OT Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down

[s_knight8]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html

Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
David Bossie
President, Citizens United
Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM


Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President Bush?

David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group,
thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The group
alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to the
restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.

"Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election," Bossie
said.

Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives a
thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.


A transcript follows.

________________________________________________

washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised or
seen?

David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First off,
we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation of his
so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets the
facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track record
of credibility.

We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission claiming
that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering communications" as
defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.

These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a federal
candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.

All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits my
free speech as well as Michael Moore's.

Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July 31st.
2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal, and 3.
He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.

People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that President Bush
has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the voters
over his record?

David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's leader
in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.

This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd will
rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it as
well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a journalist.
Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from office.

_______________________


Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning that he
has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never voted
is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?

David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting, it's an
essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.

However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a good
story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.

[Dave Reid]

"s_knight8" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:cbkumf$***@dispatch.concentric.net:

> David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy
> group

David Bossie, a scumbag of the highest order.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/11/time/trillin.html
http://tinyurl.com/2rrkb

"If Webster Hubbell had really said, as Dan Burton's creative transcript
had it, "The Riady is just not easy to do business with me while I'm
here," what language was he supposed to be speaking? Did people on the
staff of Burton's Government Reform and Oversight Committee actually take
that to be an English sentence? Do they talk that way themselves? Outside
of chairman Burton's earshot, do they say things like "The Burton are just
too much of loony to conduct this investigation"?

...snip...

Hubbell knew that conversations on the prison phone would be recorded, but
that doesn't mean he knew they would be made public. If he had, he would
have presumably studded his conversations with rude jokes about Kenneth
Starr and how simple it had been to hoodwink the independent counsel's
office on a plea-bargain agreement. He certainly didn't know they would be
made public as edited by Burton's chief investigator, David N. Bossie, who
presumably picked up his notion of fair play partly from his old colleague
Floyd Brown, the creator of the Willie Horton campaign commercial."

dave

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Dave Reid" <***@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:***@216.196.97.131...
> "s_knight8" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:cbkumf$***@dispatch.concentric.net:
>
> > David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy
> > group
>
> David Bossie, a scumbag of the highest order.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/11/time/trillin.html
> http://tinyurl.com/2rrkb
>
> "If Webster Hubbell had really said, as Dan Burton's creative transcript
> had it, "The Riady is just not easy to do business with me while I'm
> here," what language was he supposed to be speaking? Did people on the
> staff of Burton's Government Reform and Oversight Committee actually take
> that to be an English sentence? Do they talk that way themselves? Outside
> of chairman Burton's earshot, do they say things like "The Burton are just
> too much of loony to conduct this investigation"?
>
> ...snip...
>
> Hubbell knew that conversations on the prison phone would be recorded, but
> that doesn't mean he knew they would be made public. If he had, he would
> have presumably studded his conversations with rude jokes about Kenneth
> Starr and how simple it had been to hoodwink the independent counsel's
> office on a plea-bargain agreement. He certainly didn't know they would be
> made public as edited by Burton's chief investigator, David N. Bossie, who
> presumably picked up his notion of fair play partly from his old colleague
> Floyd Brown, the creator of the Willie Horton campaign commercial."
>
> dave
>

You have blinders in evaluating the highest order of scumbags....this isn't
even on the nasty scale of politics a 3.

v/r Beau

[Doug Sorensen]

"s_knight8" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:cbkumf$***@dispatch.concentric.net:

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
>
> Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
> Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
> David Bossie
> President, Citizens United
> Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
>
>
> Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President
> Bush?
>

Donning my tinfoil hat for a moment, do you think this is one of the
reasons why the left was behind campaign finance "reform"? A lot of
the left's big sugar daddies and mommies are in the entertainment
industry. They can simply reroute their money to films like The Day
After Tomorrow or Farenheit 9/11 and get as much or more political
impact for their money.

Doug

[Peter L]

Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right wing
dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating even
White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.


"s_knight8" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbkumf$***@dispatch.concentric.net...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
>
> Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
> Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
> David Bossie
> President, Citizens United
> Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
>
>
> Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President Bush?
>
> David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group,
> thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
> Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The
group
> alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to the
> restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.
>
> "Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election," Bossie
> said.
>
> Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives a
> thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.
>
>
> A transcript follows.
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
> washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
> organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
> Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
> campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised or
> seen?
>
> David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First off,
> we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation of
his
> so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
> Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets the
> facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track
record
> of credibility.
>
> We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission
claiming
> that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering communications"
as
> defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.
>
> These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a federal
> candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.
>
> All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits my
> free speech as well as Michael Moore's.
>
> Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July
31st.
> 2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal, and
3.
> He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.
>
> People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.
>
> _______________________
>
> Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that President
Bush
> has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the voters
> over his record?
>
> David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's
leader
> in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
> corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.
>
> This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd will
> rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it as
> well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a
journalist.
> Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from office.
>
> _______________________
>
>
> Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning that he
> has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never
voted
> is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?
>
> David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting, it's
an
> essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.
>
> However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a good
> story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.
>
>
>
>

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
wing
> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
even
> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>

That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
quadroplegic.

Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that is
Spiderman 2.

v/r Beau

>
> "s_knight8" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cbkumf$***@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
> >
> > Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
> > Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
> > David Bossie
> > President, Citizens United
> > Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
> >
> >
> > Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President
Bush?
> >
> > David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy
group,
> > thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
> > Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The
> group
> > alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to
the
> > restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.
> >
> > "Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election,"
Bossie
> > said.
> >
> > Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives a
> > thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.
> >
> >
> > A transcript follows.
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> >
> > washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
> > washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
> > organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
> > Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
> > campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised or
> > seen?
> >
> > David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First
off,
> > we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation of
> his
> > so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
> > Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets the
> > facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track
> record
> > of credibility.
> >
> > We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission
> claiming
> > that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering communications"
> as
> > defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.
> >
> > These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a federal
> > candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.
> >
> > All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits
my
> > free speech as well as Michael Moore's.
> >
> > Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July
> 31st.
> > 2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal, and
> 3.
> > He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.
> >
> > People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.
> >
> > _______________________
> >
> > Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that President
> Bush
> > has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the voters
> > over his record?
> >
> > David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's
> leader
> > in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
> > corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.
> >
> > This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd will
> > rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it
as
> > well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a
> journalist.
> > Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from office.

> >
> > _______________________
> >
> >
> > Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning that
he
> > has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never
> voted
> > is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?
> >
> > David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting,
it's
> an
> > essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.
> >
> > However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a good
> > story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>> right
> wing
>> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>> beating
> even
>> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>
>
> That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> quadroplegic.
>
> Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> that is Spiderman 2.
>
And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@130.133.1.4...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>
> >
> > "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >> right
> > wing
> >> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >> beating
> > even
> >> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>
> >
> > That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> > quadroplegic.
> >
> > Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> > that is Spiderman 2.
> >
> And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?

Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does $50m the
first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.

v/r Beau

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:***@comcast.com:

>
> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>> >> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>> >> right
>> > wing
>> >> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>> >> beating
>> > even
>> >> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>> > quadroplegic.
>> >
>> > Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>> > that is Spiderman 2.
>> >
>> And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>
> Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does $50m
> the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
>
Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
"family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@130.133.1.4...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:***@comcast.com:
>
> >
> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >> news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >> >> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >> >> right
> >> > wing
> >> >> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >> >> beating
> >> > even
> >> >> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> >> > quadroplegic.
> >> >
> >> > Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> >> > that is Spiderman 2.
> >> >
> >> And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >
> > Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does $50m
> > the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
> >
> Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
> "family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
>

I expect it to be in keeping with previous cinematic depictions of famous
comic book heroes. I don't expect that there will be an overt political
message.

v/r Beau

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:jIadnV3F1K6ID33dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> news:***@comcast.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> >> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> >> news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>> >> >> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the
>> >> >> other right
>> >> > wing
>> >> >> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>> >> >> beating
>> >> > even
>> >> >> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
>> >> > blind quadroplegic.
>> >> >
>> >> > Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
>> >> > steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
>> >> >
>> >> And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>> >
>> > Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does
>> > $50m the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
>> >
>> Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
>> "family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
>>
>
> I expect it to be in keeping with previous cinematic depictions of
> famous comic book heroes. I don't expect that there will be an overt
> political message.
>
> v/r Beau
>
>
>

It's interesting. I've now heard this "Spiderman 2 will do better" line
in at least 4 different newsgroups. So my question is this: which
conservative screamer put out this talking point? Limbaugh? Hannity?
Moreover, why would anyone think it's great that a slew of 12 to 16 year
olds who can't even get into F911 are going to drop cash on Spiderman?
Is that the demographic they identify with?

F911 grossed 21.8 mil playing on only 868 screens. That's more than 25K
per screen over 3 days. Spiderman 1 grossed 114 mil in its opening
weekend. It played on 3615 screens. It averaged 31.5k per screen on its
opening weekend. And that's the all-time record. Let's just keep that in
perspective shall we? F911 took in more than 80% what Spiderman took in
and F911 doesn't have 50 million screaming teenagers flocking to see it.

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@130.133.1.4...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:jIadnV3F1K6ID33dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>
> >
> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >> news:***@comcast.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >> >> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >> >> news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >> >> >> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the
> >> >> >> other right
> >> >> > wing
> >> >> >> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >> >> >> beating
> >> >> > even
> >> >> >> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
> >> >> > blind quadroplegic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
> >> >> > steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
> >> >> >
> >> >> And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >> >
> >> > Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does
> >> > $50m the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
> >> >
> >> Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
> >> "family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
> >>
> >
> > I expect it to be in keeping with previous cinematic depictions of
> > famous comic book heroes. I don't expect that there will be an overt
> > political message.
> >
> > v/r Beau
> >
> >
> >
>
> It's interesting. I've now heard this "Spiderman 2 will do better" line
> in at least 4 different newsgroups. So my question is this: which
> conservative screamer put out this talking point? Limbaugh? Hannity?
> Moreover, why would anyone think it's great that a slew of 12 to 16 year
> olds who can't even get into F911 are going to drop cash on Spiderman?
> Is that the demographic they identify with?
>
> F911 grossed 21.8 mil playing on only 868 screens. That's more than 25K
> per screen over 3 days. Spiderman 1 grossed 114 mil in its opening
> weekend. It played on 3615 screens. It averaged 31.5k per screen on its
> opening weekend. And that's the all-time record. Let's just keep that in
> perspective shall we? F911 took in more than 80% what Spiderman took in
> and F911 doesn't have 50 million screaming teenagers flocking to see it.
>
>

The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited distribution
which is about the volume limit that it could probably have generated. I
assume that in wider distribution that the saturation point of Bush is Evil
types would be reached fairly easily thus obviously lowering the per screen
average nonsense that folks are suddenly yapping about as if it is
significant.

v/r Beau

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:

> The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
> distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
> have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
> saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily

You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see it
than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@130.133.1.4...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>
> > The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
> > distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
> > have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
> > saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
>
> You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
> staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
> by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
> Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
> supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
> anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
> hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
it
> than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
>

"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So? I
am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not a
blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd. Ya...the
Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm.
Tell me another.

v/r Beau

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>
>> > The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>> > distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
>> > have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
>> > saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
>> > easily
>>
>> You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>> several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
>> deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
>> was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
>> This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
>> war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
>> Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
>> ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
> it
>> than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>> chance.
>>
>
> "Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.

I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?

> So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.

You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first time
I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?

> I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
> going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush

More outstanding satire.

> is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
> first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
>
Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
entire month off after only the first 6 months.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@130.133.1.4...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>
> >
> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >> news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>
> >> > The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
> >> > distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
> >> > have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
> >> > saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
> >> > easily
> >>
> >> You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
> >> several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
> >> deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
> >> was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
> >> This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
> >> war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
> >> Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
> >> ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
> > it
> >> than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
> >> chance.
> >>
> >
> > "Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
>
> I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
>

Notice that you left the "by propeganda" part out.

> > So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
>
> You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first time
> I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
>

It is how I spell it. Is there a point to your spew?

> > I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
> > going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
>
> More outstanding satire.
>

Yes I am glad you find it amusing. Mr. Moore is a satirist, not a serious
documentarian.

> > is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
> > first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
> >
> Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
> entire month off after only the first 6 months.
>

That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>
>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>news:MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>
>>
>>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
>>>>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
>>>>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
>>>>>easily
>>>>
>>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>>>>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
>>>>deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
>>>>was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
>>>>This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
>>>>war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
>>>>Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
>>>>ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
>>>
>>>it
>>>
>>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>>>>chance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
>>
>>I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
>>
>
>
> Notice that you left the "by propeganda" part out.
>
>
>>>So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
>>
>>You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first time
>>I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
>>
>
>
> It is how I spell it. Is there a point to your spew?
>
>
>>>I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
>>>going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
>>
>>More outstanding satire.
>>
>
>
> Yes I am glad you find it amusing. Mr. Moore is a satirist, not a serious
> documentarian.
>
>
>>>is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
>>>first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
>>>
>>
>>Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
>>entire month off after only the first 6 months.
>>
>
>
> That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
> President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?

Moore is an entertainer, nothing more. What's worse: an
entertainer skewing the facts for the sake of his art,
or a President lying and being a total idiot?

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
news:eFEEc.6398$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >
> >>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>news:MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >>>
> >>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
> >>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
> >>>>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
> >>>>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
> >>>>>easily
> >>>>
> >>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
> >>>>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
> >>>>deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
> >>>>was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
> >>>>This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
> >>>>war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
> >>>>Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
> >>>>ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
> >>>
> >>>it
> >>>
> >>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
> >>>>chance.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
> >>
> >>I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Notice that you left the "by propeganda" part out.
> >
> >
> >>>So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
> >>
> >>You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first
time
> >>I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
> >>
> >
> >
> > It is how I spell it. Is there a point to your spew?
> >
> >
> >>>I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
> >>>going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
> >>
> >>More outstanding satire.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes I am glad you find it amusing. Mr. Moore is a satirist, not a
serious
> > documentarian.
> >
> >
> >>>is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
> >>>first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
> >>entire month off after only the first 6 months.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
> > President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
>
> Moore is an entertainer, nothing more. What's worse: an
> entertainer skewing the facts for the sake of his art,
> or a President lying and being a total idiot?
>

He made a movie about Bill Clinton?

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> news:eFEEc.6398$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>news:MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>>>>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
>>>>>>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
>>>>>>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
>>>>>>>easily
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>>>>>>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
>>>>>>deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
>>>>>>was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
>>>>>>This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
>>>>>>war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
>>>>>>Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
>>>>>>ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
>>>>>
>>>>>it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>>>>>>chance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
>>>>
>>>>I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Notice that you left the "by propeganda" part out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
>>>>
>>>>You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The first
>
> time
>
>>>>I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It is how I spell it. Is there a point to your spew?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
>>>>>going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
>>>>
>>>>More outstanding satire.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes I am glad you find it amusing. Mr. Moore is a satirist, not a
>
> serious
>
>>>documentarian.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
>>>>>first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
>>>>entire month off after only the first 6 months.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
>>>President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
>>
>>Moore is an entertainer, nothing more. What's worse: an
>>entertainer skewing the facts for the sake of his art,
>>or a President lying and being a total idiot?
>>
>
>
> He made a movie about Bill Clinton?

That would qualify as humorous coming from almost
anyone but you.

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:kMSdne6WAdgK8n7dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> news:eFEEc.6398$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> >
>> >>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> >>news:MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> >>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>> >>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could
>> >>>>>probably have generated. I assume that in wider distribution
>> >>>>>that the saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached
>> >>>>>fairly easily
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>> >>>>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have
>> >>>>been deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was
>> >>>>convinced I was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not
>> >>>>voting for him." This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts,
>> >>>>school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and
>> >>>>"under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell
>> >>>>of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
>> >>>>see
>> >>>
>> >>>it
>> >>>
>> >>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>> >>>>chance.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
>> >>
>> >>I see. So "Staunch Republicans" who cannot be swayed are informed?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Notice that you left the "by propeganda" part out.
>> >
>> >
>> >>>So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with
>> >>>me.
>> >>
>> >>You are already swayed. But tell me, what is "propeganda"? The
>> >>first
> time
>> >>I thought it might just be a typo. But twice?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > It is how I spell it. Is there a point to your spew?
>> >
>> >
>> >>>I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what
>> >>>is going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the
>> >>>Bush
>> >>
>> >>More outstanding satire.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes I am glad you find it amusing. Mr. Moore is a satirist, not a
> serious
>> > documentarian.
>> >
>> >
>> >>>is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
>> >>>first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get
>> >>an entire month off after only the first 6 months.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that
>> > the President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on
>> > vacation?
>>
>> Moore is an entertainer, nothing more. What's worse: an
>> entertainer skewing the facts for the sake of his art,
>> or a President lying and being a total idiot?
>>
>
> He made a movie about Bill Clinton?
>
There should be a law like Godwin's law but stating that as thread goes
on longer and longer, some dunderheaded republican will eventually bring
up Bill Clinton. Bubbah really mindfucked these people.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Will Vaughan]

"Charles Beauchamp" wrote

> That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
> President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?

He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a hell
of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this group.

[TOE]

"Will Vaughan's been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou;

> "Charles Beauchamp" wrote

> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
> > President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
>
> He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a hell
> of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this group.

But the point is, Bush didn't.

-TOE

[Charlie Board]

TOE wrote:
> "Will Vaughan's been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou;
>
>
>>"Charles Beauchamp" wrote
>
>
>>>That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
>>>President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
>>
>>He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a hell
>>of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this group.
>
>
> But the point is, Bush didn't.

Sez you. Got evidence?

And if you're going to come back with "proof" that it was
only 33% or 26% or something - don't bother. Do you
have proof that the main *point* - that Bush took
one helluva lot more vacation time than is reasonable
for any importants employee, much less one in his
first 7 months on a new, demanding job - is not factual?

Besides, quoting the Washington Post when they're wrong
(assuming for the sake of argument that they were)
doesn't quite rise to the level of quoting forged Italian
documents about Nigerian yellowcake in the friggin' State
of The Union three or four *months* after your own
intelligence agencies *told* you they were forged, now
does it?

[Vic Romano]

"TOE" <***@komBOINKcast.nYet> wrote in
news:faydnVGBX_ST8H7dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Will Vaughan's been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou;
>
>> "Charles Beauchamp" wrote
>
>> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that
>> > the President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on
>> > vacation?
>>
>> He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a
>> hell of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this
>> group.
>
> But the point is, Bush didn't.
>
Prove it.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Tom Enright]

Vic Romano, been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou:

> >> He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a
> >> hell of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this
> >> group.

> > But the point is, Bush didn't.

> Prove it.

You and your bud Charlie appear to be confused. It is not my job
to provide evidence of something that Bush didn't do.

-TOE

"That's why we're smiling all the time," he told a rapturous throng
in Munich. "You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi!
How's it going?' We've got that big shit-eating grin on our face
all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."
-Micheal Moore on you

[Vic Romano]

***@yahoo.com (Tom Enright) wrote in news:d190ae7f.0407011040.6ed4c59
@posting.google.com:

> Vic Romano, been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou:
>
>> >> He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a
>> >> hell of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this
>> >> group.
>
>> > But the point is, Bush didn't.
>
>> Prove it.
>
> You and your bud Charlie appear to be confused. It is not my job
> to provide evidence of something that Bush didn't do.
>
The Washington post reported that Bush spent 42% of his time on vacation in
his first 8 months. If you are going to claim that this is a lie, you need
to prove it is a lie.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Will Vaughan" <***@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:cbv642$g1q$***@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> "Charles Beauchamp" wrote
>
> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
> > President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
>
> He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a hell
> of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this group.
>
>
>

Clearly you are wrong. And the post article that is widely spoken
of....takes great liberty with the facts..apparently like Mr. Moore
does...again.

v/r Beau

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:c5ednfI_OoRa8n7dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Will Vaughan" <***@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:cbv642$g1q$***@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>>
>> "Charles Beauchamp" wrote
>>
>> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that
>> > the President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on
>> > vacation?
>>
>> He doesn't suggest - he cites a Washington Post article - which is a
>> hell of a lot more citation than you've done in the past year in this
>> group.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Clearly you are wrong. And the post article that is widely spoken
> of....takes great liberty with the facts..apparently like Mr. Moore
> does...again.
>
Prove it.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charlie Board]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

>
>>>is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
>>>first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
>>>
>>
>>Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
>>entire month off after only the first 6 months.
>>
>
>
> That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
> President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
>

He says that the Washington Post said so. Which is true.
Are you claiming the Post got it wrong?

[TOE]

"Charlie Board's been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou:

> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
> > President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
>
> He says that the Washington Post said so. Which is true.
> Are you claiming the Post got it wrong?

I don't know if he is, but I am.

-TOE

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Charlie Board" <***@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:***@nc.rr.com...
>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>
> >
> >>>is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
> >>>first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get an
> >>entire month off after only the first 6 months.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
> > President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
> >
>
> He says that the Washington Post said so. Which is true.
> Are you claiming the Post got it wrong?
>
>

I have flat out said they are wrong numerous times as have others unless one
takes the most absurd interpretation of vacation.

v/r Beau

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:D9Cdnbevgt5dAX7dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Charlie Board" <***@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:***@nc.rr.com...
>>
>>
>> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>>is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
>> >>>first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Who said "42%"? But you gotta admit it's a sweet deal that you get
>> >>an entire month off after only the first 6 months.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that
>> > the President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on
>> > vacation?
>> >
>>
>> He says that the Washington Post said so. Which is true.
>> Are you claiming the Post got it wrong?
>>
>>
>
> I have flat out said they are wrong numerous times as have others
> unless one takes the most absurd interpretation of vacation.
>
> v/r Beau
>
>
>

Hey - here's an idea. Instead of making a baseless claim, why don't you
catalogue the actual days Bush worked during those 8 months?

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[unknown]

In article <kMSdne6WAdgK8n7dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that the
>> > President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation?
>>
>> Moore is an entertainer, nothing more. What's worse: an
>> entertainer skewing the facts for the sake of his art,
>> or a President lying and being a total idiot?
>
>He made a movie about Bill Clinton?

Actually, Moore did have some pretty nasty things to say about Clinton
in his book (and again, not necessarily entirely accurate, but not
without any factual basis either). In that regard, he's shown himself
to be a lot less partisan than most anyone in this thread.


Max
--

[Vic Romano]

mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu (Max Chuang) wrote in
news:cc16f0$270g$***@agate.berkeley.edu:

> In article <kMSdne6WAdgK8n7dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
> Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>>> > That would be a sweet deal. Doesn't your hero Moore suggest that
>>> > the President spend 42% of his first 8 months in office on
>>> > vacation?
>>>
>>> Moore is an entertainer, nothing more. What's worse: an
>>> entertainer skewing the facts for the sake of his art,
>>> or a President lying and being a total idiot?
>>
>>He made a movie about Bill Clinton?
>
> Actually, Moore did have some pretty nasty things to say about Clinton
> in his book (and again, not necessarily entirely accurate, but not
> without any factual basis either). In that regard, he's shown himself
> to be a lot less partisan than most anyone in this thread.
>
>
> Max

Well let's face it. Clinton sucked. He had an extramarital affair, got a
beej in the oval office, and he falsified his deposition in a frivolous
lawsuit that shouldn't have been brought to court until he was out of
office. On top of that, he coopted the republicans' claim to fiscal
prudence and actually balanced the budget. Plus, he was not born into
wealth and priviledge and actually had to work his way up from the
trailer park trash he came from. Worse still, he actually won a
prestigious international scholarship and had the gall to study at
Oxford instead of joining the "Champagne Squadron" of the Texas Air
National Guard. I mean - how could you not detest a man like this?

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Chainsaw]

Vic Romano wrote:


> Well let's face it. Clinton sucked.

I thought he *got* sucked.

> He had an extramarital affair, got a
> beej in the oval office,

They oughta rent out the oval office by the hour to
horny couples, like a theme room in the Madonna Inn
or a rabu hoteru in Japan....

> and he falsified his deposition in a frivolous
> lawsuit that shouldn't have been brought to court until he was out of
> office. On top of that, he coopted the republicans' claim to fiscal
> prudence and actually balanced the budget. Plus, he was not born into
> wealth and priviledge and actually had to work his way up from the
> trailer park trash he came from. Worse still, he actually won a
> prestigious international scholarship and had the gall to study at
> Oxford instead of joining the "Champagne Squadron" of the Texas Air
> National Guard. I mean - how could you not detest a man like this?

And to top it off, Clinton currently enjoys an approval rating
of 62%, whereas Dumya's is at an all-time low of 42%. Gotta
hate Clinton for that.

[unknown]

In article <MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>> You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
>> staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
>> by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
>> Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
>> supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
>> anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
>> hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
>it
>> than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
>>
>
>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So? I
>am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.

Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
you won't have any problems with that.

I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.

>I am not a
>blind idealogue.

Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
as total propaganda? How did you come to that conclusion? Read a review?
Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
propaganda you choose.

>I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
>an informed opinion.

Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
and you're choosing to remain in the dark.

I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
getting tremendous word of mouth.

It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
he's dead.


Max
--

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:cbuj1c$16j9$***@agate.berkeley.edu...
> In article <MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
> Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
> >> staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
affected
> >> by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
for
> >> Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
strongly
> >> supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
> >> anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are
a
> >> hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
see
> >it
> >> than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
> >>
> >
> >"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
> >am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
>
> Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
> noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
> easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
> you won't have any problems with that.
>

I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though if
he is intentionally misleading.

> I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
> cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.
>
> >I am not a
> >blind idealogue.
>
> Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
> as total propaganda?

In fact I have disputed specific points made by folks who have seen the
film. It is irrelevant to me whether or not the information is portrayed on
film one way or the other. I have yet to find a single new point brought up
regarding the film. Simply repetitive arguments that are basically lacking
credibility that have been made by many before Mr. Moore.


How did you come to that conclusion?

Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by those
that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be needed?
No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is engaging in
serious honest discourse...


Read a review?
> Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
> influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
> propaganda you choose.
>

You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
viewpoint.

> >I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
> >an informed opinion.
>
> Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
> ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
> a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
> and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
>

Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.

> I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
> those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
> sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
> getting tremendous word of mouth.
>

Blah blah blah...it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting out
an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.

> It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
> Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
> influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
> Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
> damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
> huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
> worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
> he's dead.
>
>

If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with that.
BTW...where did this Bush tried to stop it nonsense come from? Probably the
same sources that spout that Halliburton got a no bid contract in Iraq.

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> news:cbuj1c$16j9$***@agate.berkeley.edu...
>
>>In article <MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
>>Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
>>>>staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
>
> affected
>
>>>>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
>
> for
>
>>>>Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
>
> strongly
>
>>>>supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
>>>>anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are
>
> a
>
>>>>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
>
> see
>
>>>it
>>>
>>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
>
> I
>
>>>am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
>>
>>Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
>>noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
>>easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
>>you won't have any problems with that.
>>
>
>
> I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though if
> he is intentionally misleading.
>
>
>>I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
>>cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.
>>
>>
>>>I am not a
>>>blind idealogue.
>>
>>Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
>>as total propaganda?
>
>
> In fact I have disputed specific points made by folks who have seen the
> film. It is irrelevant to me whether or not the information is portrayed on
> film one way or the other. I have yet to find a single new point brought up
> regarding the film. Simply repetitive arguments that are basically lacking
> credibility that have been made by many before Mr. Moore.
>
>
> How did you come to that conclusion?
>
> Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by those
> that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
> one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be needed?
> No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
> conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is engaging in
> serious honest discourse...
>
>
> Read a review?
>
>>Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
>>influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
>>propaganda you choose.
>>
>
>
> You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
> viewpoint.
>
>
>>>I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
>>>an informed opinion.
>>
>>Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
>>ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
>>a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
>>and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
>>
>
>
> Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
>
>
>>I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
>>those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
>>sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
>>getting tremendous word of mouth.
>>
>
>
> Blah blah blah...it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
> general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting out
> an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
>
>
>>It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
>>Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
>>influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
>>Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
>>damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
>>huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
>>worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
>>he's dead.
>>
>>
>
>
> If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with that.
> BTW...where did this Bush tried to stop it nonsense come from? Probably the
> same sources that spout that Halliburton got a no bid contract in Iraq.

Here are a few sources for the Halliburton story. When you learn
to read and think for yourself, check them out.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/06/14/news/08d53505335a65e687256eb30062a6ae.txt

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040614/pl_usnw/new_evidence_shows_cheney_continues_relationship_with_halliburton_in_violation_of_government_ethics165_xml

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040615/pl_usnw/halliburtonwatch__pentagon_broke_contract_laws_to_help_halliburton174_xml

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040615/ts_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_1

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
news:MPEEc.6400$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > "Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> > news:cbuj1c$16j9$***@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >
> >>In article <MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
> >>Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
> >>>>staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
> >
> > affected
> >
> >>>>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>>Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
> >
> > strongly
> >
> >>>>supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
> >>>>anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there
are
> >
> > a
> >
> >>>>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
> >
> > see
> >
> >>>it
> >>>
> >>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
> >
> > I
> >
> >>>am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
> >>
> >>Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
> >>noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
> >>easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
> >>you won't have any problems with that.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though
if
> > he is intentionally misleading.
> >
> >
> >>I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
> >>cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am not a
> >>>blind idealogue.
> >>
> >>Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
> >>as total propaganda?
> >
> >
> > In fact I have disputed specific points made by folks who have seen the
> > film. It is irrelevant to me whether or not the information is
portrayed on
> > film one way or the other. I have yet to find a single new point
brought up
> > regarding the film. Simply repetitive arguments that are basically
lacking
> > credibility that have been made by many before Mr. Moore.
> >
> >
> > How did you come to that conclusion?
> >
> > Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by
those
> > that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
> > one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be
needed?
> > No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
> > conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is
engaging in
> > serious honest discourse...
> >
> >
> > Read a review?
> >
> >>Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
> >>influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
> >>propaganda you choose.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
> > viewpoint.
> >
> >
> >>>I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
> >>>an informed opinion.
> >>
> >>Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
> >>ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
> >>a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
> >>and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
> >
> >
> >>I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
> >>those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
> >>sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
> >>getting tremendous word of mouth.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Blah blah blah...it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
> > general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting
out
> > an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
> >
> >
> >>It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
> >>Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
> >>influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
> >>Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
> >>damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
> >>huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
> >>worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
> >>he's dead.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with
that.
> > BTW...where did this Bush tried to stop it nonsense come from? Probably
the
> > same sources that spout that Halliburton got a no bid contract in Iraq.
>
> Here are a few sources for the Halliburton story. When you learn
> to read and think for yourself, check them out.
>
>
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/06/14/news/08d53505335a65e687256eb30062a6ae.txt
>
>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040614/pl_usnw/new_evidence_shows_cheney_continues_relationship_with_halliburton_in_violation_of_government_ethics165_xml
>
>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040615/pl_usnw/halliburtonwatch__pentagon_broke_contract_laws_to_help_halliburton174_xml
>
>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040615/ts_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_1
>

Interestingly enough it is virtually all the same report basically from
hysterical Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman who has been screaming
misinformation on these so called no bid contracts with Halliburton for more
then a year. And you tell me to think for myself...idiot.

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> news:MPEEc.6400$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:cbuj1c$16j9$***@agate.berkeley.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
>>>>Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
>>>>>>staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
>>>
>>>affected
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
>>>
>>>strongly
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
>>>>>>anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there
>
> are
>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
>>>
>>>see
>>>
>>>
>>>>>it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
>>>
>>>I
>>>
>>>
>>>>>am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
>>>>
>>>>Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
>>>>noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot be
>>>>easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm sure
>>>>you won't have any problems with that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though
>
> if
>
>>>he is intentionally misleading.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I found much of the manipulation to be quite distasteful, but there's
>>>>cold hard fact in there that's not easy to explain away.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am not a
>>>>>blind idealogue.
>>>>
>>>>Except you're ready to completely dismiss a film you've not seen yet
>>>>as total propaganda?
>>>
>>>
>>>In fact I have disputed specific points made by folks who have seen the
>>>film. It is irrelevant to me whether or not the information is
>
> portrayed on
>
>>>film one way or the other. I have yet to find a single new point
>
> brought up
>
>>>regarding the film. Simply repetitive arguments that are basically
>
> lacking
>
>>>credibility that have been made by many before Mr. Moore.
>>>
>>>
>>> How did you come to that conclusion?
>>>
>>>Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by
>
> those
>
>>>that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
>>>one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be
>
> needed?
>
>>>No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
>>>conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is
>
> engaging in
>
>>>serious honest discourse...
>>>
>>>
>>> Read a review?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
>>>>influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
>>>>propaganda you choose.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
>>>viewpoint.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
>>>>>an informed opinion.
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
>>>>ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
>>>>a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
>>>>and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
>>>>those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
>>>>sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
>>>>getting tremendous word of mouth.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Blah blah blah...it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
>>>general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting
>
> out
>
>>>an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It may be, "just a movie," so to speak, but like Hearst found out with
>>>>Citizen Kane, the entertainment media is usually more powerful at
>>>>influencing people than real news. I completely understand why
>>>>Bush would try to stop this film, because it's obviously going to be
>>>>damaging. It's not about staunch Republicans being swayed, it's the
>>>>huge chunk of people who are among the swing voters who Bush is
>>>>worried about. And let's not kid ourselves, without the swing voters
>>>>he's dead.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with
>
> that.
>
>>>BTW...where did this Bush tried to stop it nonsense come from? Probably
>
> the
>
>>>same sources that spout that Halliburton got a no bid contract in Iraq.
>>
>>Here are a few sources for the Halliburton story. When you learn
>>to read and think for yourself, check them out.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/06/14/news/08d53505335a65e687256eb30062a6ae.txt
>
>>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040614/pl_usnw/new_evidence_shows_cheney_continues_relationship_with_halliburton_in_violation_of_government_ethics165_xml
>
>>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040615/pl_usnw/halliburtonwatch__pentagon_broke_contract_laws_to_help_halliburton174_xml
>
>>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040615/ts_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_1
>
>
> Interestingly enough it is virtually all the same report basically from
> hysterical Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman who has been screaming
> misinformation on these so called no bid contracts with Halliburton for more
> then a year. And you tell me to think for myself...idiot.

So if pretty much every major newspaper and media outlet
reports the story, and one neoconservative moron doesn't
like to hear it, it becomes misinformation? LOL. Try again,
knuckle-dragger.

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:MvmdndMLVZm2in7dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> news:cbuj1c$16j9$***@agate.berkeley.edu...
>> In article <MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
>> Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >> You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>> >> several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
>> >> deeply
> affected
>> >> by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
>> >> vote
> for
>> >> Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
> strongly
>> >> supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand -
>> >> not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that
>> >> there are
> a
>> >> hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse
>> >> to
> see
>> >it
>> >> than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>> >> chance.
>> >>
>> >
>> >"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
>> >So?
> I
>> >am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
>>
>> Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
>> noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot
>> be easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm
>> sure you won't have any problems with that.
>>
>
> I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument
> though if he is intentionally misleading.
>
But it does not diminish Bush's argument that he is intentionally
misleading?


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@130.133.1.4...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:MvmdndMLVZm2in7dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>
> >
> > "Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> > news:cbuj1c$16j9$***@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >> In article <MtCdnWKYWuPDVX_dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
> >> Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
> >> >> several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
> >> >> deeply
> > affected
> >> >> by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
> >> >> vote
> > for
> >> >> Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
> > strongly
> >> >> supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand -
> >> >> not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that
> >> >> there are
> > a
> >> >> hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse
> >> >> to
> > see
> >> >it
> >> >> than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
> >> >> chance.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
> >> >So?
> > I
> >> >am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
> >>
> >> Problem is, while there are clearly parts of the movie that are quite
> >> noticeably manipulative, there's a lot of factual stuff that cannot
> >> be easily dismissed. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, I'm
> >> sure you won't have any problems with that.
> >>
> >
> > I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument
> > though if he is intentionally misleading.
> >
> But it does not diminish Bush's argument that he is intentionally
> misleading?
>

Que?

v/r Beau

[unknown]

In article <MvmdndMLVZm2in7dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though if
>he is intentionally misleading.

Think of it as an editorial, with some backing facts. Disagreeing
with the opinion in the editorial does not diminish the validity of
any facts presented.

>> How did you come to that conclusion?
>
>Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by those
>that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
>one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be needed?

Call me crazy, but I still prefer to see things for myself and then
draw conclusions. I've seen far too many discussions and reviews
that led me to think a film was a certain way, only to find I had a
completely different take when I saw it myself.

>No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
>conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is engaging in
>serious honest discourse...

He's not, he's presenting his opinion. That he uses manipulative
methods at times doesn't mean the whole thing is garbage, any more
than the fact that you took a little dig at me later in your post
means that your opinions in the rest of the post are completely without
merit.

>> Read a review?
>> Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
>> influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
>> propaganda you choose.
>
>You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
>viewpoint.

And the film is Moore's viewpoint. But I guess since his viewpoint is
distributed over a broader audience than most people, it qualifies as
propaganda? It can't just be a matter of manipulation, because lots
of people discussing it around here gladly twist facts to suit their
purposes.

>> >I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
>> >an informed opinion.
>>
>> Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
>> ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
>> a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
>> and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
>
>Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.

"The likes of you..." Yup, you sure seem interested in honest discourse
yourself.

You're in the dark because you're discussing a film you've not seen.
If I read the Cliff Notes to a book, and I go to a book discussion,
I would definitely say I was in the dark even though I might know the
bare bones idea of the thing, and maybe even know enough to bluff my
way through it like I knew what I was talking about.

>> I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
>> those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
>> sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
>> getting tremendous word of mouth.
>
>Blah blah blah...

Yes, when presented with something you don't like, just cover your
eyes and ears and pretend it didn't happen. Hey, I was as surprised
as anyone at the Monday night crowd.

>it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
>general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting out
>an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.

Only one of the more popular Anne Rice movies. Whether you hate the
movie or not, you can't deny that it drew pretty darn well considering
its, "limited audience." Besides, we're not exactly talking about
the audience for an inscrutable arthouse flick; $24 mil is pretty decent
by any standard.

>If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with that.

You mean like when all politicians lie? Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush. Topical
fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
still does).


Max
--

[TOE]

"Max Chuang's been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou:

<snip>

> You mean like when all politicians lie? Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
> it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
> why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush. Topical
> fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
> way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
> still does).

Your thesis has one very big problem. Yes, Moore
lies in all his movies, that's well known, but what
Moore does often in F9/11 is insinuate or leave-out
important facts. Unless everyone runs to their PC
to check-out all of Moore's facts, which I am sure
they don't, the movie will remain true in the viewer's
mind.

-TOE

> Max
> --
>

[unknown]

In article <VbOdndkX3qQ_8X7dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
TOE <***@komBOINKcast.nYet> wrote:
>> Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
>> it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
>> why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush. Topical
>> fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
>> way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
>> still does).
>
>Your thesis has one very big problem. Yes, Moore
>lies in all his movies, that's well known, but what
>Moore does often in F9/11 is insinuate or leave-out
>important facts. Unless everyone runs to their PC
>to check-out all of Moore's facts, which I am sure
>they don't, the movie will remain true in the viewer's
>mind.

Um ... not sure what the "problem," is, but that's pretty much the
point I was making, which is to say that movies (and entertainment)
is more powerful in convincing people what the truth is than anything
else.


Max
--

[Chainsaw]

TOE wrote:

> "Max Chuang's been drinking since the river took Emmy-Lou:

And the powers that be left Me here to do the thinking..... :-)

>
> <snip>
>
>>You mean like when all politicians lie? Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
>>it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
>>why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush. Topical
>>fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
>>way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
>>still does).
>
>
> Your thesis has one very big problem. Yes, Moore
> lies in all his movies, that's well known, but what
> Moore does often in F9/11 is insinuate or leave-out
> important facts. Unless everyone runs to their PC
> to check-out all of Moore's facts, which I am sure
> they don't, the movie will remain true in the viewer's
> mind.

In many cases that will be true. Personally in this case
I'm glad. :-)

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:cbvhhi$1jbf$***@agate.berkeley.edu...
> In article <MvmdndMLVZm2in7dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
> Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> >I don't have problems with truth. It does diminish his argument though
if
> >he is intentionally misleading.
>
> Think of it as an editorial, with some backing facts. Disagreeing
> with the opinion in the editorial does not diminish the validity of
> any facts presented.
>
> >> How did you come to that conclusion?
> >
> >Numerous interviews that I have seen Mr. Moore engaged in, comments by
those
> >that have seen the film including in discussions such as this
> >one....reviews...um...short of seeing the thing what else would be
needed?
>
> Call me crazy, but I still prefer to see things for myself and then
> draw conclusions. I've seen far too many discussions and reviews
> that led me to think a film was a certain way, only to find I had a
> completely different take when I saw it myself.
>

OK you are crazy. (You asked). Were this a film maker who didn't have the
history and self stated intent to spread lies and misinformation for the
cause he espouses you might have a point. This in my view is as worthwhile
as paying money to go watch an Al Quaida video. Ya it is great to see the
lies for yourself...but do you really expect to gain anything from it?

> >No one is disputing the content that I am speaking about. Simply the
> >conclusions...which I hardly think is evidence that Mr. Moore is engaging
in
> >serious honest discourse...
>
> He's not, he's presenting his opinion. That he uses manipulative
> methods at times doesn't mean the whole thing is garbage, any more
> than the fact that you took a little dig at me later in your post
> means that your opinions in the rest of the post are completely without
> merit.
>

I really don't care if you think my opinions have merit or not. I know that
I am not lying. Mr. Moore lies. He does it for a living. That isn't
really in dispute. The conclusions he is pushing are faulty if he bases it
on incorrect information. I don't expect to convince the big fat liar
either. You disagree apparently but offer no actual reason.

> >> Read a review?
> >> Heard from someone who did see it? Would that not count as being
> >> influenced by someone else's propaganda? It's just a matter of whose
> >> propaganda you choose.
> >
> >You don't apparently know what propaganda is. It is not simply having a
> >viewpoint.
>
> And the film is Moore's viewpoint. But I guess since his viewpoint is
> distributed over a broader audience than most people, it qualifies as
> propaganda?

No. He fires of multiple misleading points. That is what makes it
propaganda. At least..everything that has been said about the content tells
me it is propaganda. Frankly no one is disputing the comments regarding the
content...so all of you liberals that are saying ya but go see it are as
guilty as Mr. Moore of intentionally spreading propaganda. It is quite
telling to me anyways how so many of you folks in this here corner of USENET
are willing to ok propaganda without really refuting the very misleading
nature of said propaganda simply because...you agree with that propaganda.


It can't just be a matter of manipulation, because lots
> of people discussing it around here gladly twist facts to suit their
> purposes.
>

So? Lot's of people in here are fans of various teams etc. That has
nothing to do with what I am talking about though.

> >> >I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
> >> >an informed opinion.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't seem so in this case, because regardless of whether you
> >> ultimately accept anything in the film or not, this is going to be
> >> a pretty big topic of discussion amongst a lot of people for a while,
> >> and you're choosing to remain in the dark.
> >
> >Disagreeing with the likes of you does not mean that I am in the dark.
>
> "The likes of you..." Yup, you sure seem interested in honest discourse
> yourself.
>
> You're in the dark because you're discussing a film you've not seen.

I am not in the dark on the points I am discussing....so the film is
irrelevant. You folks really have no rational argument.

> If I read the Cliff Notes to a book, and I go to a book discussion,
> I would definitely say I was in the dark even though I might know the
> bare bones idea of the thing, and maybe even know enough to bluff my
> way through it like I knew what I was talking about.
>

While that may be true, it has zero to do with anything I am talking about.

> >> I went on a Monday night to a theater that's usually quite empty on
> >> those days (I always try to avoid crowds). No dice ... place was
> >> sold out, and people were sneaking in to sit on the steps. It's
> >> getting tremendous word of mouth.
> >
> >Blah blah blah...
>
> Yes, when presented with something you don't like, just cover your
> eyes and ears and pretend it didn't happen. Hey, I was as surprised
> as anyone at the Monday night crowd.
>

No, when presented with something that hasn't got anything to do with the
point being made...that is stated as if it is relevant.....I address it
appropriately. It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement...my
like or dislike. Big freaking deal..there was a big Monday night crowd.
So? There are a lot of left wing Bush haters in the vicinity of the theatre
you went to. Color me stunned.

> >it is a movie with a limited audience that was not in
> >general distribution. You would get exactly the same effect by putting
out
> >an Anne Rice movie on less then 1000 screens.
>
> Only one of the more popular Anne Rice movies. Whether you hate the
> movie or not, you can't deny that it drew pretty darn well considering
> its, "limited audience." Besides, we're not exactly talking about
> the audience for an inscrutable arthouse flick; $24 mil is pretty decent
> by any standard.
>

The cash flow of the film is impressive sorta...it was pretty much expected.
Put Spiderman 2 on 1000 screens this weekend and it would sell out 99% of
the showings. That gross by F911 is all nice and good, it is certainly a
commercial success all things considered. I don't really see what that has
to do with what I am commenting on regarding points Mr. Moore is trying to
make.

> >If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with
that.
>
> You mean like when all politicians lie?

No, I mean exactly what I said.


Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
> it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
> why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush.

I don't recall mentioning whether or not it would swing anyone. Frankly I
doubt a movie by a known propagandist will have any real effect on the
voting public. The folks that are jumping up and down in praise of the film
almost all seem to have the same viewpoint going in as they do coming out.
And you can all cite some mysterious "staunch Republican" whose mind was
changed etc...I will simply call BS on that.

Topical
> fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
> way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
> still does).
>

More comments on stuff that has nothing to do with what you are replying to.
Congrats.

v/r Beau

[unknown]

In article <j_udnfA7X4pk7n7dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>> And the film is Moore's viewpoint. But I guess since his viewpoint is
>> distributed over a broader audience than most people, it qualifies as
>> propaganda?
>
>No. He fires of multiple misleading points. That is what makes it
>propaganda. At least..everything that has been said about the content tells
>me it is propaganda.

>Frankly no one is disputing the comments regarding the
>content...so all of you liberals that are saying ya but go see it are as
>guilty as Mr. Moore of intentionally spreading propaganda.

All what liberals? I'm certainly not one. On many issues, I'm
conservative ... which is not to say Republican, since that party has
long since abandoned true conservatism.

>It is quite
>telling to me anyways how so many of you folks in this here corner of USENET
>are willing to ok propaganda without really refuting the very misleading
>nature of said propaganda simply because...you agree with that propaganda.

That brush big enough for you?

> It can't just be a matter of manipulation, because lots
>> of people discussing it around here gladly twist facts to suit their
>> purposes.
>
>So? Lot's of people in here are fans of various teams etc. That has
>nothing to do with what I am talking about though.

I don't know what, "in here," means to you, but in asbnll political
discussion has become par for the course.

>> If I read the Cliff Notes to a book, and I go to a book discussion,
>> I would definitely say I was in the dark even though I might know the
>> bare bones idea of the thing, and maybe even know enough to bluff my
>> way through it like I knew what I was talking about.
>
>While that may be true, it has zero to do with anything I am talking about.

Not with what you're talking about, specifically, but you're not the
center of this thread, and things go off on tangents sometimes.

>> Yes, when presented with something you don't like, just cover your
>> eyes and ears and pretend it didn't happen. Hey, I was as surprised
>> as anyone at the Monday night crowd.
>
>No, when presented with something that hasn't got anything to do with the
>point being made... that is stated as if it is relevant.....I address it
>appropriately.

You've talked about how this film has such a limited audience. That
has nothing to do with the validity of the film, oh but when you want
to talk about something else it's not irrelevant. But then when
I mention attendance at the theater, it is irrelevant. Hypocrite.

>It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement...my
>like or dislike. Big freaking deal..there was a big Monday night crowd.
>So? There are a lot of left wing Bush haters in the vicinity of the theatre
>you went to. Color me stunned.

Why is that? I live in a pretty conservative neighborhood, actually.

>The cash flow of the film is impressive sorta...it was pretty much expected.
>Put Spiderman 2 on 1000 screens this weekend and it would sell out 99% of
>the showings. That gross by F911 is all nice and good, it is certainly a
>commercial success all things considered. I don't really see what that has
>to do with what I am commenting on regarding points Mr. Moore is trying to
>make.

It has to do with discussion of impact. Which you've happily participated
in, but somehow when you don't like the facts you label it irrelevant.

>> >If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with
>that.
>>
>> You mean like when all politicians lie?
>
>No, I mean exactly what I said.

Doesn't matter where the lies come from. Sorry to tell you this, but
most of what comes from both sides is lies, especially when they think
it'll get votes (and it does).

>> Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
>> it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even know
>> why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush.
>
>I don't recall mentioning whether or not it would swing anyone. Frankly I
>doubt a movie by a known propagandist will have any real effect on the
>voting public.

That might be the case if the voting public were smart. But that's
not the case.

> The folks that are jumping up and down in praise of the film
>almost all seem to have the same viewpoint going in as they do coming out.
>And you can all cite some mysterious "staunch Republican" whose mind was
>changed etc...I will simply call BS on that.

Again, it's the middle group that counts. And they have no reason
not to see the film.

> Topical
>> fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at the
>> way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
>> still does).
>
>More comments on stuff that has nothing to do with what you are replying to.
>Congrats.

Actually, it has everything to do with how this film will be accepted.
Shakespeare's Richard III was nothing more than propaganda ... yet
if you ask most people what they know of the actual king, it's
Shakespeare's portrayal that has persisted. Same with William Randolph
Hearst and Citizen Kane. I don't see why this film will be any
different, and I hate to break this to you, but the truthfulness (or
lack thereof) will have little bearing on how well it convinces people
that what is presented is true.


Max
--

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:cbvvcp$1oo8$***@agate.berkeley.edu...
> In article <j_udnfA7X4pk7n7dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
> Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> And the film is Moore's viewpoint. But I guess since his viewpoint is
> >> distributed over a broader audience than most people, it qualifies as
> >> propaganda?
> >
> >No. He fires of multiple misleading points. That is what makes it
> >propaganda. At least..everything that has been said about the content
tells
> >me it is propaganda.
>
> >Frankly no one is disputing the comments regarding the
> >content...so all of you liberals that are saying ya but go see it are as
> >guilty as Mr. Moore of intentionally spreading propaganda.
>
> All what liberals? I'm certainly not one. On many issues, I'm
> conservative ... which is not to say Republican, since that party has
> long since abandoned true conservatism.
>
> >It is quite
> >telling to me anyways how so many of you folks in this here corner of
USENET
> >are willing to ok propaganda without really refuting the very misleading
> >nature of said propaganda simply because...you agree with that
propaganda.
>
> That brush big enough for you?
>

Interesting...there was no broad brush comment..."so many of you folks" is
not a broad brush at all..it is the opposite of a broad brush statement. It
is a very specific subset of the entire community commented on.

> > It can't just be a matter of manipulation, because lots
> >> of people discussing it around here gladly twist facts to suit their
> >> purposes.
> >
> >So? Lot's of people in here are fans of various teams etc. That has
> >nothing to do with what I am talking about though.
>
> I don't know what, "in here," means to you, but in asbnll political
> discussion has become par for the course.
>

in here...meaning...the 3 newsgroups that are listed up there in the
header....see em? Up there..top of the screen?

> >> If I read the Cliff Notes to a book, and I go to a book discussion,
> >> I would definitely say I was in the dark even though I might know the
> >> bare bones idea of the thing, and maybe even know enough to bluff my
> >> way through it like I knew what I was talking about.
> >
> >While that may be true, it has zero to do with anything I am talking
about.
>
> Not with what you're talking about, specifically, but you're not the
> center of this thread, and things go off on tangents sometimes.
>

Yes and the world turns, but since you are replying to what I am saying it
would maybe be good to stay on subject at least a little.

> >> Yes, when presented with something you don't like, just cover your
> >> eyes and ears and pretend it didn't happen. Hey, I was as surprised
> >> as anyone at the Monday night crowd.
> >
> >No, when presented with something that hasn't got anything to do with the
> >point being made... that is stated as if it is relevant.....I address it
> >appropriately.
>
> You've talked about how this film has such a limited audience. That
> has nothing to do with the validity of the film, oh but when you want
> to talk about something else it's not irrelevant. But then when
> I mention attendance at the theater, it is irrelevant. Hypocrite.
>

I am not a hypocrite. It is entirely consistent for me to say the film has
a limited audience...and that your commenting on how at a particular theatre
the crowd overflowed is irrelevant. In fact they are inclusive statements.
The audience attracted to this film will overwhelmingly be fans of the
material being presented. They are a small group. How is a comment about
how there were a lot of people at a particular theater address my comments
about the points being made by the film maker? In a couple nights you will
likely see an overflow crowd at theaters around the nation for Spiderman 2.
Big deal.

> >It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement...my
> >like or dislike. Big freaking deal..there was a big Monday night crowd.
> >So? There are a lot of left wing Bush haters in the vicinity of the
theatre
> >you went to. Color me stunned.
>
> Why is that? I live in a pretty conservative neighborhood, actually.
>

So? Again....how many people does it take to fill up a theater?

> >The cash flow of the film is impressive sorta...it was pretty much
expected.
> >Put Spiderman 2 on 1000 screens this weekend and it would sell out 99% of
> >the showings. That gross by F911 is all nice and good, it is certainly a
> >commercial success all things considered. I don't really see what that
has
> >to do with what I am commenting on regarding points Mr. Moore is trying
to
> >make.
>
> It has to do with discussion of impact. Which you've happily participated
> in, but somehow when you don't like the facts you label it irrelevant.
>

Impact? The impact will be non-existent. The only people tending to agree
with Mr. Moore's points..agreed when they went into the theater. You have
said not a single thing that indicates anything about impact. Your only
offering was that there were a lot of people at the theater. A few weeks
ago I wasted a couple hours and $5.00 to go see New York get hit by a Tidal
Wave in the Day After Tomorrow...it was overtly preachy...overtly political
in it's Global Warming stuff...a month later...I know of no person who came
to a belief in the goofy science mentioned in the film. I know a lot of
folks that remember the cool 40 minute long action sequence that takes up
about the first half of the movie.

> >> >If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with
> >that.
> >>
> >> You mean like when all politicians lie?
> >
> >No, I mean exactly what I said.
>
> Doesn't matter where the lies come from. Sorry to tell you this, but
> most of what comes from both sides is lies, especially when they think
> it'll get votes (and it does).
>

I really don't care about that as regards what I am talking about here. I
am refuting points that the film maker apparently has tried to make.

> >> Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
> >> it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even
know
> >> why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush.
> >
> >I don't recall mentioning whether or not it would swing anyone. Frankly
I
> >doubt a movie by a known propagandist will have any real effect on the
> >voting public.
>
> That might be the case if the voting public were smart. But that's
> not the case.
>

Case in point...folks that believe the left wing propaganda that Mr. Moore
spews constantly.

> > The folks that are jumping up and down in praise of the film
> >almost all seem to have the same viewpoint going in as they do coming
out.
> >And you can all cite some mysterious "staunch Republican" whose mind was
> >changed etc...I will simply call BS on that.
>
> Again, it's the middle group that counts. And they have no reason
> not to see the film.
>

You are correct. The middle 15% or so are going to decide the election.
Um...they need to know the truth. The President was not on vacation 42% of
his first 8 months in office. Halliburton/KBR in fact has NOT gotten a "no
bid" contract in Iraq to provide logistical support to troops. There have
been a total of NO persons of interest listed among the 142 folks that flew
out of the country in those mysterious flights that were not very mysterious
in the days following 9/11.

> > Topical
> >> fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at
the
> >> way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
> >> still does).
> >
> >More comments on stuff that has nothing to do with what you are replying
to.
> >Congrats.
>
> Actually, it has everything to do with how this film will be accepted.
> Shakespeare's Richard III was nothing more than propaganda ... yet
> if you ask most people what they know of the actual king, it's
> Shakespeare's portrayal that has persisted. Same with William Randolph
> Hearst and Citizen Kane. I don't see why this film will be any
> different, and I hate to break this to you, but the truthfulness (or
> lack thereof) will have little bearing on how well it convinces people
> that what is presented is true.
>

I have no doubt about the power of propaganda. Which is why I and others
are speaking up about the nonsensical points Mr. Moore apparently has tried
to dupe the public into thinking. Fortunately not many people in the end
will actually go to watch this movie.

v/r Beau

[unknown]

In article <ucSdnSJcg-E1PX7dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>Interesting...there was no broad brush comment..."so many of you folks" is
>not a broad brush at all..it is the opposite of a broad brush statement. It
>is a very specific subset of the entire community commented on.

No, but it's a broad brush in that you've assumed a number of things
about me which have flat-out been wrong, and grouped me in with others
who I do not necessarily agree with on many things.

>> I don't know what, "in here," means to you, but in asbnll political
>> discussion has become par for the course.
>
>in here...meaning...the 3 newsgroups that are listed up there in the
>header....see em? Up there..top of the screen?

Right, and asbnll has a huge amount of political content, not just
sports.

>> Not with what you're talking about, specifically, but you're not the
>> center of this thread, and things go off on tangents sometimes.
>
>Yes and the world turns, but since you are replying to what I am saying it
>would maybe be good to stay on subject at least a little.

My comments on entertainment media were clearly separate at the end
and not a direct response to you.

>> You've talked about how this film has such a limited audience. That
>> has nothing to do with the validity of the film, oh but when you want
>> to talk about something else it's not irrelevant. But then when
>> I mention attendance at the theater, it is irrelevant. Hypocrite.
>
>I am not a hypocrite. It is entirely consistent for me to say the film has
>a limited audience...and that your commenting on how at a particular theatre
>the crowd overflowed is irrelevant. In fact they are inclusive statements.

So basically, you never post ANYTHING that's not directly in response
to someone else's statements? You never come up with anything new?
Must be a very restrictive way to write.

>The audience attracted to this film will overwhelmingly be fans of the
>material being presented.

Well, I sure as hell wasn't. In fact, I wasn't really all that eager to
see it at first, precisely because I knew it would be manipulative.
But in the end it did have SOME merit, and if nothing else I must admit
it was entertaining.

> They are a small group. How is a comment about
>how there were a lot of people at a particular theater address my comments
>about the points being made by the film maker?

From what I'm hearing, it's hardly just one particular theater that's
been drawing these kind of crowds, even on a weeknight.

>In a couple nights you will
>likely see an overflow crowd at theaters around the nation for Spiderman 2.
>Big deal.

Now THAT is pretty irrelevant.

>> >It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement...my
>> >like or dislike. Big freaking deal..there was a big Monday night crowd.
>> >So? There are a lot of left wing Bush haters in the vicinity of the
>theatre
>> >you went to. Color me stunned.
>>
>> Why is that? I live in a pretty conservative neighborhood, actually.
>
>So?

Hey, you brought it up. Now I presume you'd like to consider it
irrelevant again? Convenient.

> Again....how many people does it take to fill up a theater?

When you add in the people sitting on the steps, I'd say more than
usual.

>Impact? The impact will be non-existent. The only people tending to agree
>with Mr. Moore's points..agreed when they went into the theater.

Or at least you're hoping so. To state it as fact? What, are you
omniscient? You can read the minds of everyone who went to see the film?
You know for a fact only the far left went to see the film?

>You have
>said not a single thing that indicates anything about impact. Your only
>offering was that there were a lot of people at the theater.

And apparently there have been lot of people at lots of theaters. Maybe
it'll burn out by next weekend, but you don't know that.

>A few weeks
>ago I wasted a couple hours and $5.00 to go see New York get hit by a Tidal
>Wave in the Day After Tomorrow...

Hey, I was smart enough not to waste my time on that. I guess I win
this argument by default, eh?

>> Doesn't matter where the lies come from. Sorry to tell you this, but
>> most of what comes from both sides is lies, especially when they think
>> it'll get votes (and it does).
>
>I really don't care about that as regards what I am talking about here. I
>am refuting points that the film maker apparently has tried to make.

That's a cop-out. You complain about lies influencing people, then
turn around and dismiss them when they're from politicians? I'd say
it's COMPLETELY relevant, since we're (at least in part) talking about
how lies can influence people's political thinking, so how can one
simply disregard the most frequent source of propaganda, the politicians
themselves?

>Case in point...folks that believe the left wing propaganda that Mr. Moore
>spews constantly.

Funny, his left wing propaganda has in other places included ripping
Clinton's policies. While he's clearly liberal, I'd be careful about
labeling everything he says as left wing propaganda, because you might
actually find yourself in agreement with him sometime.

>> Again, it's the middle group that counts. And they have no reason
>> not to see the film.
>
>You are correct. The middle 15% or so are going to decide the election.
>Um...they need to know the truth.

But that's the problem for Bush and this film, isn't it? That people
will assume this film IS the truth. You want to talk about a limited
audience, people who read sports newsgroups for thoughts on the validity
of 9/11 ... THAT is a limited audience.

>> Shakespeare's Richard III was nothing more than propaganda ... yet
>> if you ask most people what they know of the actual king, it's
>> Shakespeare's portrayal that has persisted. Same with William Randolph
>> Hearst and Citizen Kane. I don't see why this film will be any
>> different, and I hate to break this to you, but the truthfulness (or
>> lack thereof) will have little bearing on how well it convinces people
>> that what is presented is true.
>
>I have no doubt about the power of propaganda. Which is why I and others
>are speaking up about the nonsensical points Mr. Moore apparently has tried
>to dupe the public into thinking.

It won't do any good, as history proves. People with better means
than you have tried and failed to stop entertainment from being
perceived as truth. Doesn't work. What you really need is to make your
own film.

> Fortunately not many people in the end
>will actually go to watch this movie.

Then if I were you, I'd keep quiet and hope everyone forgets about
the film. Nothing stirs up interest better than controversy.


Max
--

[Vic Romano]

mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu (Max Chuang) wrote in
news:cc186h$27gc$***@agate.berkeley.edu:

> In article <ucSdnSJcg-E1PX7dRVn-***@comcast.com>,
> Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>>Interesting...there was no broad brush comment..."so many of you
>>folks" is not a broad brush at all..it is the opposite of a broad
>>brush statement. It is a very specific subset of the entire community
>>commented on.
>
> No, but it's a broad brush in that you've assumed a number of things
> about me which have flat-out been wrong, and grouped me in with others
> who I do not necessarily agree with on many things.
>
Face it Max. Anyone who disagrees with Monsieur Bow-sham and his radical
cronies absolutely has to be a bleeding heart communist terrorist-lover.

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[l***@webtv.net]

The Establishment Media has long ago abdicated their anointed position
as arbitrers of truth- recently in Newsweek there was a poll of people
that were asked" Do you beieve all or most of what is in the NY Times?
Only 14% of folks identifying themselves as conservative said yes, &
only 31 % of liberals said they did....Jeff

[Brian Tung]

Jeff wrote:
> The Establishment Media has long ago abdicated their anointed position
> as arbitrers of truth- recently in Newsweek there was a poll of people
> that were asked" Do you beieve all or most of what is in the NY Times?
> Only 14% of folks identifying themselves as conservative said yes, &
> only 31 % of liberals said they did....Jeff

That only says what people are willing to admit. Most people would like
to appear more skeptical than they really are. When push comes to shove,
first impressions make a big difference and the first source is quite
often television. I don't know about you, but I would take the NY Times
over just about any television news report in a heartbeat.

What would be interesting is to run through a number of stories as
reported by the Times (without mentioning where they came from), and ask
those same people if they find the stories themselves credible. I bet
a greater percentage do. In my experience, most people don't critically
examine why they believe what they do. (Not to say that I do--I'd be
exactly the wrong person to ask about that!)

Brian Tung <***@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>
>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>
>>
>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
>>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
>>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
>>
>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
>>staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
>>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
>>Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
>>supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
>>anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
>>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
>
> it
>
>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
>>
>
>
> "Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So? I
> am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not a
> blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and keep
> an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd. Ya...the
> Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm.
> Tell me another.

OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
international support, and will result in the rest of the
world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
warnings about possible terrorist attacks.

Want more?

[Vic Romano]

Chainsaw <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in
news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com:

>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>
>> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>>
>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
>>>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
>>>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
>>>>easily
>>>
>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>>>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
>>>deeply affected by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I
>>>was going to vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him."
>>>This is a man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the
>>>war in Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the
>>>Pledge. You better hope that there are a hell of a lot more blind
>>>ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
>>
>> it
>>
>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>>>chance.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
>> So? I am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me.
>> I am not a blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is
>> going on and keep an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush
>> is evil crowd. Ya...the Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his
>> first 8 months in office..mmm hmmm. Tell me another.
>
> OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
> Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
> want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
> absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
> international support, and will result in the rest of the
> world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
> The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
> the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
> CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
> America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
> President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
> aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
> warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
>
No one in the BUsh administration condoned the use of torture at Abu
Ghraib or Gitmo, nor did anyone in the administration do anything to
foster an atmosphere in which such torture could occur.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >
> >>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
> >>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
> >>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
> >>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
> >>
> >>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
> >>staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
affected
> >>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
> >>Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
> >>supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
> >>anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are
a
> >>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
> >
> > it
> >
> >>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
> >>
> >
> >
> > "Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
I
> > am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not
a
> > blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and
keep
> > an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
Ya...the
> > Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm
hmmm.
> > Tell me another.
>
> OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
> Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
> want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
> absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
> international support, and will result in the rest of the
> world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
> The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
> the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
> CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
> America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
> President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
> aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
> warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
>
> Want more?
>
>

Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
>>>>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
>>>>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
>>>>
>>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
>>>>staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
>
> affected
>
>>>>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
>>>>Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
>>>>supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
>>>>anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are
>
> a
>
>>>>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see
>>>
>>>it
>>>
>>>
>>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
>
> I
>
>>>am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not
>
> a
>
>>>blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and
>
> keep
>
>>>an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
>
> Ya...the
>
>>>Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm
>
> hmmm.
>
>>>Tell me another.
>>
>>OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
>>Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
>>want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
>>absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
>>international support, and will result in the rest of the
>>world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
>>The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
>>the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
>>CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
>>America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
>>President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
>>aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
>>warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
>>
>>Want more?
>>
>>
>
>
> Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.

LOL. Of course, given that your position is utterly
untenable and devoid of any facts, your response is not
at all surprising. My "colors" are about actually reading
articles from different perspectives and trying to synthesize
the truth via actually *thinking*. Yours are about mindless
name-calling and inane attempts to co-opt the word "patriotism".

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
news:kSEEc.6401$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> > news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
> >>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
> >>>>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
> >>>>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
> >>>>
> >>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
> >>>>staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
> >
> > affected
> >
> >>>>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
for
> >>>>Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
strongly
> >>>>supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
> >>>>anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there
are
> >
> > a
> >
> >>>>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
see
> >>>
> >>>it
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
> >
> > I
> >
> >>>am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not
> >
> > a
> >
> >>>blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and
> >
> > keep
> >
> >>>an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
> >
> > Ya...the
> >
> >>>Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm
> >
> > hmmm.
> >
> >>>Tell me another.
> >>
> >>OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
> >>Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
> >>want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
> >>absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
> >>international support, and will result in the rest of the
> >>world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
> >>The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
> >>the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
> >>CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
> >>America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
> >>President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
> >>aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
> >>warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
> >>
> >>Want more?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
>
> LOL. Of course, given that your position is utterly
> untenable and devoid of any facts, your response is not
> at all surprising. My "colors" are about actually reading
> articles from different perspectives and trying to synthesize
> the truth via actually *thinking*. Yours are about mindless
> name-calling and inane attempts to co-opt the word "patriotism".
>

Ya...that sounds like me. You sure you replied to the right message?

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> news:kSEEc.6401$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
>>>news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>>>>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
>>>>>>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
>>>>>>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
>>>>>>staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply
>>>
>>>affected
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote
>
> for
>
>>>>>>Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who
>
> strongly
>
>>>>>>supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
>>>>>>anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there
>
> are
>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to
>
> see
>
>>>>>it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed. So?
>>>
>>>I
>>>
>>>
>>>>>am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am not
>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>>blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on and
>>>
>>>keep
>>>
>>>
>>>>>an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
>>>
>>>Ya...the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in office..mmm
>>>
>>>hmmm.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Tell me another.
>>>>
>>>>OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
>>>>Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
>>>>want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
>>>>absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
>>>>international support, and will result in the rest of the
>>>>world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
>>>>The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
>>>>the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
>>>>CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
>>>>America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
>>>>President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
>>>>aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
>>>>warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
>>>>
>>>>Want more?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
>>
>>LOL. Of course, given that your position is utterly
>>untenable and devoid of any facts, your response is not
>>at all surprising. My "colors" are about actually reading
>>articles from different perspectives and trying to synthesize
>>the truth via actually *thinking*. Yours are about mindless
>>name-calling and inane attempts to co-opt the word "patriotism".
>>
>
> Ya...that sounds like me. You sure you replied to the right message?

Yep. The guy who's unable to discuss the issues and prefers
to hide behind some vague undefined notion of Americanism.

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:lfydnVAYFZ_hin7dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> >
>> >>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> >>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>> >>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could
>> >>>probably have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that
>> >>>the saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
>> >>>easily
>> >>
>> >>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>> >>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
>> >>deeply
> affected
>> >>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
>> >>vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a
>> >>man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in
>> >>Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You
>> >>better hope that there are
> a
>> >>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse
>> >>to see
>> >
>> > it
>> >
>> >>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>> >>chance.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
>> > So?
> I
>> > am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am
>> > not
> a
>> > blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on
>> > and
> keep
>> > an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
> Ya...the
>> > Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in
>> > office..mmm
> hmmm.
>> > Tell me another.
>>
>> OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
>> Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
>> want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
>> absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
>> international support, and will result in the rest of the
>> world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
>> The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
>> the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
>> CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
>> America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
>> President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
>> aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
>> warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
>>
>> Want more?
>>
>>
>
> Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
>
The fact that you failed to refute a single point he made is duly noted
by thinking people.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@130.133.1.4...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:lfydnVAYFZ_hin7dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>
> >
> > "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> > news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >> >
> >> >>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >> >>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
> >> >>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could
> >> >>>probably have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that
> >> >>>the saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
> >> >>>easily
> >> >>
> >> >>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
> >> >>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
> >> >>deeply
> > affected
> >> >>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
> >> >>vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a
> >> >>man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in
> >> >>Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You
> >> >>better hope that there are
> > a
> >> >>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse
> >> >>to see
> >> >
> >> > it
> >> >
> >> >>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
> >> >>chance.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
> >> > So?
> > I
> >> > am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am
> >> > not
> > a
> >> > blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on
> >> > and
> > keep
> >> > an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
> > Ya...the
> >> > Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in
> >> > office..mmm
> > hmmm.
> >> > Tell me another.
> >>
> >> OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
> >> Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
> >> want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
> >> absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
> >> international support, and will result in the rest of the
> >> world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
> >> The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
> >> the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
> >> CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
> >> America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
> >> President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
> >> aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
> >> warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
> >>
> >> Want more?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
> >
> The fact that you failed to refute a single point he made is duly noted
> by thinking people.
>
>

The fact that the only people who will consider the perspective you are
taking are left wing extremists and Bush haters is noted. His "points" have
all been refuted...probably over 1,000 times each...by me..in USENET. There
is nothing to his nonsense.

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>
>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>news:lfydnVAYFZ_hin7dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>
>>
>>>"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
>>>news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>>>>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could
>>>>>>>probably have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that
>>>>>>>the saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly
>>>>>>>easily
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>>>>>>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have been
>>>>>>deeply
>>>
>>>affected
>>>
>>>>>>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
>>>>>>vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a
>>>>>>man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in
>>>>>>Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You
>>>>>>better hope that there are
>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>>>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse
>>>>>>to see
>>>>>
>>>>>it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>>>>>>chance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
>>>>>So?
>>>
>>>I
>>>
>>>>>am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I am
>>>>>not
>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>>blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on
>>>>>and
>>>
>>>keep
>>>
>>>>>an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
>>>
>>>Ya...the
>>>
>>>>>Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in
>>>>>office..mmm
>>>
>>>hmmm.
>>>
>>>>>Tell me another.
>>>>
>>>>OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
>>>>Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
>>>>want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
>>>>absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
>>>>international support, and will result in the rest of the
>>>>world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
>>>>The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
>>>>the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
>>>>CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
>>>>America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
>>>>President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
>>>>aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
>>>>warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
>>>>
>>>>Want more?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
>>>
>>
>>The fact that you failed to refute a single point he made is duly noted
>>by thinking people.
>>
>>
>
>
> The fact that the only people who will consider the perspective you are
> taking are left wing extremists and Bush haters is noted.

Shows how little you truly understand our country.

> His "points" have
> all been refuted...probably over 1,000 times each...by me..in USENET. There
> is nothing to his nonsense.

You're obviously unable to refute ANY of it, since you've
attempted to dismiss it as nonsense.

[Vic Romano]

Chainsaw <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in
news:i5OEc.81180$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:

>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>
>> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>>
>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>news:lfydnVAYFZ_hin7dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:***@130.133.1.4...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>>>>>>>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could
>>>>>>>>probably have generated. I assume that in wider distribution
>>>>>>>>that the saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached
>>>>>>>>fairly easily
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>>>>>>>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have
>>>>>>>been deeply
>>>>
>>>>affected
>>>>
>>>>>>>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
>>>>>>>vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a
>>>>>>>man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in
>>>>>>>Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge.
>>>>>>>You better hope that there are
>>>>
>>>>a
>>>>
>>>>>>>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse
>>>>>>>to see
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>>>>>>>chance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.
>>>>>>So?
>>>>
>>>>I
>>>>
>>>>>>am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I
>>>>>>am not
>>>>
>>>>a
>>>>
>>>>>>blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going on
>>>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>keep
>>>>
>>>>>>an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil crowd.
>>>>
>>>>Ya...the
>>>>
>>>>>>Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in
>>>>>>office..mmm
>>>>
>>>>hmmm.
>>>>
>>>>>>Tell me another.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
>>>>>Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
>>>>>want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
>>>>>absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
>>>>>international support, and will result in the rest of the
>>>>>world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
>>>>>The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
>>>>>the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
>>>>>CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
>>>>>America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
>>>>>President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
>>>>>aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
>>>>>warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Want more?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The fact that you failed to refute a single point he made is duly
>>>noted by thinking people.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The fact that the only people who will consider the perspective you
>> are taking are left wing extremists and Bush haters is noted.
>
> Shows how little you truly understand our country.
>
>> His "points" have
>> all been refuted...probably over 1,000 times each...by me..in USENET.
>> There is nothing to his nonsense.
>
> You're obviously unable to refute ANY of it, since you've
> attempted to dismiss it as nonsense.
>
>
>

Our French friend Monsieur Beauchamp (pronounces "Bow-sham") thinks that
by merely saying "He lied" he has "proven" that Moore lied. Thus, when I
say "Charles Beauchamp lied" I have catagorically refuted for all time
Monsieur Beauchamp's lies about Michael Moore.

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:WtOdnQd8OYLm6X7dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> news:lfydnVAYFZ_hin7dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
>> > news:D2EEc.6379$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> >> >
>> >> >>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> >> >>news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>> >> >>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could
>> >> >>>probably have generated. I assume that in wider distribution
>> >> >>>that the saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be
>> >> >>>reached fairly easily
>> >> >>
>> >> >>You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but
>> >> >>several staunchly republican people I know have and they have
>> >> >>been deeply
>> > affected
>> >> >>by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to
>> >> >>vote for Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a
>> >> >>man who strongly supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in
>> >> >>Iraq (beforehand - not anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge.
>> >> >>You better hope that there are
>> > a
>> >> >>hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will
>> >> >>refuse to see
>> >> >
>> >> > it
>> >> >
>> >> >>than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only
>> >> >>chance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are
>> >> > uninformed. So?
>> > I
>> >> > am not swayed by propeganda so Mr. Moore has no shot with me. I
>> >> > am not
>> > a
>> >> > blind idealogue. I just pay better attention to what is going
>> >> > on and
>> > keep
>> >> > an informed opinion. You know...unlike...the Bush is evil
>> >> > crowd.
>> > Ya...the
>> >> > Prez was on vacation 42% of the time his first 8 months in
>> >> > office..mmm
>> > hmmm.
>> >> > Tell me another.
>> >>
>> >> OK, here's a few: Iraq has WMDs and is prepared to use them.
>> >> Iraq has strong, direct ties to Al Qaeda. The people of Iraq
>> >> want us to occupy their country. The current war in Iraq is
>> >> absolutely morally justified and has a broad base of
>> >> international support, and will result in the rest of the
>> >> world praising America for its courage and its ethics.
>> >> The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with
>> >> the leak to the media last year of the name of an undercover
>> >> CIA operative. Bush has a distinguished record of service in
>> >> America's armed forces and is imminently qualified to be
>> >> President and Commander in Chief. The Bush administration
>> >> aggressively pursued OBL and Al Qaeda prior to 911 and heeded
>> >> warnings about possible terrorist attacks.
>> >>
>> >> Want more?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well your colors are clear. Nice try though.
>> >
>> The fact that you failed to refute a single point he made is duly
>> noted by thinking people.
>>
>>
>
> The fact that the only people who will consider the perspective you
> are taking are left wing extremists and Bush haters is noted. His

The fact that all you have is mindless ad hominems is noted.

> "points" have all been refuted...probably over 1,000 times each...by
> me..in USENET. There is nothing to his nonsense.
>
Simply stating "he lied" is *not* refutation. But then, you apostles of
Rush Limbaugh don't understand that. Let's try with this one: prove that
George Bush didn't take 42% of his first 8 months off on vacation.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charlie Board]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Staunch Republicans" who are swayed by propeganda are uninformed.

You can delete words 3-7 from this sentence with no loss
of accuracy.

[Chainsaw]

Vic Romano wrote:

> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:4JudnQVhgas7j3_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>
>
>>The perspective is that it did great business in it's limited
>>distribution which is about the volume limit that it could probably
>>have generated. I assume that in wider distribution that the
>>saturation point of Bush is Evil types would be reached fairly easily
>
>
> You haven't seen the movie, have you? I haven't yet either but several
> staunchly republican people I know have and they have been deeply affected
> by it. One coworker said to me: "I was convinced I was going to vote for
> Bush. Now I'm definitely not voting for him." This is a man who strongly
> supports tax-cuts, school vounchers, the war in Iraq (beforehand - not
> anymore), and "under god" in the Pledge. You better hope that there are a
> hell of a lot more blind ideologues like yourself who will refuse to see it
> than there are thinking republicans because that's Bush's only chance.

Your story is amazing and heartening. I've been pretty convinced
that the film will only galvanize those who are already
democrats or who don't like Bush. Hopefully there are a few more
repub's who are open-minded enough to see the film and then
objectively assess what they've seen.

[Peter L]

"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@130.133.1.4...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:***@comcast.com:
>
> >
> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >> news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >> >> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >> >> right
> >> > wing
> >> >> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >> >> beating
> >> > even
> >> >> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> >> > quadroplegic.
> >> >
> >> > Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> >> > that is Spiderman 2.
> >> >
> >> And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >
> > Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does $50m
> > the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
> >
> Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
> "family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
>

Republicans don't mind violence, they just can't stand sex.

> --
> Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Vic Romano]

"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:***@uni-berlin.de:

>
> "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> news:***@comcast.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@130.133.1.4...
>> >> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> >> news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>> >> >> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the
>> >> >> other right
>> >> > wing
>> >> >> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>> >> >> beating
>> >> > even
>> >> >> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
>> >> > blind quadroplegic.
>> >> >
>> >> > Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
>> >> > steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
>> >> >
>> >> And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>> >
>> > Until the next megablockbuster thingy comes out. I bet it does
>> > $50m the first weekend though. Maybe $200m this summer.
>> >
>> Hm. Do you expect it to be a rather violent movie? Do you expect that
>> "family-values" republicans will throw hissy-fits over it?
>>
>
> Republicans don't mind violence, they just can't stand sex.
>
Right, thanks.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Dennis]

Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
SH^H^H^H STUFF:

>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>
>>
>> "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>>> right
>> wing
>>> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>>> beating
>> even
>>> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>>
>>
>> That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>> quadroplegic.
>>
>> Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>> that is Spiderman 2.
>>
>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?

until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
couple weeks.


----

"the glass is not only half full,
the first half has been delicious!!!"

to reply: scrape off the end bits...

[I am Jack's utter apathy]

Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red herring.
I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them all
by getting myself "slightly" killed:
> Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
> SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>
> >"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >
> >>
> >> "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >>> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >>> right
> >> wing
> >>> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >>> beating
> >> even
> >>> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> >> quadroplegic.
> >>
> >> Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> >> that is Spiderman 2.
> >>
> >And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>
> until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
> couple weeks.
>

Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens will
be a rather large mistake.

--
TO
"Ah, now there's a machiavellian countenance... ooh, a sextet of ale!"-
Homer Simpson

[Randolph M. Jones]

I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
> Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red herring.
> I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
> bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them all
> by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>
>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>
>>
>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>
>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>>>>>right
>>>>
>>>>wing
>>>>
>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>>>>>beating
>>>>
>>>>even
>>>>
>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>>>>quadroplegic.
>>>>
>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>
>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>>couple weeks.
>>
>
>
> Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
> either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens will
> be a rather large mistake.
>

What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
etc.?

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
news:***@colby.edu...
> I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
> > Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
herring.
> > I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
> > bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
all
> > by getting myself "slightly" killed:
> >
> >>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
> >>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>>
> >>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >>>>>right
> >>>>
> >>>>wing
> >>>>
> >>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >>>>>beating
> >>>>
> >>>>even
> >>>>
> >>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> >>>>quadroplegic.
> >>>>
> >>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> >>>>that is Spiderman 2.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >>
> >>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
> >>couple weeks.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
> > either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
will
> > be a rather large mistake.
> >
>
> What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
> etc.?
>

Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted your
children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to destroy
America in the name of France.

v/r Beau

[Vic Romano]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:SrydnRq307UJXH_dRVn-***@comcast.com:

>
> "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> news:***@colby.edu...
>> I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
>> > Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
> herring.
>> > I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
>> > bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint
>> > them
> all
>> > by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>> >
>> >>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to
>> >>this SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> >>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>> >>>>>right
>> >>>>
>> >>>>wing
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>> >>>>>beating
>> >>>>
>> >>>>even
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
>> >>>>blind quadroplegic.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
>> >>>>steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>> >>
>> >>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>> >>couple weeks.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda
>> > show either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000
>> > screens
> will
>> > be a rather large mistake.
>> >
>>
>> What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
>> etc.?
>>
>
> Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
> your children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways
> to destroy America in the name of France.
>
Excellent satire.


--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Vic Romano" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@130.133.1.4...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:SrydnRq307UJXH_dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>
> >
> > "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> > news:***@colby.edu...
> >> I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
> >> > Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
> > herring.
> >> > I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
> >> > bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint
> >> > them
> > all
> >> > by getting myself "slightly" killed:
> >> >
> >> >>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to
> >> >>this SH^H^H^H STUFF:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >> >>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >> >>>>>right
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>wing
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >> >>>>>beating
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>even
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
> >> >>>>blind quadroplegic.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
> >> >>>>steamroller that is Spiderman 2.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >> >>
> >> >>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
> >> >>couple weeks.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda
> >> > show either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000
> >> > screens
> > will
> >> > be a rather large mistake.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
> >> etc.?
> >>
> >
> > Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
> > your children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways
> > to destroy America in the name of France.
> >
> Excellent satire.
>

I liked it quite well.

v/r Beau

[Randolph M. Jones]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> news:***@colby.edu...
>
>>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
>>
>>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
>>
> herring.
>
>>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
>>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
>>
> all
>
>>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
>>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>>>>>>>right
>>>>>>
>>>>>>wing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>>>>>>>beating
>>>>>>
>>>>>>even
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>>>>>>quadroplegic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>>>
>>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>>>>couple weeks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
>>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
>>
> will
>
>>>be a rather large mistake.
>>>
>>
>>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
>>etc.?
>>
>
>
> Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted your
> children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to destroy
> America in the name of France.

Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
check.

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
news:***@colby.edu...
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> > "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> > news:***@colby.edu...
> >
> >>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
> >>
> >>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
> >>
> > herring.
> >
> >>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
> >>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
> >>
> > all
> >
> >>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
> >>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >>>>>>>right
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>wing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >>>>>>>beating
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>even
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> >>>>>>quadroplegic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> >>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >>>>
> >>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
> >>>>couple weeks.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
> >>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
> >>
> > will
> >
> >>>be a rather large mistake.
> >>>
> >>
> >>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
> >>etc.?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your
> > children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
destroy
> > America in the name of France.
>
> Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
> check.
>

How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?

v/r Beau

[Randolph M. Jones]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> news:***@colby.edu...
>
>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:***@colby.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
>>>>
>>>herring.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
>>>>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
>>>>
>>>all
>>>
>>>
>>>>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
>>>>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>>>>>>>>>right
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>>>>>>>>>beating
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>even
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>>>>>>>>quadroplegic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>>>>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>>>>>>couple weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
>>>>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
>>>>
>>>will
>>>
>>>
>>>>>be a rather large mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
>>>>etc.?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
>>
> your
>
>>>children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
>>
> destroy
>
>>>America in the name of France.
>>
>>Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
>>check.
>>
>
>
> How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?

I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
news:***@colby.edu...
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> > "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> > news:***@colby.edu...
> >
> >>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@colby.edu...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
> >>>>
> >>>herring.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
> >>>>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
> >>>>
> >>>all
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to
this
> >>>>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >>>>>>>>>right
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>wing
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >>>>>>>>>beating
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>even
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> >>>>>>>>quadroplegic.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> >>>>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
> >>>>>>couple weeks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
> >>>>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
> >>>>
> >>>will
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>be a rather large mistake.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
> >>>>etc.?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
> >>
> > your
> >
> >>>children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
> >>
> > destroy
> >
> >>>America in the name of France.
> >>
> >>Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
> >>check.
> >>
> >
> >
> > How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?
>
> I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
>

You should cross over to the dark side and become a Conservaf*ck
Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's more betterer then Methadone
commie.

v/r Beau

[Randolph M. Jones]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> news:***@colby.edu...
>
>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:***@colby.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@colby.edu...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
>>>>>>
>>>>>herring.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
>>>>>>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
>>>>>>
>>>>>all
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to
>>>>>>>
> this
>
>>>>>>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>>>>>>>>>>>right
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>>>>>>>>>>>beating
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>even
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>>>>>>>>>>quadroplegic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>>>>>>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>>>>>>>>couple weeks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
>>>>>>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
>>>>>>
>>>>>will
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>be a rather large mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
>>>>>>etc.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
>>>>
>>>your
>>>
>>>
>>>>>children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
>>>>
>>>destroy
>>>
>>>
>>>>>America in the name of France.
>>>>
>>>>Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
>>>>check.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?
>>
>>I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
>>
>
>
> You should cross over to the dark side and become a Conservaf*ck
> Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's more betterer then Methadone
> commie.

Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I aborted my gay
lover's babies?

[Clockwork Orange]

Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu>!

>>>>>Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get
>>>>>my welfare check.
>>>>
>>>>How will you have any left after you go buy your crack
>>>>cocaine?
>>>
>>>I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
>>
>> You should cross over to the dark side and become a
>> Conservaf*ck Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's
>> more betterer then Methadone commie.
>
> Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I aborted
> my gay lover's babies?

The way you're just rearing up on your hind legs like that! That's
terrific! So what if you suck a little cock every once in a while!
That's TERRIFIC!

($1 to Rhonda)

--
Cheers,
--Jeff

Just remember: You can't spell "cunt" without "CU."
--Czar Drooling Simpleton I

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Clockwork Orange" <***@my_email.com> wrote in message
news:***@69.56.199.58...
> Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
> "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu>!
>
> >>>>>Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get
> >>>>>my welfare check.
> >>>>
> >>>>How will you have any left after you go buy your crack
> >>>>cocaine?
> >>>
> >>>I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
> >>
> >> You should cross over to the dark side and become a
> >> Conservaf*ck Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's
> >> more betterer then Methadone commie.
> >
> > Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I aborted
> > my gay lover's babies?
>
> The way you're just rearing up on your hind legs like that! That's
> terrific! So what if you suck a little cock every once in a while!
> That's TERRIFIC!
>
> ($1 to Rhonda)
>

Excuse me, but this Rhonda...is she hawt?

v/r Beau

[Clockwork Orange]

Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net>!

> "Clockwork Orange" <***@my_email.com> wrote in message
> news:***@69.56.199.58...
>> Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
>> "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu>!
>>
>> >>>>>Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I
>> >>>>>get my welfare check.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>How will you have any left after you go buy your crack
>> >>>>cocaine?
>> >>>
>> >>>I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
>> >>
>> >> You should cross over to the dark side and become a
>> >> Conservaf*ck Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's
>> >> more betterer then Methadone commie.
>> >
>> > Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I
>> > aborted my gay lover's babies?
>>
>> The way you're just rearing up on your hind legs like that!
>> That's terrific! So what if you suck a little cock every once
>> in a while! That's TERRIFIC!
>>
>> ($1 to Rhonda)
>
> Excuse me, but this Rhonda...is she hawt?

She used to be, but lately she's taken to tying her hair up in a
severe bun and sticking her fountain pen up her ass, so you
figure it out.

--
Cheers,
--Jeff

"Now, just hold on there, buddy! Let's be serious!
The toilet training of exalted religious
personalities is not our primary topic of discussion!"
--Harry in "ThingFish"

[Chainsaw]

Clockwork Orange wrote:

> Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
> "Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net>!
>
>
>>"Clockwork Orange" <***@my_email.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@69.56.199.58...
>>
>>>Yer mother was a hamster and yer father smelt of elderberries,
>>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu>!
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I
>>>>>>>>get my welfare check.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How will you have any left after you go buy your crack
>>>>>>>cocaine?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
>>>>>
>>>>>You should cross over to the dark side and become a
>>>>>Conservaf*ck Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's
>>>>>more betterer then Methadone commie.
>>>>
>>>>Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I
>>>>aborted my gay lover's babies?
>>>
>>>The way you're just rearing up on your hind legs like that!
>>>That's terrific! So what if you suck a little cock every once
>>>in a while! That's TERRIFIC!
>>>
>>>($1 to Rhonda)
>>
>>Excuse me, but this Rhonda...is she hawt?
>
>
> She used to be, but lately she's taken to tying her hair up in a
> severe bun and sticking her fountain pen up her ass, so you
> figure it out.

JPEG! MPEG! :-)

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
news:***@colby.edu...
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> > "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> > news:***@colby.edu...
> >
> >>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@colby.edu...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:***@colby.edu...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>herring.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
> >>>>>>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint
them
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>all
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to
> >>>>>>>
> > this
> >
> >>>>>>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the
other
> >>>>>>>>>>>right
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>wing
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >>>>>>>>>>>beating
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>even
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a
blind
> >>>>>>>>>>quadroplegic.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the
steamroller
> >>>>>>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
> >>>>>>>>couple weeks.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda
show
> >>>>>>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000
screens
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>will
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>be a rather large mistake.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy
schedules,
> >>>>>>etc.?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
> >>>>
> >>>your
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
> >>>>
> >>>destroy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>America in the name of France.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yeahbut I can't afford to see the movie until *after* I get my welfare
> >>>>check.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How will you have any left after you go buy your crack cocaine?
> >>
> >>I get free methadone from the clinic, silly.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You should cross over to the dark side and become a Conservaf*ck
> > Republikook. Then you'll get Oxicontin. It's more betterer then
Methadone
> > commie.
>
> Will they give me that for free even after I tell them I aborted my gay
> lover's babies?
>

As long as you say you love the Bush you can be gubernator of a large west
coast state

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> news:***@colby.edu...
>
>>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
>>
>>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
>
> herring.
>
>>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
>>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
>
> all
>
>>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
>>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>>>>>>>right
>>>>>>
>>>>>>wing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>>>>>>>beating
>>>>>>
>>>>>>even
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>>>>>>quadroplegic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>>>
>>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>>>>couple weeks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
>>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
>
> will
>
>>>be a rather large mistake.
>>>
>>
>>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
>>etc.?
>>
>
>
> Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted your
> children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to destroy
> America in the name of France.

And most of you Bush supporters are Neanderthal nuckle-dragging
fascist jarhead morons who have the critical thinking skills of
a stapling machine.

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
news:FODEc.6372$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > "Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> > news:***@colby.edu...
> >
> >>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
> >>
> >>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
> >
> > herring.
> >
> >>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
> >>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
> >
> > all
> >
> >>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
> >>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >>>>>>>right
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>wing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >>>>>>>beating
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>even
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> >>>>>>quadroplegic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> >>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >>>>
> >>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
> >>>>couple weeks.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
> >>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
> >
> > will
> >
> >>>be a rather large mistake.
> >>>
> >>
> >>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
> >>etc.?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
your
> > children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
destroy
> > America in the name of France.
>
> And most of you Bush supporters are Neanderthal nuckle-dragging
> fascist jarhead morons who have the critical thinking skills of
> a stapling machine.
>

Most of you Bush haters are whiny wannabe intellectuals with the wisdom of a
cotton swab waiting for any chance to sell the country out in the name of
your simplistic fascism.

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> news:FODEc.6372$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:***@colby.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
>>>
>>>herring.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
>>>>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
>>>
>>>all
>>>
>>>
>>>>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
>>>>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>>>>>>>>>right
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>>>>>>>>>beating
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>even
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>>>>>>>>quadroplegic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>>>>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>>>>>>couple weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
>>>>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
>>>
>>>will
>>>
>>>
>>>>>be a rather large mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
>>>>etc.?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
>
> your
>
>>>children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
>
> destroy
>
>>>America in the name of France.
>>
>>And most of you Bush supporters are Neanderthal nuckle-dragging
>>fascist jarhead morons who have the critical thinking skills of
>>a stapling machine.
>>
>
>
> Most of you Bush haters are whiny wannabe intellectuals with the wisdom of a
> cotton swab waiting for any chance to sell the country out in the name of
> your simplistic fascism.

This criticism couldn't possibly be valid since you can't define
half the words you're using.

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
news:RVEEc.6404$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> > news:FODEc.6372$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@colby.edu...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
> >>>
> >>>herring.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
> >>>>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
> >>>
> >>>all
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to
this
> >>>>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
> >>>>>>>>>right
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>wing
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
> >>>>>>>>>beating
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>even
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> >>>>>>>>quadroplegic.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
> >>>>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
> >>>>>>couple weeks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
> >>>>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
> >>>
> >>>will
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>be a rather large mistake.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
> >>>>etc.?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
> >
> > your
> >
> >>>children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
> >
> > destroy
> >
> >>>America in the name of France.
> >>
> >>And most of you Bush supporters are Neanderthal nuckle-dragging
> >>fascist jarhead morons who have the critical thinking skills of
> >>a stapling machine.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Most of you Bush haters are whiny wannabe intellectuals with the wisdom
of a
> > cotton swab waiting for any chance to sell the country out in the name
of
> > your simplistic fascism.
>
> This criticism couldn't possibly be valid since you can't define
> half the words you're using.
>

Hey sockpuppet...you stay outa our game til you learn the damn roolz.

v/r Beau

[Chainsaw]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:

> "Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
> news:RVEEc.6404$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Chainsaw" <i'***@mywitsend.net> wrote in message
>>>news:FODEc.6372$***@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Randolph M. Jones" <***@colby.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@colby.edu...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am Jack's utter apathy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
>>>>>
>>>>>herring.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
>>>>>>>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them
>>>>>
>>>>>all
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to
>
> this
>
>>>>>>>>SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>>>>>>>>>>>right
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>>>>>>>>>>>beating
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>even
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>>>>>>>>>>quadroplegic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>>>>>>>>>>that is Spiderman 2.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>>>>>>>>couple weeks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
>>>>>>>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
>>>>>
>>>>>will
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>be a rather large mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What, you don't think we Bush-haters have work, kids, busy schedules,
>>>>>>etc.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Most of you Bush hates are socialists who don't work, either aborted
>>>
>>>your
>>>
>>>
>>>>>children or are gay and spend all of your time looking for ways to
>>>
>>>destroy
>>>
>>>
>>>>>America in the name of France.
>>>>
>>>>And most of you Bush supporters are Neanderthal nuckle-dragging
>>>>fascist jarhead morons who have the critical thinking skills of
>>>>a stapling machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Most of you Bush haters are whiny wannabe intellectuals with the wisdom
>
> of a
>
>>>cotton swab waiting for any chance to sell the country out in the name
>
> of
>
>>>your simplistic fascism.
>>
>>This criticism couldn't possibly be valid since you can't define
>>half the words you're using.
>>
>
>
> Hey sockpuppet...you stay outa our game til you learn the damn roolz.

Translation: You're getting too upset about the fact that you've
been made to look like an utter moron, so you're attempting to
resort to the neocon standard mode of discourse: bullying.
Sorry little boy, but this isn't your sandbox.

[Vic Romano]

I am Jack's utter apathy <***@hcetirema.gnet> wrote in
news:***@news.det.sbcglobal.net:

> Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
> herring. I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and
> several bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to
> disappoint them all by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>> Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to
>> this SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>
>> >"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> >news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>> >>> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>> >>> right
>> >> wing
>> >>> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>> >>> beating
>> >> even
>> >>> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>> >> quadroplegic.
>> >>
>> >> Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>> >> that is Spiderman 2.
>> >>
>> >And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>
>> until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>> couple weeks.
>>
>
> Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
> either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
> will be a rather large mistake.
>

They are still lining up around the block at my local theater. I think
you are wrong and in for a surprise. Good day Mr. Kaplan.

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

[John Rogers]

Hey Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com>! I'm not 'Knifey-Boy'. I'm
not 'Stab-Man'. I'm The Blue Raja.

>I am Jack's utter apathy <***@hcetirema.gnet> wrote in
>news:***@news.det.sbcglobal.net:
>
>> Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red
>> herring. I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and
>> several bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to
>> disappoint them all by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>>> Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to
>>> this SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>>
>>> >"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>>> >news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>> >>> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>>> >>> right
>>> >> wing
>>> >>> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>>> >>> beating
>>> >> even
>>> >>> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>>> >> quadroplegic.
>>> >>
>>> >> Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>>> >> that is Spiderman 2.
>>> >>
>>> >And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>>
>>> until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>>> couple weeks.
>>>
>>
>> Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
>> either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens
>> will be a rather large mistake.
>>
>
>They are still lining up around the block at my local theater. I think
>you are wrong and in for a surprise. Good day Mr. Kaplan.

Dood, stop defaming the name. Vic and Kenny are Republicans without a
doubt.


John Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta

"I will choose a path thats clear.
I will choose free will."

[Dennis]

I am Jack's utter apathy <***@hcetirema.gnet> encouraged me to
rspond to this SH^H^H^H STUFF:

>Now you listen to me, "Dennis"-I'm an advertising man, not a red herring.
>I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several
>bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them all
>by getting myself "slightly" killed:
>> Vic Romano <***@hotmail.com> encouraged me to rspond to this
>> SH^H^H^H STUFF:
>>
>> >"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
>> >news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>> >>> Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other
>> >>> right
>> >> wing
>> >>> dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
>> >>> beating
>> >> even
>> >>> White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>> >> quadroplegic.
>> >>
>> >> Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller
>> >> that is Spiderman 2.
>> >>
>> >And how many weeks do you think Spiderman 2 will stay on top?
>>
>> until F 9/11 opens in the 2000+screens it's scheduled to get in a
>> couple weeks.
>>
>
>Pretty much everyone who wants to see Moore's little propaganda show
>either already has or will next weekend. Opening it on 2000 screens will
>be a rather large mistake.

I don't know, the majority of these other theaters are bound to be in
Rural America, where most of the red counties were in 2000... might be
interesting...


----

"the glass is not only half full,
the first half has been delicious!!!"

to reply: scrape off the end bits...

[Peter L]

"Charles Beauchamp" <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:3pidnVNGs4lZ6n3dRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> > Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
> wing
> > dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
> even
> > White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >
>
> That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> quadroplegic.

I am not bragging and I don't know what a quadroplegic is. But without the
constant right wing whining, do you really think a documentary showing in
limited release will ever beat out a main stream major release?

Hoop Dreams, one of the best documentaries I've seen, don't get much
audience until word or mouth gets going.

>
> Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that is
> Spiderman 2.
>
> v/r Beau
>
> >
> > "s_knight8" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cbkumf$***@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
> > >
> > > Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
> > > Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
> > > David Bossie
> > > President, Citizens United
> > > Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President
> Bush?
> > >
> > > David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy
> group,
> > > thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
> > > Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The
> > group
> > > alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to
> the
> > > restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.
> > >
> > > "Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election,"
> Bossie
> > > said.
> > >
> > > Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives
a
> > > thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.
> > >
> > >
> > > A transcript follows.
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________
> > >
> > > washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
> > > washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
> > > organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
> > > Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
> > > campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised
or
> > > seen?
> > >
> > > David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First
> off,
> > > we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation
of
> > his
> > > so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
> > > Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets
the
> > > facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track
> > record
> > > of credibility.
> > >
> > > We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission
> > claiming
> > > that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering
communications"
> > as
> > > defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.
> > >
> > > These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a
federal
> > > candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.
> > >
> > > All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits
> my
> > > free speech as well as Michael Moore's.
> > >
> > > Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July
> > 31st.
> > > 2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal,
and
> > 3.
> > > He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.
> > >
> > > People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.
> > >
> > > _______________________
> > >
> > > Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that
President
> > Bush
> > > has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the
voters
> > > over his record?
> > >
> > > David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's
> > leader
> > > in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
> > > corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.
> > >
> > > This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd
will
> > > rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it
> as
> > > well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a
> > journalist.
> > > Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from
office.
>
> > >
> > > _______________________
> > >
> > >
> > > Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning
that
> he
> > > has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never
> > voted
> > > is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?
> > >
> > > David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting,
> it's
> > an
> > > essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.
> > >
> > > However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a
good
> > > story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Galactus]

> I am not bragging and I don't know what a quadroplegic is. But without the
> constant right wing whining, do you really think a documentary showing in
> limited release will ever beat out a main stream major release?


If you liked 'Hoop Dreams,' check out "Go Tigers."

--


remove 'XXX" to reply.

[Charlie Board]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
>
> wing
>
>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
>
> even
>
>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>
>
>
> That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> quadroplegic.
>
> Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that is
> Spiderman 2.

Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.

>
> v/r Beau
>
>
>>"s_knight8" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:cbkumf$***@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3419-2004Jun24.html
>>>
>>>Fahrenheit 9/11: Thumbs Down
>>>Violates Federal Election Campaign Act
>>>David Bossie
>>>President, Citizens United
>>>Friday, June 25, 2004; 12:00 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>Is Moore using the film as a political campaign to defeat President
>>
> Bush?
>
>>>David Bossie, president of Citizens United, a conservative advocacy
>>
> group,
>
>>>thinks so and has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election
>>>Commission and other federal government agencies against the film. The
>>
>>group
>>
>>>alleges that paid broadcast advertisements for the film are subject to
>>
> the
>
>>>restrictions and regulatory requirements of federal campaign law.
>>>
>>>"Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election,"
>>
> Bossie
>
>>>said.
>>>
>>>Bossie was online Friday, June 25 at Noon ET, to discuss why he gives a
>>>thumbs down to the Michael Moore film.
>>>
>>>
>>>A transcript follows.
>>>
>>>________________________________________________
>>>
>>>washingtonpost.com: David Bossie, thanks for being with us today on
>>>washingtonpost.com. Fahrenheit 9/11, the Michael Moore movie ... Your
>>>organization, Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal
>>>Election Commission claiming that the marketing of the film violates
>>>campaign laws. Are you trying to stop the movie from being advertised or
>>>seen?
>>>
>>>David Bossie: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for having me today. First
>>
> off,
>
>>>we know Michael Moore's intention, his ultimate goal, in the creation of
>>
>>his
>>
>>>so-called movie, is to defeat President George W. Bush for reelection.
>>>Secondly, we also know that Michael Moore as a director, never lets the
>>>facts get in the way of a good story. He doesn't exactly have a track
>>
>>record
>>
>>>of credibility.
>>>
>>>We filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Election Commission
>>
>>claiming
>>
>>>that the advertisements for the film are "electioneering communications"
>>
>>as
>>
>>>defined in "McCain-Feingold" and upheld by the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>These advertisements use the name, likeness, image or photo of a federal
>>>candidate for office. That can be President Bush or John Kerry.
>>>
>>>All we want is Michael Moore to follow the law. McCain-Feingold limits
>>
> my
>
>>>free speech as well as Michael Moore's.
>>>
>>>Let's be clear. 1. They are not a violation today, but will be on July
>>
>>31st.
>>
>>>2. He is using corporate money to pay for his ads, which is illegal, and
>>
>>3.
>>
>>>He is using foreign money to pay for these ads, which is illegal.
>>>
>>>People can read our actual complaint on our Web site, Citizens United.
>>>
>>>_______________________
>>>
>>>Washington, D.C.: What are you so afraid of? If you feel that President
>>
>>Bush
>>
>>>has done a great job in office, then why would one movie sway the voters
>>>over his record?
>>>
>>>David Bossie: President Bush has done an amazing job as our nation's
>>
>>leader
>>
>>>in this war on terror. He has had to deal with an inherited recession,
>>>corporate scandals and the Sept. 11th attacks.
>>>
>>>This small movie will not move voters either way. The antiwar crowd will
>>>rally around it and the President's supporters will be energized by it
>>
> as
>
>>>well. I disagree with Congressman Rangel that Michael Moore is a
>>
>>journalist.
>>
>>>Moore has stated his motivation is to remove President Bush from office.
>>
>
>>>_______________________
>>>
>>>
>>>Vienna, Va.: I heard Michael Moore state on the radio this morning that
>>
> he
>
>>>has never voted in an election. Why do you think someone who has never
>>
>>voted
>>
>>>is now trying to be so involved in our nation's politics?
>>>
>>>David Bossie: I wish that Michael Moore would participate by voting,
>>
> it's
>
>>an
>>
>>>essential right that our founding fathers fought and died to give us.
>>>
>>>However, Michael Moore has never let the facts get in the way of a good
>>>story, his movie is nothing more than left wing propaganda.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Charlie Board" <***@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:***@nc.rr.com...
>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> > "Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
> >
> > wing
> >
> >>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
> >
> > even
> >
> >>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> > quadroplegic.
> >
> > Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that
is
> > Spiderman 2.
>
> Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
> gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
>

I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen average
would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the real
target audience is less then 50% of the population.

v/r Beau

[Trevor Zion Bauknight]

In rec.sport.football.college Charles Beauchamp <***@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:

> "Charlie Board" <***@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:***@nc.rr.com...

>> Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
>> gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
>>
> I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
> distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen average
> would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the real
> target audience is less then 50% of the population.

I think I heard a little while ago on the radio that 2,000-odd
additional prints of the film had been ordered.

--
Trev

"There is no difference between education and food." - Jefferson N. Glapski

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Trevor Zion Bauknight" <***@mailbox.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> In rec.sport.football.college Charles Beauchamp
<***@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Board" <***@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@nc.rr.com...
>
> >> Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
> >> gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
> >>
> > I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
> > distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen
average
> > would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the
real
> > target audience is less then 50% of the population.
>
> I think I heard a little while ago on the radio that 2,000-odd
> additional prints of the film had been ordered.
>

Good for them. A Superhero is coming to the rescue this week though...

v/r Beau

[Charlie Board]

Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> "Charlie Board" <***@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:***@nc.rr.com...
>
>>
>>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
>>>
>>>wing
>>>
>>>
>>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office, beating
>>>
>>>even
>>>
>>>
>>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
>>>quadroplegic.
>>>
>>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that
>>
> is
>
>>>Spiderman 2.
>>
>>Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
>>gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
>>
>
>
> I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
> distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen average
> would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the real
> target audience is less then 50% of the population.
>

I think the real target audience will come into play when the DVD
hits the rental stores 2 weeks before the election....

[Charles Beauchamp]

"Charlie Board" <***@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:***@nc.rr.com...
>
>
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> > "Charlie Board" <***@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@nc.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Peter L" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Michael Moore would like to thank David Bossie and all the other right
> >>>
> >>>wing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dummies for putting his film on top for the weekend box office,
beating
> >>>
> >>>even
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>White Chicks, which was on many more screens than Moore's film.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That is like bragging about winning a boxing match against a blind
> >>>quadroplegic.
> >>>
> >>>Next weekend the time on top vanishes though under the steamroller that
> >>
> > is
> >
> >>>Spiderman 2.
> >>
> >>Oddly enough, the only movie ever to have a higher per-screen
> >>gross for an opening weekend than F9/11 is.....Spiderman.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think that it has a peculiar audience. If this movie were in broader
> > distribution it would have made more of a gross but the per screen
average
> > would have sunk. It is quite a financial success though...even if the
real
> > target audience is less then 50% of the population.
> >
>
> I think the real target audience will come into play when the DVD
> hits the rental stores 2 weeks before the election....
>
>

Probably correct. Except that by that time probably 99% of the people who
eventually do actually vote...will have already made up their minds.

v/r Beau