention the alleged handover before? It's news and has plenty of scope for conspiracy theories, so surely had to be a viable topic?
God, having to sound like a n00b to get a debate started...
At 6/30/04 10:28 AM, BaKsHi wrote:
No it doesn't. If you had watched Michael Moores movie you'd see Bush still has business relations in Iraq which will keep Democracy from actually happening.
Either way, I still notice nobody has even mentioned it on this board - since they're saying Michael Moore is a fat Commie bastard, and variations upon.
You should not trust Bush.
The fact I have to use heavy sarcasm to get people's attention is worrying, though...
Everyone seems to have missed this, tripping over themselves to take lame-assed potshots at Michael Moore.
I'd act surprised, but I'm not an actor...
At 6/29/04 10:44 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: But I though blacks were in majority democrats, hence making them Farenheit 9/11 fans.
What kind of name for a movie is Farenheit 9/11 anyways?
It comes from Farenheit 451 - the book about a society where books are banned (for giving The People too many ideas) and burned. The author tried to sue Moore over it, but was laughed out of claims court.
Of course they're Unamerican. The fact their passport says "Iraq" instead of "USA" as country of origin/residence would give the first hint of many...
"We have no problem in giving you these marbles, Lord Elgin, since you have enough cash to give us for them." - Greek authorities, in the early 19th Century.
"Ohg, we have independence? Errm, we need some jumped-up nationalistic crap to rally people with. So...WE WANT THE ELGIN MARBLES BACK!!!" - Greece, 20 years later.
"We said we want them back!!!" - Greece, not shutting up about it to this day. Not aware they sound like the BNP over this issue, of course.
At 6/29/04 11:08 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Hey, at least you opened it and read it
Well, I was hoping for something else - I got hatemail for being in a Michael Moore group on Yahoo a while ago. Huh?!? How free do you want other lands to be?
"Raising the retirement age to 70?!? That's appalling - you might as well be working people to death!!!" - Tony Blair, when Leader of the Opposition, when raising retirement age fom 65 to 70 was mooted in Commons.
"Since £100bn has gone missing from the pension war chest, we might as well raise the age of retirement to 70 to even things out." - Tony Blair, this week.
Wait, did you send me this e-mail today?
>From: "Carey" <nqkjxtqc@cox.net>
>Subject: micheal moore shot
>Date: 29 Jun 2004 00:05:53 -0700
>
>What are the advantages of having a college degree?
>
>More money zlgdskxsn
>More power tlkljlgbka
>Less work hours rrqnewah
>
>Get your phd or masters degree in just 2 years. Study from your home at your pace
>
>Call this number for more information akozdd
>
>1-860-831-8655
Wow - in order to get people to open your crap, you have to use subject headers like that. Says a lot for American attitudes, doesn't it? Thing is, how many people will be hoping that it's true? Where's that IMDB review link I posted?
At 6/29/04 12:44 AM, SKUNKbrs wrote:
Moore's movies are more entertaining than moveon.org's newsletters though.
Crawling over broken glass with your flies unzipped is more entertaining than the newsletters on moveon...
At 6/28/04 10:52 AM, TheShrike wrote:
I had nothing to say. It is pointless, afterall. I just don't see it as pointless for the same reason as you. Don't assume so much. Or is that what you do best?
I know you have nothing to say - that's why I don't care what you think about me. Still, nice to see you think that you have some importance in my life, Shrikey - even if more people on this thread are agreeing with me than you are. Would that be the little matter of I know what I'm saying, because it isn't just bitchy remarks?
Landmarks? Yeesh...
At 6/28/04 10:06 AM, TheShrike wrote:At 6/27/04 08:32 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Considering what I think of youI could care less what you think of me.
I notice you haven't responded to the other one. How totally unexpected...
