FoxNews gives Micheal Moore's F911 THUMBS UP

[insein]

People shouldnt waste their time trying to stop Moore's movie. All they need to do is ignore him. ITs the worst thing you can do to a spoiled child. By trying to stop it, you create free publicity for it.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by insein
People shouldnt waste their time trying to stop Moore's movie. All they need to do is ignore him. ITs the worst thing you can do to a spoiled child. By trying to stop it, you create free publicity for it.

Insein, we agree. I won't see in theatres and won't rent video. Though I'll be tempted...

 

[nycflasher]

I'll fill ya in after I see it.

 

[Psychoblues]

This one will be on free tv, nycflasher, in a matter of months. Hopefully before November. The American Patriots need to know who they're voting for or against, don't you know it? I understand this expose' of the Bush family and GW in particular to be as well researched, objective and balanced as at least anything I've ever seen on USMB. Have you ever been to Flint, Michigan? Ever seen "Roger and Me"? Interesting piece of work. Have you ever read "Fast Food Nation"?.......................

Psychoblues

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
This one will be on free tv, nycflasher, in a matter of months. Hopefully before November. The American Patriots need to know who they're voting for or against, don't you know it? I understand this expose' of the Bush family and GW in particular to be as well researched, objective and balanced as at least anything I've ever seen on USMB. Have you ever been to Flint, Michigan? Ever seen "Roger and Me"? Interesting piece of work. Have you ever read "Fast Food Nation"?.......................

Psychoblues

Psycho. Michael Moore? And I used to think you must be somebody. Now I know the truth.

 

[Psychoblues]

I figure you to know about as much as you ever did, rwa. Same as me, not much. I qualified my statement with a grin icon, didn't I?

Psychoblues

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
There continue to be many unanswered questions concerning dumbya's selection/appointment, OCA. The Republicans often accuse the Democrats of being quick to seek courthouse remedies for their problems, but who was first in line to seek courthouse interference in the election of 2000? No question about that. Who wanted federal intervention because they knew the state laws would require a full accounting? No question about that either. Who goes about promoting states rights then ignoring them when those rights interfere with their own objectives? I don't have any questions about any of that. I know.

Um seriously you guys might want to stop trying to rewrite history we all saw. It was Al Gore who took to the courts the original and the two following recounts gave Florida to President Bush. This was an attempt to violate the state law which demands that elections be certified by a certain day. The now Rep. Harris certified the election results and recounts as required by State law and Al Gore took it to court to stop that. President Bush then countered to stop Al Gores illegal recounts of select counties using unfair methods that intended to create votes that didnt exist based on subjectively deciding what the voter intended. The Supreme Court decided the only way it could according to the law.

Whats more is Bush still won dispite Democrat attempts to disenfranchise the military votes, and calling the state for Gore before the voting ended in highly republican areas intending to make some go home. Bush still won the recounts done by various media outlets using Al Gores methods. Al Gore never won a single solitary recount. To say Bush wasnt elected is to just be denying the facts.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Bush v Gore, not the other way around. The Bushies went to court first, there can be no doubt about that. The defendant, President Gore, made prudent responses to the claims of the plaintiffs while trying to keep the election results credible and without continuing doubt. The USSC stopped all that, as we all know, and stepped on the rights of ALL disenfranchised within the questions that persist to this day.

Psychoblues

Hello!?! Bush vs Gore was a counter suit.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Sorry, Kathianne, Bush was first in court, and to this day would deny any states rights or laws that might interfere within his own agenda. Your timeline/link doesn't address the original lawsuits or where any lawsuit came from or very much about them at all.

Psychoblues

Hello?! It was Al Gore who went to court to stop the State of Florida's right to certify the election after the first two recounts. Bush vs Gore was a counter suit. If you dont understand it means it was a response to the first law suit.

 

[Psychoblues]

Just so you know, countersuits are addendums and the original filer is continued as plaintiff. I maintain the correctness of my claims and will until proven otherwise. Now, go do some credible research and you too will understand. Can you dig it?

Psychoblues

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Just so you know, countersuits are addendums and the original filer is continued as plaintiff. I maintain the correctness of my claims and will until proven otherwise. Now, go do some credible research and you too will understand. Can you dig it?

Psychoblues

um you havent proved anything. I dont have to disprove anything youve said because quite frankly you havent supplied any evidence. Youve already been shown the evidence that It was Al Gore got the Courts involved. you have refused to deal with that. Im sorry that having an adult conversation is too tough for you but welcome to the real world.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Just so you know, countersuits are addendums and the original filer is continued as plaintiff. I maintain the correctness of my claims and will until proven otherwise. Now, go do some credible research and you too will understand. Can you dig it?

Psychoblues

Psycho pull your head out of your fucken ass! Its been shown to you several times and in several ways that Gore initiated the involvement of the courts in 2000. You can stand by whatever your drunken ass sees in the haze but the facts are the facts. It seems you want to deny reality out of pure partisanship.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by OCA
Psycho pull your head out of your fucken ass! Its been shown to you several times and in several ways that Gore initiated the involvement of the courts in 2000. You can stand by whatever your drunken ass sees in the haze but the facts are the facts. It seems you want to deny reality out of pure partisanship.

OCA I've sourced and sourced, acknowledged far and wide, he won't relent so let it go.

Do NOT however acknowledge his statements in light of proof are worthy of rebuttal.

 

[OCA]

Kathianne this is par for the course with this old addict. I think he needs to go back to DU because open and honest debate is not his strong suit.

 

[007]

OK... back on topic... m-i-c, k-e-y.... m-o-u-s-e...er... m-o-o-r-e, is a fat ass, slimey rotten, steaming, eye watering, nose wiping, slack jawed, unshaven, ho down, highway sweepin', pig fucking, shit eatin', pot bellied, buggy pushin', low rent, piss drinkin', bugger pickin', cum gurglin', hip crackin', belly smackin', trailer trash, motha fuck, SHIT BAG from the wrong side a' the tracks.

God damn, no class, lying mother fucker.

Now, ya'll can quite arguing about this ameba. I just told you what he is. There should be no more discussion needed.

And his "false documentaries" are for the weak minded, who are easily mislead, and need someone else to do their thinking for them.

REPUBLICAN POWER!

LONG LIVE THE CONSERVATIVES... THE CHAMPIONS OF AMERICA!:usa:

 

[Psychoblues]

Jesus Freakin' Christ, you folks are so ignorant!!!!!! Bush v Gore says a lot even to a high school civics class participant that pays attention. And you accuse me of what? Come on, give the old vet at least some credible argument to maybe properly put me in my place. So far, it's name calling and refusal to address the issue at hand, except of course the weak kneed attempt by the teach to refer to some jr. college screed/assignment and expect me to take it as a credible source of truth and the American way. You can't change the fact that George W. Bush filed suit against Al Gore, not the other way around. That is elementary.

Psychoblues

 

[OCA]

Lol absolutely incredible! Somebody who refuses truth and fact when presented in clear daylight! I've never come across somebody so clearly traumatized.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Jesus Freakin' Christ, you folks are so ignorant!!!!!! Bush v Gore says a lot even to a high school civics class participant that pays attention. And you accuse me of what? Come on, give the old vet at least some credible argument to maybe properly put me in my place. So far, it's name calling and refusal to address the issue at hand, except of course the weak kneed attempt by the teach to refer to some jr. college screed/assignment and expect me to take it as a credible source of truth and the American way. You can't change the fact that George W. Bush filed suit against Al Gore, not the other way around. That is elementary.

Psychoblues

Psycho, please show me the error of my ways. I thought I had addressed you respectfully.

 

[007]

Originally posted by OCA
Lol absolutely incredible! Somebody who refuses truth and fact when presented in clear daylight! I've never come across somebody so clearly traumatized.

At least he got his name right.

 

[Psychoblues]

I'm sorry, Teach. I get a little too excited sometimes. Bush v Gore. Bush (the plaintiff) filed suit against Gore (the defendant). It was not a countersuit as some have intimated and it was not the other way around as others have intimated. Gore was correct in asking redress through the state avenues available for such redress despite their having been led by the chairperson for committees that clearly were the opposition to his electoral objectives/concerns. His ideology was to let the state law and appropriate state governmental entities address his concerns. Immediately the political machine of GW Bush filed suit to stop it. They then immediately sought further intervention from the federal court in Atlanta, Georgia almost before the state could respond. They weren't interested in any credible examination and they knew that the USSC was poised for positive intervention in their (the Bushies) favor. So there you have it. There are several very credible books out there that back all this up not to mention the newspapers that can very easily put this all into chronological order. This is not revisionist history. Revisionist history is a Republican thing, IMHO, that they like to accuse the left of doing.

Again, Kathianne, I didn't mean to be mean, at least not to you. I could give you references and at some point I might. But for now, I'd rather see the imbeciles dig their collective selves into larger and more ominous holes. It's just too much fun, isn't it?

Psychoblues