Fahrenheit 9/11 wins best movie at peoples choice

[nino_savatte]

Aye, the auld cunt's got an auld image to live up to, "Make my day punk", "This is the most powerful handgun in the world and it could just blow your head clean awf".

But he looks like a fucking twit these days; a grizzled auld actor who only got to be mayor of Carmel.

 

[friedaweed]

Aye, the auld cunt's got an auld image to live up to, "Make my day punk", "This is the most powerful handgun in the world and it could just blow your head clean awf".

But he looks like a fucking twit these days; a grizzled auld actor who only got to be mayor of Carmel.

Clints' Site
So he looks like Charlton Heston.
Ain't that a co-incidence, maybe that's why Clint's edgy. He probably saw Bowling for Columbine and thought that Mike was just some Johnny Knoxville style character who likes fucking with old cowboys.

I prefer his records myself. They expose his much misunderstood sensitive side.
Check out the 'Real life Honky-tonk Man' section on his site for an audio treat of the big cowboy.

Man that’s sweet country music.
You could skin a buck to those tunes.

 

[pbman]

And that's what counts, eh? The threat of violence - however it jocular it appears to be - is the solution to any disagreements? I have got that right, haven't I peebs?

Over to you.

I sure he didn't want michael to get confused, he freqently misses the message and or selectivley editeds things people say.

But it is nice to see eastwood isn't going to take any crap from him.

 

[pbman]

Big deal. So Clint is a right-wing dick with a line in death threats. Yawn.

And he carries a lot more weight than mooor, does if you know what i mean.

 

[Dandred]

Then, the Republican-leaning actor/director advised the lefty filmmaker: "But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you."

The audience erupted in laughter, and Eastwood grinned dangerously.

"I mean it," he added, provoking more guffaws.

God bless the American way

 

[chriswill]

Its on on Channel 4, thursday 27th of this month don't you know.

 

[DexterTCN]

Dear old Clint.

What was the name of that film where he was the hero and dragged a woman into a barn and raped her? She wanted to be raped though...all women do.

 

[friedaweed]

Dear old Clint.

What was the name of that film where he was the hero and dragged a woman into a barn and raped her? She wanted to be raped though...all women do.

Surely your confusing Clint with Seth from Emmerdale

 

[The Oracle]

And that's what counts, eh? The threat of violence - however it jocular it appears to be - is the solution to any disagreements? I have got that right, haven't I peebs?

Funny you should say that, but this is how Hollywood has programmed us with their action movies, to use violence as a way to solve problems.

How many of you enjoy Hollywood action movies? Or will be able to enjoy watching the gratuitous violence in the future knowing that the American hero in the end will triumph over the evildoers, with magnificent one liners such as “Go ahead make my day” or “we will smoke em out”

Oh yeah don’t forget it the Christian way too.

 

[nino_savatte]

I sure he didn't want michael to get confused, he freqently misses the message and or selectivley editeds things people say.

But it is nice to see eastwood isn't going to take any crap from him.

A bit like you eh peebs? Editing things out when they don't suit you.

If Moore is such a "liar" then how come no one has taken him to court for defamation as Wess asked you?

 

[nino_savatte]

Funny you should say that, but this is how Hollywood has programmed us with their action movies, to use violence as a way to solve problems.

How many of you enjoy Hollywood action movies? Or will be able to enjoy watching the gratuitous violence in the future knowing that the American hero in the end will triumph over the evildoers, with magnificent one liners such as “Go ahead make my day” or “we will smoke em out”

Oh yeah don’t forget it the Christian way too.

Aye, these films sell by the truckload and all of them are roughly the same. I hate action films: too much shouting, car chases and mindnumbingly dull dialogue.

But you're right: they are incredibly simplistic with their 'good v. evil' message.

 

[Idris2002]

Dear old Clint.

What was the name of that film where he was the hero and dragged a woman into a barn and raped her? She wanted to be raped though...all women do.

High Plains drifter.

 

[Idris2002]

On the topic of M. Moore, I was talking yesterday to someone who's lived in the part of Toronto Moore visits in Bowling for Columbine, and he says the stuff about people leaving their doors unlocked is rubbish.

Toronto's like any big modern city, you'd have to be a damn fool to leave your door unlocked.

 

[X-77]

That there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction In Iraq, hence the stated reason for the war.

The White House finally quietly admitted this today, but also added the War was still the right thing to do.

It's strange that it was Harry's antics that whizzed all around the world's media yesterday when it shoulda been this. Funny that...

 

[pbman]

Go ahead Mike make my day.

Isn't that just what Trigger (Rentonite) said.
Shit now he'll think he really is that Dirty Harry character he hides behind on here.

Maybe this is indicative of one of America’s biggest issues. Sure you can have free speech until my Magnum takes issue with something you said.

Great link PB helped me re-affirm my belief that you have a problem in the states where by its OK to think about killing people who don't agree with your ideals. Explains a lot about the overt aggression the world sees from the US.

Certainly makes Trigger seem more like an acceptable American norm.

Have a nice day

Its not free speach that pisses us off, it people like moore intentionaly lying to nieve people for propaganda puropses.

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

And that would piss you off as well, if we did it.

 

[The Oracle]

Another thing mentioned in the Fareinheit911 film was that prior to 9/11 that not one American civilian had been killed by an Iraqi.


The movie also contains some interesting special features; Dr. Rice’s using double-speak in her testimony before the 9/11 commission. She says something such as the president had no advanced notice that terrorist were determined to attack within the United States.
Then she says that the name of the August 6th PDB was titled “Bin laden determined to attack within the United States”. And she dismisses it as old historical evidence, that to this day will not be declassified even for our Senators to review.

The special features had the full film of the house raid that was in the film; I believe a Norwegian journalist filmed it. Prior to Abu Graibh prison story, no journalist organization was interested in airing this footage.

Also among the special features were Middle Eastern Comedians doing stand up comedy centered on the Arab and terrorist stereotypes. They also poked fun at how they were treated by their fellow Americans after 9/11.

 

[pbman]

Another thing mentioned in the Fareinheit911 film was that prior to 9/11 that not one American civilian had been killed by an Iraqi.


The movie also contains some interesting special features; Dr. Rice’s using double-speak in her testimony before the 9/11 commission. She says something such as the president had no advanced notice that terrorist were determined to attack within the United States.
Then she says that the name of the August 6th PDB was titled “Bin laden determined to attack within the United States”. And she dismisses it as old historical evidence, that to this day will not be declassified even for our Senators to review.

The special features had the full film of the house raid that was in the film; I believe a Norwegian journalist filmed it. Prior to Abu Graibh prison story, no journalist organization was interested in airing this footage.

Also among the special features were Middle Eastern Comedians doing stand up comedy centered on the Arab and terrorist stereotypes. They also poked fun at how they were treated by their fellow Americans after 9/11.

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

So are you saying you belive his lies and mistruths?

 

[The Oracle]

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

So are you saying you belive his lies and mistruths?

I have watched the film in an effort to be balanced; it was very boring and did revile the hype in his movie.

But what MM film does is ask some very good questions, questions the have yet to be answered.

 

[pbman]

I have watched the film in an effort to be balanced; it was very boring and did revile the hype in his movie.

But what MM film does is ask some very good questions, questions the have yet to be answered.

Read the link then they have been addressed.

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

Its third rate propaganda with 59 major deceits.

Look though thoes and tell me what is left to "belive" in.

 

[Sorry.]

peebs. just to check ... michael moore is hated right? I mean honest, god-fearing Americans fucking hate the guy. You're all pulling together on the war on terror thingy? The US liberal elite are so out of touch it's untrue.

Then why the hell does Michael Moore keep winning these things? selling books? making the largest grossing documentary of all time?

 

[mears]

peebs. just to check ... michael moore is hated right? I mean honest, god-fearing Americans fucking hate the guy. You're all pulling together on the war on terror thingy? The US liberal elite are so out of touch it's untrue.

Then why the hell does Michael Moore keep winning these things? selling books? making the largest grossing documentary of all time?

Who cares why he wins these "things", his boy lost the election.

Four more years Michael Moore.

 

[Sorry.]

Who cares why he wins these "things", his boy lost the election.

Four more years Michael Moore.

jeez, will you ever switch on your brain and actually engage with the question I'm asking? Couldn't give a toss what happened in your election.

I'm talking about the picture you lot, your media, the european media, paint of the American people. You're all flag-waving patriots, who can't wait to string up all the liberals. You use "liberal" like a swearword for god's sake. The only liberals as far as I gather are urban intellectuals.

Yet there simply isn't a right-wing demagogue in Moore's league. At all. And there's sure as hell more than urban intellectuals watching his movies, reading his books, voting him for people's choice awards etc.

As for you taunting him about four more years; like he gives a fuck, he's a media whore who's obscenely rich beyond your wildest dreams. Four more years of easy bucks doing the easy digging on your shithead president. And now he's going to be paying less taxes!

 

[spikey_r]

Good for Mr. Moore.

I will take our victory in November.

Four more years!

you might not like this then: only 4 years left...

 

[pbman]

A bit like you eh peebs? Editing things out when they don't suit you.

If Moore is such a "liar" then how come no one has taken him to court for defamation as Wess asked you?

AS i've explaned to you before

We have differnt laws, you can lie all you want about public officles, and gov't policy.

Google around a bit.

 

[pbman]

Then why the hell does Michael Moore keep winning these things? selling books? making the largest grossing documentary of all time?

CAuse we have a lot of american hating liberals, who are not smart ehough to see thou his crap.

Hell most of them don't even care if its true or not, same as most people here.

The like what he says, regardless of the factual content.

 

[pbman]

That all changed in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.

And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

For those of you who still havn't realized the us is a different country than the UK.

I don't belive a public officle has ever sued succesfully on libel in the last 30 years.





Ever.

 

[spikey_r]

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

For those of you who still havn't realized the us is a different country than the UK.

I don't belive a public officle has ever sued succesfully on libel in the last 30 years.
Ever.

intersting reading. and it offers an interesting hypothesis as to why nobody has sued Moore.

however, "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
still expects that any publisher is liable to ensure that what they are publishing is not with malicious intent?

"they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies. "

surely this would give the libeled party impetus to show that no effort had been made to distinguish fact from fiction

 

[pbman]

intersting reading. and it offers an interesting hypothesis as to why nobody has sued Moore.

however, "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
still expects that any publisher is liable to ensure that what they are publishing is not with malicious intent?

"they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies. "

surely this would give the libeled party impetus to show that no effort had been made to distinguish fact from fiction

It not just a hypothesis.

No presidents ever sue for libel in the us, or other public officles.

Clinton never did it as well, when many of us, called him a rapist and worse.

We are differnt countries.

I said this several times, and many here still don't get it.

So come up with some examples, or give it up.

 

[spikey_r]

It not just a hypothesis.

No presidents ever sue for libel in the us, or other public officles.

Clinton never did it as well, when many of us, called him a rapist and worse.

We are differnt countries.

I said this several times, and many here still don't get it.

So come up with some examples, or give it up.

where in writing is clinton referred to as a rapist?

 

[pbman]

where in writing is clinton referred to as a rapist?

http://www.google.com/search?source...s=GGLD,GGLD:2004-21,GGLD:en&q=clinton+rapist+

TAke your pick, you have 53,000 choices.