Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • He IS an enemy of the state.

    Exactly how is he an enemy of the state? What has he done to harm it?

    --

    --
    xoa

    • He became an enemy of the state the moment his largely inaccurate film became both a recruiting tool and propaganda for Hezbollah via Front Row.

      And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who likens the Iraqi insurgents as "the Minuteman of Iraq" is a putrid piece of shit.

      • He became an enemy of the state the moment his largely inaccurate film became both a recruiting tool and propaganda for Hezbollah via Front Row.

        How is that his fault?

        And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who likens the Iraqi insurgents as "the Minuteman of Iraq" is a putrid piece of shit.

        Since when does a "putrid piece of shit" require a "bullet in the head"? There's plenty of PPoSes in this country. That's one of the great things about it! You are FREE to be a PPoS!

        --

        --
        xoa

        • I am not sure if I should laugh at this exchange or make an answer to it.

          I do emphatically believe that Mr. Moore told the "truth" as he wanted us to see it and not how it actually is.

          I do also believe he is scum for the very fact that while overseas he spewed vile crap about the United States. He is no patriot. BUT, he is still entitled to that opinion. I served in the military to make sure that EVERYONE could speak out, regardless of whether they are a whack job or not.

          • I do emphatically believe that Mr. Moore told the "truth" as he wanted us to see it and not how it actually is.

            There's a word for that - it's called "lying".

            He is no patriot. BUT, he is still entitled to that opinion.

            This is war, and when an opinion turns into a 2 hour movie, and distributed by Hezbollah (with the help of Michael Moore) as a recruiting and propaganda tool you have, in my opinion, exceeded the First Amendment's protection of "opinion" and crossed into enemy territory.

            • Well, at least we agree he is scum.
            • This is war...

              This is the problem I have with your argument.

              Only congress can make a formal declaration of war. [fact-index.com]

              Have they? (I certainly could not find it via google.)

              Apparently some believe that the constitution is an anachronism and should no longer be followed [house.gov].

              It would certainly make things a bit easier (or, at least more legitimate) if it wasn't just one wacko (Bush) and his friends doing whatever the fsck they wanted.
              • And those "some" would be wrong! Our founding father's knew exactly what they were doing in creating a republic and not a democracy. Most of the people who advocate a change are socialist and not democratic.

                This is war...

                While there was no formal declaration of war, Congress overwhelmingly gave President Bush the authority to do what he did.

            • There's a word for that - it's called "lying".

              Yes... and when the previous president did it (yeah... I changed the subject from Moore to lying) they impeached him.

              What should happen to a president that lies and causes the deaths of American citizens as a direct result of those lies?

              (and... to get back on topic)

              In my mind, what Bush has done is orders of magnitude worse that what Moore has done.

              Take them both out of circulation...
              • You are crazy.

                Do you really think that F911 isn't going to inspire some terrorists into action? Please, that is ignorance.

                • Do you really think that F911 isn't going to inspire some terrorists into action?

                  Why would it? I saw it, but I most certainly must have missed the part you are talking about... If anything they should be laughing their ass off about how easily bushco was manipulated.

                  The majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia... and right now the country is on its hands and knees begging for a few more drops of oil so the price will go down a little before the next election.

                  Few, if any, of the terrorist that co
                  • Then I was right.
                  • Few, if any, of the terrorist that committed F911 have been dealt with. (not counting the actual members aboard the aircraft) Even the Taliban is still running around doing business.

                    We've captured or killed most of the top men in both al Qaeda and the Taliban, and virtually destroyed their primary bases and cut off most of their primary funding.
              • Yes... and when the previous president did it ... they impeached him.

                When he did it *under oath*, yes.

                What should happen to a president that lies and causes the deaths of American citizens as a direct result of those lies?

                You have two problems.

                First, I've never seen proof Bush lied. I don't know what you are specifically referring to, but the most common thing stated is WMD. Just because he got it wrong does not mean he lied.

                Second, the war was going to happen regardless of any one of the specific
          • I'm not sure how "no patriot" applies. M-W says "patriot" means "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests". I don't see that questioning the validity of the war in Iraq as non-patriotic. I'd say the war in Iraq undermines our authority and interests in many cases.
            --

            --
            xoa

        • How is that his fault?

          Read the article.

          Since when does a "putrid piece of shit" require a "bullet in the head"?

          I'm not sure what world you live in Andy, but in my world if you cheer for the enemy troops while denigrating your own, you have crossed into the enemy encampment. In such a position it is implicit that you hope for their success (killing US troops and pro-Democracy Iraqis) while also hoping for our failure (the death of US troops).

  • This guy deserves a bullet in the head.

    That could be said of many politicians, too.

    Hell, I can think of at least four people in the current administration that IN MY OPINION should go before Moore.

    Thing is... my opinion ain't worth crap on this matter. (Which is probably a good thing)

    Instead... I suggest burning a bit of karma on slashdot's new politics section.
  • Whilst I do not have the time to do an in-depth investigation into each piece, I did investigate the first few.

    This author tries to suggest that Moore is "responding" to his rebuttal of the movie, when in fact he has just gone through the points that Michael Moore has published on his site, and collected as much circumstantial evidence and half mentions of opposite opinions as he can, and put them into a single article.

    For some of the issues, as for the incorrect result projection on election night, bot

    • Do you have any real evidence to say either way, or are you speculating based on an opinion you already hold?

      Actually, the election results of 2000 were the initial reason I had no desire to see this film. We 've all been there, done that. Seems like a very pointless, boring rehash of finger pointing.

      What I find the most amusing about the whole thing, though, is the notion that declaring Gore the winner prematurely is "unbiased journalism", while declaring Bush the winner prematurely is "a right wing

      • the notion that declaring Gore the winner prematurely is "unbiased journalism", while declaring Bush the winner prematurely is "a right wing plot by Fox News to swing votes".

        Again, details. I find amusing the notion that a court decided the result in a so-called "democracy". Why not go to the polls again? Makes a farce of the whole process, really.

        I think his presidency will ultimately be judged by success or failure in Iraq.

        You make it sound like Iraq wasn't a complete failure already. How co

        • I find amusing the notion that a court decided the result in a so-called "democracy".

          No, a court upheld the result. No need to go to the polls twice. The votes were counted. Gore challenged. He lost.

          You make it sound like Iraq wasn't a complete failure already. How could it have been worse?

          Nation building takes time, especially with a bunch of whackos destroying the infrastructure you're trying to build. I'm not ready to declare it a failure YET.

        • Again, details. I find amusing the notion that a court decided the result in a so-called "democracy". Why not go to the polls again? Makes a farce of the whole process, really.

          They did not decide the result, they ruled on a disagreement about the law in how the result should be determined. Who else should do this, if not the courts? Do you prefer rioting in the streets to determine whose interpretation of the laws is the correct one?

          We are a nation of laws. When we disagree, we look to the laws and th
    • The fact of the matter is that Bush, who has strong, on the record ties to the global industromilitary complex and oil industry, takes office, turns a budget surplus into a massive budget deficit, makes policy changes that make millions of his countrymen unemployed, invades a country without presenting any clear evidence at all ...

      It's odd you use "fact' to describe those things.

      Yes, it is fact he has ties to large companies. That is not a bad thing in any way.

      No, it is not fact that he turned a surplu