juanesky

Honey, I think I lost an electron... Are u positive? Nope, negative. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Pretty much, I must have missed the memo where war crimes are not longer crimes "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

That is a good "Documentary" "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Opps looks like road rash there.. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Self note scratch off my list sell the rig I planned giving RR on valentines "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

BWAWAWAWAW...Tom you cracked me up. Most have acknowledge that MM is not honest about his message, and still defend a work as "documentary". Well, let me go to the library and then get some of Goebbel's documentaries, they might as well teach me a thing or two... "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Hey Bill, I think you got it all wrong.. The only one that is gaining political advantage here is MM. You make like it or not, but having seen his previous work and the political tone embodying this film. Having been praised by the French, I find it suspicious and in accordance to my thoughts, that MM instead of going ahead with trying to get it nominated, he hides from that. Just like his interview, nothing of substance to report or face the questions and answer them concisely. He prefers to smear, and go the "IS BUSH FAULT, WOULD YOU SEND YOUR KID TO HIS DEATH? answer. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Mat, I do not need to calm down. I am relaxed. Now to answer your questions: I take no offense on your apparent one sided issue with just the Bush campaign. Bush campaign has not threatened a lawsuit to those opposed to him, neither prosecute them THe only faults you are seeing is only on the Republican side. Why don't you include also the Democrats? I have no say in this election either, but rather be informed than disinformed, IMO. Bush is allowing public manifestation against his government, but don't confuse with radical violence anarchism, with civil protest. I am discussed at all levels of muslinging, but the Liberals are just way out there, not only the compare the Prez to BROWN SHIRTS, but when some group try to get some FACTS out there, they get pissy and threaten the truth from coming out. So tell me who is being democratic and who is not? I have to confess your shot at this was rather smooth but stills sounds fishy. IMO. If you are trying to be impartial, use both bad sides. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Check for yourself. Clicky and this one too See, the Democrats are more in tone what Europeans think of Bush, and his policies, that is maybe you have not seen much on the democrats, but is far more in terms of amounts in comparison to GOP. Hence my statement I think it was great that one of them took the higher ground and requested a stop on the attacks on his opponent by one of the 527's. Things that I still have yet to see Kerry do. He has not apologized, after all in his own words he is a war criminal. I definitely do not want someone like him as CIC. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Does that mean that you will go to hear a recital by the Queen, and not know before hand it will be just plain boring? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Pal, I did not have to watch Ishtar to know it was a bad movie. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Not really. Bush camp is more open than Kerry's. If he find something innapropiate, he would say so. He has proven it with the 527 org. He even asked the SBVFT to stop, as a matter of fact he asked for ALL to stop. He is questioned, he releases the info, well in the mil records it seems that there is some paperwork missing, but I assure you that is not really strange, only for someone who never had served. Kerry, only accuses an opponent such as SBVFT when they attack him, why would he not make the same type of statment like Bush, when Moveon.org and Al Gore likened him to a "brown shirt". Everytime I see him he changes his mind his decisions, voting record, at least he should have the decency to step down the senate. He is no longer working as a senator, yet he tries to sell his image he is one of us..... Can you get this logic? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Ok Ian, fair enough, I think we are not talking about the same thing here. Just pretend that I as a viewer go to see MM Swoop a pond. Now, you know I am not a swooper, but that does not mean I would not watch anyone swooping. Yet, I discovered that he is unsafe, and has disregards for the safety of others. I definitely would not like to watch knowing for sure that there are high probabilities he will get a lot titanium, and maybe hurt somebody else. Would you? Hey it's your preference. As the debate about his work is about being it a documentary, I hardly see them as such. His work, while make you aware of somethings, most of it (subjectively) are just yellow sensationalism. Who are the real culprits of BFC, who are the real Culprits for 9/11. I don't see his work as provocative or satisfactory enough to shell out $$ to see it. I rather see documentaries such as the ones created by Thomas Friedman, who really tries to put all perspectives in the table, and gives all parties time to refute, or National Geographic. The RNC job's was about the pres elections. To make sure people know where he stands on issues. He has made clear that he will fight terrorism, maybe not as many of us would like to, but he will not wait for the UN to make up their mind. That is his job. On the other hand, what is MM's Job? Market dreams. 2 very different agendas. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

They have. One OK'd the release of his mil. records, not it seems they are incomplete. The fact with that one is that he served his terms. Page DD214 show an honorable discharge. He also has confessed to have had problems with alcohol and drugs. He pulled through, he is a better man for it it seems a family man. The other one, has not even apologized nor investigated for war crimes, and he should be. Hence for that reason and only that reason, he should not be fit to be CIC. He did serve, yet came home and dispised his service, now he is running on his record as a premise to get in office? That is pretty surreal, as a contender to such a high office at least he should prove he has integrity. But well, that is just me, and so many others. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Yes LOL, indeed I do not know what else doe he need. I am curious to know if he is able to give a straight simple answer, without the BUSH IS A LIAR thing. You know. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Well done. Wish you a long and safe skydiving career...Cheers. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

And you definitely appear sometimes like having a hard time to answer a direct question with anything but BUSH is a liar. Yet you defend a guy who under oath, is either lying, or confessing to war crimes. Now tell me what should we investigate, the validity of Skerry's comments under oath (as investigating if his crimes were commited), or just accept his speech as anything but Bush? Or just Bush because you just don't like him? Could you answer a fairly direct, simple question for once? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Well, Ian, I do not know why would you be amused about commenting on a movie that clearly has one topic withstanding, the use of fake newspaper headlines, Distorted facts and calling it a "documentary", not putting the contents of thoughts and rebuttals from all sides involved. Just quick-frames with controlled portion of speeches to fit his twisted point of view. The reviews accross, some bad-long and boring and few good ravings, I still will believe is not worth spending the $20 + to sit in that. Just like watching yet another Godzilla movie. I have again no problems if he likes to do that for living, just don't deliver his movie as "documentary". I have every right to think poorly of his job, after watching 2 of his past works, I just simply don't like him. Is that is something that ammusing? I think that with all the hype we already have in our daily lives, with terrorists, politics, yet should you keep spending more money for a crappy "pseudo documentary". I think not, I want to go to enjoy it. About his BFC, I think he was just cashing in some dough from others people suffering. Sad deal. Do something constructive, if you are scolding the media, do so, don't pretend to be using the NRA half assed speeches cuts as trying to portray something it does not stand for. And as for the parents, maybe instead of faulting the movies industries, we should held parents responsible as well... "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

So what is your hard deck? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

I don't need to see his work to know that it is just propaganda, not a documentary, Just like I do not need to see or pay for something I do not see purpose of. I'll watch it only if it's free. You may not be aware, but his previous crap is just as abhorrent and mindless one sided account of issues that are complicated, and he only portrays one side, his. In BFC he just misleads people to say the NRA was just happy of what happened in Columbine, also that you can go to a bank, open an account and get a rifle as advertised in 20 min. That is just deflamatory and dishonest portray of his truth. He forgets to mention that regardless your credentials will go trough a background search by FBI and local police. No thanks, I do not need to see it to know it is all anti bush, and not because of the subject, but from experience on his past work. A documentary is to actually present all sides of the coin, just like when you see those about Cuba, they show everything, and interview both sides, the ones pro-castro and the ones who want to get rid of him. Takes on the people, how they live and do things around, yet they allow you to decide at the end. Hardly the case with his "documentaries". Bottom line you are missing the point that since he is so biased and reknwon Bush hater, it is already compromised by that fact, and his previous work ethics. In previous posts I have pointed about the part where he uses "FALSE NEWS HEADLINES" to back up some of his points, yet no onw will comment on that. I do not need to watch Nazi master race documentaries to know that they are not such. Do I? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Ok, sowe have to candidates, one is a proven war criminal (under oath before congress), who despised his own service, and now wants to fuel his campain from his war record, and the other one who has had his fault in his past, recognized he was wrong,l moved on and be pretty consistent about his life... Yet we should investigate the former? most of us question everything, even the things we like, just like skydiving, we take the time, train, observe, learn, check our gear, winds, etc. Don't you? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

No it is not confusing to just non americans. It is confusing to non-service experience people. When you pledge an oath as a commisioned officer, he has plenty of laws to follow through. Coming back and declaring "I'm a war criminal, committed attrocities and so have all the US servicemen over there" just to gain notoriety is wrong. The oath is a pledge of allegiance against enemies foreign and domestic, to obey the orders of those appointed over you, not just when you feel like. What he as an officer should have done is seek a court martial of those doing the war crimes, as an officer it was his duty, if it ever happened. I still do not comprehend why he never was indicted for his crimes. He does not deserve to be CIC. To this date, even Jane Fonda realized that she harmed many fellow americans down there, in particular the POW's, she has long apologized since then, not Kerry, who not only was appalled about his own service (he after all demonstrated that he wanted to get rid of his medals) but now wants to run using something he already despised. Is that is really somthing hard to understand? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

been posted before "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

No it is not. It is great indeed. That is why I relish that i have the decision to just purge false documentaries from real ones, and yet do so with a grain of salt. Once a film has lies in it, stops being a documentary. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

All I can see is that you owe . "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon