kallend 2,148 #51 May 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteI've lost the freedom to fly my plane without worrying that a TFR will be set up after my departure along my flight path and that I can be intercepted or shot down if I go there.... Irony time! It's interesting that you consider the above to be a "loss of freedom". Now, recall the thread about the Illinois homeowner who is being prosecuted for legally shooting a home invader with a handgun, in a town where handguns were banned. It is your claim that he didn't suffer any loss of freedom when that ordinance was passed, because he had the option to move elsewhere, or get rid of his handguns, in order to comply with the law. Now back to your TFR issue. So, applying your handgun ban philosophy to your TFR situtation, your response should have been: "Well, if I don't like it, I can just sell my airplane and take up some other hobby." But no, instead you consider this one to be a loss of freedom! It's funny to watch how your philosophy shifts when something strikes you close to home. This is another example of the ever-shifting sands of your standards. You misrepresent once again. I didn't defend the Wilmette/Morton Grove ruling. I just said (to paraphrase) that it is the law and has withstood every legal test, and was not retroactive. No one suddenly became a criminal, they had plenty of time to comply. On the other hand, a TFR can spring up with essentially no warning. So the rest of your comment is moot, inaccurate, and, as usual, a personal attack on someone you disagree with.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #52 May 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe Iraq war and the "war on terror" are seperate conflicts. Same war but different conflicts. They are both part of the overall "war on terror". How do you figure? Saddam Hussein was not a "terrorist", he was a head of state. Iraq was not a terrorist organization, they were a sovereign state. QuoteQuoteThe men in Iraq who are attacking our troops are simply engaged in guerilla warfare against a superior army that has invaded and is now occupying their country. Some are and some are not. There are foreign fighters in Iraq who profess to be members of terrorist groups. They are terrorists. I'll grant you that some of those fighting against our troops are non-Iraqi citizens and that it is likely some of them are also members of "terrorist" organizations. Their current role in Iraq is more analogous to that of the Brits, Poles, and Spaniards (for now) than it is to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01. In any case, those individuals are likely a distant minority and are not the one's I was referring to. The strongest correlation between the war in Iraq and the "war on terror" is the timing. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #53 May 7, 2004 QuoteHow do you figure? Saddam Hussein was not a "terrorist", he was a head of state. Iraq was not a terrorist organization, they were a sovereign state. They were a sovereign state that supported terrorism. Afghanistan was a sovereign state that supported terrorism. See the similarity? QuoteIn any case, those individuals are likely a distant minority and are not the one's I was referring to. Well, they are the ones that I was referring to. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #54 May 7, 2004 QuoteIndeed, both the Korean War and the Vietnam War were part of the 'war on communism' - but it would be silly to call them all part of one war. But.............you just did. You've lost me on your reasoning. You're comparing two conflicts in two different decades that, according to you, were both part of the "War on Communism". I don't see how that disproves my original point that Iraq and Afghanistan are separate conflicts in the same "War on Terror". "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #55 May 7, 2004 Funny thing about bags left alone in airports.... I recently had some issues with the TSA at Tampa Int Airport. On a Tuesday morning at 6am the line to get onto the transport was 25 minutes long, the line to get thru the TSA checkpoint was 60-90 minutes long. They wouldn't help anyone that was going to miss a flight due to how slow they were moving. In fact everyone from the TSA and the Airport were complete assholes about it. Over 10 people missed the flight I was on, inlcuding me. Looking down the terminal you could see over two or three dozen people trying to get on standby because of this line. Meanwhile, my bag is on the way to Chicago without me! I ended up missing a connecting flight in Nashville they put me on (damn slowpokes getting off the plane and gates too far apart) and I had to stay 4 hours in Nashville. Meanwhile my bag is back home at Midway airport without me. No big deal, I thought, I'm certain they have it in the luggage office just outside the claim area. When I get there, my bag is not there but they tell me to check out by the luggage claim. YUP! There is my bag all by itself just sitting in the airport unattended. So I was late due to security issues, but in the end they let my bag sit out on its own for 5 hours at Midway. Nice._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #56 May 7, 2004 Quotebut I'm pretty sure it wasn't the bin Laden family that was flown out of here shortly after 9-11 on Dubya's orders.*** It most certainly was the bin Laden family. They are still close families... Just try and find with who Oussama's nieces were on holidays last summer....scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #57 May 7, 2004 Quote>During WWII we fought several different conflicts but they were all >part of the same war. Agreed. Indeed, both the Korean War and the Vietnam War were part of the 'war on communism' - but it would be silly to call them all part of one war. They were two separate offensive efforts, with two different sets of goals. From one perspective, they were flashpoints during the Cold War, which had its casualties without overt military actions as well.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #58 May 7, 2004 QuoteQuotethis may be how he wants to market the movie. Maybe Disney just had some issues . . ., I don't doubt that Jeb would find a way to get back at Disney for 1 - Why wouldn't this also be a marketing ploy by BOTH MM and Disney. Disney isn't the most right wing business in the country. Quote Um, Disney's customer base is (by their own admission) heavily skewed to the conservative side. But that being said, I think it is no more complicated than Disney made an astute decision to avoid a very polarizing issue."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #59 May 7, 2004 >You're comparing two conflicts in two different decades that, >according to you, were both part of the "War on Communism". The War on Communism was a catch phrase, like the war on drugs or the war on illiteracy or the war on terror. They do not describe wars, but rather ideologies. It would be silly to say that the Korean War was part of the Vietnam War or vice versa; those were both real wars (or as close as we get to real wars nowadays.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #60 May 7, 2004 QuoteAfghanistan was a sovereign state that supported terrorism. The Taliban gov't of Afghanistan was not recognized as a legitimate gov't by any world body. It was ruled an illegal regime with no authority by the UN. That's not exactly sovereign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #61 May 7, 2004 QuoteDisney's customer base is (by their own admission) heavily skewed to the conservative side. But that being said, I think it is no more complicated than Disney made an astute decision to avoid a very polarizing issue. Correct. They have a corporate image for "wholesome" entertainment without a lot of sex, violence or one-sided political overtones. They have a right to maintain that image as they see fit. If they don't want to be associated with Michael Moore's production, that's their right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #62 May 7, 2004 QuoteDocumentary filmmaker Michael Moore (BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE) has been hit with an unexpected twist of fate: Walt Disney Pictures is refusing to allow its subsidary, Miramax Films, from distributing Moore's next picture, FAHRENHEIT 911, this summer. From the news: Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it. The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival. Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001. Source This proves yet again, that Michael Moore is a lying sack of crap, and that nothing in his self-proclaimed "documentaries" can be counted upon as the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #63 May 7, 2004 If you read my second post in this thread, you will see that is the conclusion I came to on my own. Moore used to have good things to say, and had a creditable name. Now he is just as bad as those he bitches about. Lies, spin, etc.... Sometimes the medium becomes the message and what you are trying to say will never be heard because of that._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #64 May 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAfghanistan was a sovereign state that supported terrorism. The Taliban gov't of Afghanistan was not recognized as a legitimate gov't by any world body. It was ruled an illegal regime with no authority by the UN. That's not exactly sovereign. The UN's judgement means nothing. The Taliban was recognized by the state of Pakistan and I believe also by Iran, and Iraq (Hussein).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 140 #65 May 22, 2004 Congrats to Michael Moore for receiving the supreme distinction, the Palme d'Or, in Cannes film festival for this movie.scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #66 May 23, 2004 QuoteCongrats to Michael Moore for receiving the supreme distinction, the Palme d'Or, in Cannes film festival for this movie. I haven't seen it, but that's the strongest evidence yet that the movie is probably a giant POS. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #67 May 23, 2004 QuoteCongrats to Michael Moore for receiving the supreme distinction, the Palme d'Or, in Cannes film festival for this movie. I think I'm gonna be off in the corner retching indefinitely until you tell us all that you were not being serious. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumpy 0 #68 May 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteDisney's customer base is (by their own admission) heavily skewed to the conservative side. But that being said, I think it is no more complicated than Disney made an astute decision to avoid a very polarizing issue. Correct. They have a corporate image for "wholesome" entertainment without a lot of sex, violence or one-sided political overtones. They have a right to maintain that image as they see fit. If they don't want to be associated with Michael Moore's production, that's their right. Except it wasn't Disney who were to directly distribute Michael Moore's film but Miramax, a subdivision of Disney. Now would you describe films such as: Pulp Fiction Scream Scary Movie 2 Kill Bill Vol. 1 Kill Bill Vol. 2 As "wholesome" entertainment? I'm not knocking these films, I'm just mentioning them as examples of high level violence and drug use distributed by Miramax. (source of film titles: http://www.imdb.com/List?distributors=miramax&&substrings=on) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #69 May 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDisney's customer base is (by their own admission) heavily skewed to the conservative side. But that being said, I think it is no more complicated than Disney made an astute decision to avoid a very polarizing issue. Correct. They have a corporate image for "wholesome" entertainment without a lot of sex, violence or one-sided political overtones. They have a right to maintain that image as they see fit. If they don't want to be associated with Michael Moore's production, that's their right. Except it wasn't Disney who were to directly distribute Michael Moore's film but Miramax, a subdivision of Disney. Now would you describe films such as: Pulp Fiction Scream Scary Movie 2 Kill Bill Vol. 1 Kill Bill Vol. 2 As "wholesome" entertainment? I'm not knocking these films, I'm just mentioning them as examples of high level violence and drug use distributed by Miramax. (source of film titles: http://www.imdb.com/List?distributors=miramax&&substrings=on) True, but I think you have to agree that their decision was probably based on the one sided political statement that Moore was purported to be making, not violence or drug issues. Plus, I don't think you will find the makers of those films making jackasses out of themselves at awards shows and screaming shrilly at every opportunity. I think they just didn't want the backlash and headache. Funny part is, I agree with alot of the guy's attitudes; it is too bad he dilutes his messages by being such a flaming a@#@#$e talking head. Not that Al Franken, the new darling of the liberal media, is that much better."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #70 May 23, 2004 Stop retching, it's true. I've been reading all of Moore's "books", laughed a lot but, somehow can't help myself: This guy is just making money on actual situation. He's got the right nose on smelling old. Not gentleman's behaviour. This is what we call he is "shitting on his own nest". I do not accept Mr. Bush, his war in Iraq, our red government: But a guy Mr. Moore needs a slimming treatment, all what he's dowing is working for his purse. A war profeteer. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #71 May 23, 2004 Isn't this what is referred to as cross-posting? You going to put it in General Skydiving, too? I mean, it's got a plane in it. posted at 1336witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,118 #59 May 7, 2004 >You're comparing two conflicts in two different decades that, >according to you, were both part of the "War on Communism". The War on Communism was a catch phrase, like the war on drugs or the war on illiteracy or the war on terror. They do not describe wars, but rather ideologies. It would be silly to say that the Korean War was part of the Vietnam War or vice versa; those were both real wars (or as close as we get to real wars nowadays.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #60 May 7, 2004 QuoteAfghanistan was a sovereign state that supported terrorism. The Taliban gov't of Afghanistan was not recognized as a legitimate gov't by any world body. It was ruled an illegal regime with no authority by the UN. That's not exactly sovereign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #61 May 7, 2004 QuoteDisney's customer base is (by their own admission) heavily skewed to the conservative side. But that being said, I think it is no more complicated than Disney made an astute decision to avoid a very polarizing issue. Correct. They have a corporate image for "wholesome" entertainment without a lot of sex, violence or one-sided political overtones. They have a right to maintain that image as they see fit. If they don't want to be associated with Michael Moore's production, that's their right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #62 May 7, 2004 QuoteDocumentary filmmaker Michael Moore (BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE) has been hit with an unexpected twist of fate: Walt Disney Pictures is refusing to allow its subsidary, Miramax Films, from distributing Moore's next picture, FAHRENHEIT 911, this summer. From the news: Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it. The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival. Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001. Source This proves yet again, that Michael Moore is a lying sack of crap, and that nothing in his self-proclaimed "documentaries" can be counted upon as the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #63 May 7, 2004 If you read my second post in this thread, you will see that is the conclusion I came to on my own. Moore used to have good things to say, and had a creditable name. Now he is just as bad as those he bitches about. Lies, spin, etc.... Sometimes the medium becomes the message and what you are trying to say will never be heard because of that._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #64 May 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAfghanistan was a sovereign state that supported terrorism. The Taliban gov't of Afghanistan was not recognized as a legitimate gov't by any world body. It was ruled an illegal regime with no authority by the UN. That's not exactly sovereign. The UN's judgement means nothing. The Taliban was recognized by the state of Pakistan and I believe also by Iran, and Iraq (Hussein).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #65 May 22, 2004 Congrats to Michael Moore for receiving the supreme distinction, the Palme d'Or, in Cannes film festival for this movie.scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #66 May 23, 2004 QuoteCongrats to Michael Moore for receiving the supreme distinction, the Palme d'Or, in Cannes film festival for this movie. I haven't seen it, but that's the strongest evidence yet that the movie is probably a giant POS. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #67 May 23, 2004 QuoteCongrats to Michael Moore for receiving the supreme distinction, the Palme d'Or, in Cannes film festival for this movie. I think I'm gonna be off in the corner retching indefinitely until you tell us all that you were not being serious. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpy 0 #68 May 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteDisney's customer base is (by their own admission) heavily skewed to the conservative side. But that being said, I think it is no more complicated than Disney made an astute decision to avoid a very polarizing issue. Correct. They have a corporate image for "wholesome" entertainment without a lot of sex, violence or one-sided political overtones. They have a right to maintain that image as they see fit. If they don't want to be associated with Michael Moore's production, that's their right. Except it wasn't Disney who were to directly distribute Michael Moore's film but Miramax, a subdivision of Disney. Now would you describe films such as: Pulp Fiction Scream Scary Movie 2 Kill Bill Vol. 1 Kill Bill Vol. 2 As "wholesome" entertainment? I'm not knocking these films, I'm just mentioning them as examples of high level violence and drug use distributed by Miramax. (source of film titles: http://www.imdb.com/List?distributors=miramax&&substrings=on) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #69 May 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDisney's customer base is (by their own admission) heavily skewed to the conservative side. But that being said, I think it is no more complicated than Disney made an astute decision to avoid a very polarizing issue. Correct. They have a corporate image for "wholesome" entertainment without a lot of sex, violence or one-sided political overtones. They have a right to maintain that image as they see fit. If they don't want to be associated with Michael Moore's production, that's their right. Except it wasn't Disney who were to directly distribute Michael Moore's film but Miramax, a subdivision of Disney. Now would you describe films such as: Pulp Fiction Scream Scary Movie 2 Kill Bill Vol. 1 Kill Bill Vol. 2 As "wholesome" entertainment? I'm not knocking these films, I'm just mentioning them as examples of high level violence and drug use distributed by Miramax. (source of film titles: http://www.imdb.com/List?distributors=miramax&&substrings=on) True, but I think you have to agree that their decision was probably based on the one sided political statement that Moore was purported to be making, not violence or drug issues. Plus, I don't think you will find the makers of those films making jackasses out of themselves at awards shows and screaming shrilly at every opportunity. I think they just didn't want the backlash and headache. Funny part is, I agree with alot of the guy's attitudes; it is too bad he dilutes his messages by being such a flaming a@#@#$e talking head. Not that Al Franken, the new darling of the liberal media, is that much better."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #70 May 23, 2004 Stop retching, it's true. I've been reading all of Moore's "books", laughed a lot but, somehow can't help myself: This guy is just making money on actual situation. He's got the right nose on smelling old. Not gentleman's behaviour. This is what we call he is "shitting on his own nest". I do not accept Mr. Bush, his war in Iraq, our red government: But a guy Mr. Moore needs a slimming treatment, all what he's dowing is working for his purse. A war profeteer. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #71 May 23, 2004 Isn't this what is referred to as cross-posting? You going to put it in General Skydiving, too? I mean, it's got a plane in it. posted at 1336witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
