Have you lived in this country during a time of war? Have you lived in this country during a draft or conscription?

I haven't. I have served in the military during time of war though, of my own free will. You were 5 by the time we were pulling out of Vietnam. So can you adequately argue about what someone else's feeling were and why they joined a particular branch? The point is, he served his country in some manner in the Armed Forces, regardless of where it was at. Have you?

No, I haven't. I chose not to. I went to school. However, I don't criticize Kerry for going into the Service. Yet, Bush et al. do so on a daily basis so let's take a gander at Bush's cheesy record and his AWOL if you are going to attack Kerry as you do.

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by Seekerof
I'm sure after I stop laughing over this and you posting it like it is worth a grain of merit, I will feel some sort of remorse for Micheal Moore's 1st Amendment rights being trampled......

seekerof

No, you won't because you really don't care about First Amendment Rights if they attack your man. Don't even lie. They can spill any bull# nonsesne about Kerry's war medals that he EARNED in WAR but, speak one ill word about Bush and his lies and his his effed up connections that could have contributed to 9-11 and all hell breaks loose.

Mauskov: What's the difference between Moore and this book your referring to? Just the author but they both say the same thing.

Since you missed the reason why I brought it up in the first place, I decided to quote you. You were the one that introduced Kerry to this discussion, not I. You didn't mention Bush, neither did I. Now you are bringing that into it as well. Let's keep on topic.

Yeah, yeah, alright. I concede. However, back to the point. Disney is wrong and this is just another manipulatoin of the Bush Crime Family.

Where is the evidence that conclusivly makes Bush a criminal and where is the alledged link to Disney?

Or is this inflamitory and biased statment to be taken for fact?

While i am against censorship whether it comes from the gov or from mega-corps, they (corps) have the right to shoot and distribute anything they please, for any reason,
any statements coming from others not disney or mm are hearsay and irelevant.

Ill agree to a few things
MM is an idiot. he's blantant in his bias...take him with a grain of salt

Disney played a political card by refraining to release the film. Weather you agree with them or not, its their right to stand up for what they want to.

This is hype to generate publicity for this movie, which will have a limited audience of predisposed people anyway....this movie will hit the charts and crash financially within 2 weeks. I doubght it will even make the top 3 movies of the week at any point in its release.
The masses will speak with their wallets when this slanted vaugley journalistic shockumentary hits the screen.

Originally posted by Colonel

Disney's bottom line is to make money (which Disney needs) as with any company. Moore makes money based upon his books and previous movies. But, now they are ditching his film...and for what...because they fear government backlash in Florida in the form of certain tax disadvantages. This is wrong.

Every company needs to make money, and when they make it, they need to keep it. Disney doesn't fear governmental reprisals, they fear LITIGATION! Michael Moore is by far the biggest loony lefty liar (with the possible exception of someone here we all know and...well...know...) and Disney does not want to be the co-defendant in the libel suits that are sure to follow this so called documentary. By the way, a documentary is supposed to document something...this, I fear, will be more of Moore's pure fiction.

As far as being a First Amendment case, no dice. For that to be the case, someone has to be denied his or her rights. Not true in the Michael Moore case. Disney is simply not going to market his movie for him, and is fully within it's right's not to do so. If that were denying him his first amendment rights, then every author who has ever received a rejection slip from a publisher would be wealthy off litigation. Hell, I'D start writing if THAT were the case...I could get rejected with the best of 'em!




[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Every company needs to make money, and when they make it, they need to keep it. Disney doesn't fear governmental reprisals, they fear LITIGATION! Michael Moore is by far the biggest loony lefty liar (with the possible exception of someone here we all know and...well...know...) and Disney does not want to be the co-defendant in the libel suits that are sure to follow this so called documentary. By the way, a documentary is supposed to document something...this, I fear, will be more of Moore's pure fiction.

As far as being a First Amendment case, no dice. For that to be the case, someone has to be denied his or her rights. Not true in the Michael Moore case. Disney is simply not going to market his movie for him, and is fully within it's right's not to do so. If that were denying him his first amendment rights, then every author who has ever received a rejection slip from a publisher would be wealthy off litigation. Hell, I'D start writing if THAT were the case...I could get rejected with the best of 'em!
[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

Sometimes you can be real stupid, ya know that? The Bush family are public figures! The only defense they have to a libel suit over this film is truth and if what Michael Moorse says is true, well, they're # outta luck and it just makes them look worse than Michael could ever do because everything he said would postively be true. Where would your heroes be then?

So, wHy risk that?

Again, I gott prove you that you are inept withthat second paragraph. If the government uses its power to chill speech, be it military or financial, that is a First Amendment issue! Sometimes its so painful to talk to you.

Colonel, because Disney decides to do anything, is based on financial reasons. There are plenty of other media outlets to fund the movie or market the movie. Moore is a socialist ideologue. I have heard him say that he is a Socialist. Disney may have decided the topic was too controversial. Someone else will pick it up. Hollywood hates Bush.

Variable

Originally posted by Variable
Colonel, because Disney decides to do anything, is based on financial reasons. There are plenty of other media outlets to fund the movie or market the movie. Moore is a socialist ideologue. I have heard him say that he is a Socialist. Disney may have decided the topic was too controversial. Someone else will pick it up. Hollywood hates Bush.

Variable

You just don't understand, do you. You're just THAT dense to grab this simple concept. MOORE'S FILMS MAKE MONEY! 21 MILLION FOR HIS LAST DOCUMENTARY AND 120 MILLION IN DVD SALES.

That's not loose change, particularly for a documentary which generally makes NO MONEY. Talking to repugnants is so friggin difficult.

If moore wants to be heard, he could just release his video on the internet...

or could it be that moore wants to make money?

not 1st ammendment issue

You have no idea what you're talkiing about. Typical for a lame-ass freeper.

Will Disney release 'Pinocchio' for an anniversary edition? I mean, it has obvious references to Bush.

Originally posted by Colonel


Sometimes you can be real stupid, ya know that? The Bush family are public figures! The only defense they have to a libel suit over this film is truth and if what Michael Moorse says is true, well, they're # outta luck and it just makes them look worse than Michael could ever do because everything he said would postively be true. Where would your heroes be then?

So, wHy risk that?

Again, I gott prove you that you are inept withthat second paragraph. If the government uses its power to chill speech, be it military or financial, that is a First Amendment issue! Sometimes its so painful to talk to you.

First of all, Mo, as many cases against the "rags" have proven (remember Carol Burnett V. The National Enquirer???) one does not give up his rights when he or she becomes a public figure. Libel and slander laws apply to all. Shows YOUR stupidity. Nice try, again, no dice.

Secondly, you erroneously imply that the government in some way is involved in this case of what YOU claim is denying MM his first amendment rights. Even MM doesn't claim that, moron, only YOU do. It is in fact a simple case of Disney exercising it's right to choose with whom it does business. In this case, I agree with them who heartedly. If I were in their place, I would DEFINATLY not want to be associated with anyone who is that radically anti-American, anti-government and anti-everything else. He is a business killer for sure.

Kernal, the reason it's so painful for you is that you go down in flames so often. Try telling the truth for once (ask your Mommy...she should be able to explain what the truth is to you) and maybe you won't have such a hard time of it....

To put into context what MM's film make at the Box Office, here is this years Box Office Sales.

RANK DOMESTIC OVERSEAS GLOBAL TITLE

001 $ 356.7 $ 85.0 $ 441.7 The Passion of the Christ (2004)
002 $ 87.9 $ 68.6 $ 156.5 Along Came Polly (2004)
003 $ 118.8 $ 16.0 $ 134.8 50 First Dates (2004)
004 $ 62.8 $ 44.2 $ 107.0 Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004)
005 $ 84.6 $ 31.2 $ 115.8 Starsky & Hutch (2004)
006 $ 62.9 $ 2.8 $ 65.7 Hidalgo (2004)
007 $ 64.1 n/a $ 64.1 Miracle (2004)
008 $ 63.2 n/a $ 63.2 Barbershop 2: Back in Business (2004)
009 $ 57.7 n/a $ 57.7 The Butterfly Effect (2004)
010 $ 55.5 n/a $ 55.5 Dawn of the Dead (2004)
011 $ 46.2 n/a $ 46.2 Secret Window (2004)
012 $ 44.7 n/a $ 44.7 Hellboy (2004)
013 $ 40.1 n/a $ 40.1 You Got Served (2004)
014 $ 32.3 n/a $ 32.3 Home on the Range (2004)
015 $ 32.0 n/a $ 32.0 Walking Tall (2004)
016 $ 30.4 n/a $ 30.4 Taking Lives (2004)
017 $ 30.4 n/a $ 30.4 The Ladykillers (2004)
018 $ 28.9 n/a $ 28.9 Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen (2004)
019 $ 25.9 n/a $ 25.9 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
020 $ 25.0 n/a $ 25.0 Twisted (2004)
021 $ 22.9 n/a $ 22.9 Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London (2004)
022 $ 21.2 n/a $ 21.2 Torque (2004)
023 $ 21.0 n/a $ 21.0 The Prince and Me (2004)
024 $ 20.8 n/a $ 20.8 Jersey Girl (2004)
025 $ 17.7 n/a $ 17.7 Eurotrip (2004)


Here's 2003's:

RANK DOMESTIC OVERSEAS GLOBAL TITLE

001 $ 375.7 $ 752.2 $ 1127.9 LOTR: The Return of the King (2003)
002 $ 339.7 $ 513.5 $ 853.2 Finding Nemo (2003)
003 $ 281.5 $ 454.2 $ 735.7 The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
004 $ 305.4 $ 347.8 $ 653.2 Pirates of the Caribbean (2003)
005 $ 242.6 $ 216.4 $ 459.0 Bruce Almighty (2003)
006 $ 111.1 $ 324.7 $ 435.8 The Last Samurai (2003)
007 $ 139.3 $ 284.8 $ 424.1 The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
008 $ 150.4 $ 267.9 $ 418.3 Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
009 $ 214.9 $ 164.7 $ 379.6 X2: X-Men United (2003)
010 $ 138.4 $ 123.6 $ 262.0 Bad Boys II (2003)
011 $ 100.7 $ 151.9 $ 252.6 Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
012 $ 124.6 $ 118.4 $ 243.0 Something's Gotta Give (2003)
013 $ 132.1 $ 109.6 $ 241.7 Hulk (2003)
014 $ 59.4 $ 180.0 $ 239.4 Love Actually (2003)
015 $ 85.3 $ 149.8 $ 235.1 Brother Bear (2003)
016 $ 127.1 $ 107.4 $ 234.5 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
017 $ 120.1 $ 113.0 $ 233.1 Seabiscuit (2003)
018 $ 104.4 $ 126.4 $ 230.8 American Wedding (2003)
019 $ 110.0 $ 95.2 $ 205.2 Scary Movie 3 (2003)
020 $ 93.8 $ 105.4 $ 199.2 Master and Commander (2003)
021 $ 173.4 $ 13.0 $ 186.4 Elf (2003)
022 $ 66.5 $ 109.0 $ 175.5 The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
023 $ 102.5 $ 71.3 $ 173.8 Daredevil (2003)
024 $ 69.9 $ 102.2 $ 172.1 Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
025 $ 133.8 $ 38.0 $ 171.8 Anger Management (2003)



To put things in perspective, Torque, Agent Cody Banks 2, and Twisted grossed more. So try to tell me his movies are of great import....

.E3., how many theaters carried any of Moore's films? Also, not to mention, documentaries are not a huge business. Never really has been. They don't make a lot of money, typically, and are done by those who have a message they want to get out.

In fact, I would like to say that you are "misleading" people with those stats. It is comparing two fundamentally different things. The only thing they have in common is the celluloid they are printed on. It is like comparing the mammoth album sales of rap or country music to the sales of Polka titles. I have a good question though, what was the top three grossing documentaries of that year?

Sure...now he's trying to hold onto the few sycophantic fans he has left. Face it - you were played.

I believe the correct term for you Moore worshippers is:

"wtfpwned."

Again, Moore demonstrated how much he manipulates the media to give him what he wants.

So let me get this straight.
It is acceptable, even laudable, for Moore to twist and contort things for his own agenda. But, heaven forbid, anyone of the "man" 's workers have a similar fauxpas, they're burned at the stake. Right-o.

I'd be a bit more wary of what tumbles out of MM's mouth. It may be time to be a bit more discerning in your consumption of swill at the media trough.