[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Green Bay 28, Washington 14



mag

So you mean Kerry is going to win the election? Who didn't know this already? John Kerry will be the next president. I've said it ever since the debates...

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Yes, I don't agree. But if you think otherwise, that's the beauty of living in a free country. Disagree all you want.

Well, once again you're just wrong. This is exactly the kind of question every other presidential candidate in history has had to answer.

Originally Posted by Sanjurp2

Because everyone knows the goal of OCC was to inspire people in Ohio to support Kerry. It's common knowledge. Why would they choose to send letters to a traditionally Republican state if not to try and swing the vote?

Because it's a major swing state.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And all of the angry people who received a letter and complained were Bush supporters. Why would they be complaining if it was saying, "Please vote Bush!" This is all very clear.

That's because the majority of Europeans are anti-Bush. But that's a bias on the part of the people who wrote the letters, not the Guardian.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Look, it's your right to not trust Fox because a joke accidentally got published and removed quickly. Anyone who read that wouldn't have believed it anyway. Kerry saying, "I'm a metrosexual and he's a cowboy." Give me a break. But The Guardian is a well known left-wing source, and EXTREMELY anti-Bush...so no, I don't trust their reporting at all. Clearly you do, because they support your beliefs.

So you can't actually point to anything the Guardian has specifically done wrong in their reporting. You just don't like it. Because their left-wing. FOX News would never have such an obvious partisan bias.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ok, now you are contradicting yourself. Sorry man, it's too late. I still have your quote. "The facts he gives are true. I just don't agree with his interprotation of those facts in this case." Now you are saying, "We don't actually know what Moore's interpretation is." It's clear you'll say just about anything to try and dig yourself out of a hole that you only continue to sink deeper into. There's no turning back the clock. Give it up. You made a colossal error, and it's over. This issue is dead. You lose.

I never said that that was Moore's interpretation, though. I said that if that's what Moore was saying, then I think he's wrong. But I can't tell you what Michael Moore believes because I'm not Michael Moore. I can only go by what's in the film.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

But Bush doesn't bear the burden of proof, so that's not an issue. When you accuse someone of not reading a briefing, there must be proof. And no, if you said, "Sanjuro should have learned how to read." Then that would indeed be saying I can't read. LOL. Same goes for Moore's case. I don't need to say, "gotcha" and I'm far from desperate to do so. The fact is, Moore accused Bush of not reading the briefing, and he offers no proof of that.

Well, you're wrong. Probably because you can't read.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Well, at least you made it obvious that you didn't really look at that schedule I showed you. This clears everything up. If you haven't read it, then you wouldn't know how busy his "vacation" really was. So your ignorance is thus understood.

I did look at it. And it's exactly what I said. They threw in a few events so that stupid people like you would look at it and think that Bush was busy while he was relaxing down in Crawford.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Well, you aren't good at debating or talking about films, that much is clear (take that as TWO compliments if you wish, just have fun with it). But anyway, many films have multiple interpretations, of course. That's common knowledge. But propaganda films generally don't. What was the point of Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky? To rile the Russians up to take a stand against the Germans. What was the purpose of Triumph of the Will? To solidify the faith of the German people in Adolph Hitler. What was the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11? To ridicule the Bush administration, Bush himself, and energize liberals to vote against Bush.

...according to you.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Oh come on, you can do better than that, can't you? I've just revealed you to be an absolute fool. You contradicted yourself and there's no escape. If that's the best you can do under the circumstances, then it's time to go toughen up.

No, all you really revealed was your own difficulties with reading. But don't worry. We already knew about that.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

There's no getting out of this one either mag. You are really, really making critical errors lately. There is no denying that you were using "queers" as a negative. You were saying I was gay, as a negative. Deadworm probably won't ackowledge this at all since you agree with his politics, and I don't. But the fact of the matter is, you were using "gay" in a negative sense in this case. And that's wrong. Especially coming from someone who pretends to support homosexuals.

Don't go looking to deadworm for help. I already had this conversation with him.

I love how Republicans get so defensive about being politically correct whenever it suits their purposes. Too bad you don't give a damn about minorities any other time. Equality means just that--equal. I'm not going shield anybody just because they happen to be a certain race or religion or sexual orientation. Besides, the best way to fight an insult like that is to coopt it--make a joke out of it. Which is really what most of my jokes based on stereotypes are about--undermining that stereotype's effectiveness.

Plus, I'm guy. I find something to make fun of with everybody. If deadworm wants to make fun of me for being a white guy, fine. Just like I might make fun of Jaz for being German. Or like I make fun of fov for being a Red Sox fan. Or like you for being from Texas. Or like you for being a Republican. Or like you for not being able to read. Or like you for being a sadastic asshole. Well, I think you get the point.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I'm not talking about "any soldier who disagrees with me." I'm talking about the dumb soldiers in the film. There are smart, non-redneck people in our military, but one wouldn't know it to look at Moore's film. That's what I'm saying. Forgive me if I'm missing the soldiers Moore portrays in a very positive light...with computer generated halos hanging over their heads or something...but I saw the film at theaters many months ago and I don't own the DVD.

Well, I thought Moore did a good job of showing a realistic portrayal of the troops. I also thought a number of the soldiers he showed were quite intelligent. As far as I can tell your only criterion for whether or not a soldier is "dumb" or a "redneck" is whether or not they agree with you. And that isn't giving them credit at all.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL! You have refuted nothing! If you think you've refuted this, then that just beats all. I can't believe what I'm hearing. The guy lied. You have to try and say it was "bad grammar" now to cover up a lie? That's the saddest thing I've heard in this thread. Well, among the saddest anyway. lol.

You haven't proven anything. Show me how his saying "eggs" instead of "egg" is an intentional attempt to mislead and not just bad writing, and maybe you'll have an argument. As it is, you've got nothing.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I was referring to the "Enron stood to benefit" issue, and the idea that Bush went to war for oil, etc.

Enron did stand to benefit. That's also something we know to be true.

The only thing that's even debatable is whether Bush went to war for oil. And frankly, you'd have to be pretty naive to think that oil wasn't a reason.

mag

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Yeah, like a responsibility to get rid of Saddam, after years of the presidents before him being "the reason Saddam was in power." I believe Bush's responsibility to the people of Iraq was freeing them from a mad dictator.

Yes, and if we had gone in to get rid of Saddam Hussein, I probably would have been able to support him. But that's not why we went into Iraq, and it shows in the way we've conducted ourselves since the war began. Because Bush was more interested in setting up his own little client kingdom, innocent people are paying the price. Besides, the president's first priority is to protect the American people. That's a responsibility Bush ignored when he let al Qaida, our main enemy, get away so he could go conquer Iraq.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Nor is there evidence to suggest it won't happen. If you think Afghanistan girls going to school and men and women voting is a bad thing, then that's your own sickness that you can deal with on your own.

Oh, there's a LOT of evidence that suggests it won't happen. Pick up a copy of Imperial Hubris, or read anything that's ever been written about Afghanistan by anybody in the intelligence community. What we have there is not a system that can last, and everyday the Taliban is becoming more and more powerful over there.

As for women voting, that election in Afghanistan was a joke. It was more fraudulent than anything Catherine Harris could even dream of.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

It's hard to be as energized when 75% of your leaders are captured or killed. And this IS a setback, regardless of what Richard Clarke would say about "seed pods" and whatever else he describes terrorists as being.

This is one of the greatest myths of the Bush administration. It really betrays a complete lack of understanding about how al Qaida operates. That 75% that has been "captured or killed" have all been replaced. Al Qaida is growing faster than they're being killed. And many of the people included in that figure are al Qaida members who are being held in places like Iran. Their "imprisonment" is really just for show. And even if it were true, it still wouldn't matter. Al Qaida's organization was designed specifically to allow it to continue operating even if all of its leaders are captured or killed.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Did you by any chance see the latest bin Laden video? The man just does not look confident like he used to. You will surely blame that on some kind of illness or the fact that he's three years older than the last video... But the fact of the matter is, the man just looks beaten, tired...and not very confident.

Apparently, you didn't see the same video I did. Because he looked fine to me. I don't see a lack of confidence in, "We did not find it difficult to deal with Bush and his administration, because it is similar to regimes in our countries, half of which are governed by the military and the other half of which are governed by the sons of kings and presidents; and we have a long experience with them." In fact, if I were a betting man I'd say this was al Qaida's warning for their next big attack.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

So now the 9/11 Commission is stupid? We can throw that out then and start at the beginning I guess.

No, you're stupid because you're taking their words out of context. The 9/11 Commission proved that Iraq and al Qaida weren't working together.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I know how interrogations work and I wouldn't play ball. Besides, we've gotten off the subject. You never answered my question about when his apartment was searched. Before or after the "confession"? Please focus, and answer.

It doesn't matter. The search wasn't a factor.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

So you are saying your Constitutional rights have been sacrificed? Sucks to be you I guess.

Yeah, me and 200 million other Americans.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Well, that was the plan from the beginning. Fight the terrorists abroad, not at home. And if those men don't want to fight, they shouldn't voluntarily join the military. Unlike you mag, some people believe in fighting for this country. They don't want your pity, or mine. They want our support.

The plan is supposed to be to destroy the terrorists, not just export our violence so that it's not happening here. When you send troops into combat it's supposed to be for practical, achievable gains. It's not so that you can use them as bait.

I don't know how you figure we had to send troops into Iraq to "fight for this country." Maybe down there in Texas the Republican Guard was getting ready to cross the Rio Grande and sack Houston, but up here we're doing just fine. Iraq wasn't threatening us at all.

I do support the troops. In fact, of the two of us, I seem to be the only one who does. I'm the one who's saying we shouldn't send our troops to be slaughtered for no reason. You can't support the troops and support Bush at the same time. Bush is the one who's getting our troops killed. It has to be one or the other.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

So you mean Kerry is going to win the election? Who didn't know this already? John Kerry will be the next president. I've said it ever since the debates...

I wish I had your confidence about it.

mag

[Kolzig]

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

[Mattsius]

Good stuff.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by mag

Don't go looking to deadworm for help. I already had this conversation with him.

I love how Republicans get so defensive about being politically correct whenever it suits their purposes. Too bad you don't give a damn about minorities any other time. Equality means just that--equal. I'm not going shield anybody just because they happen to be a certain race or religion or sexual orientation. Besides, the best way to fight an insult like that is to coopt it--make a joke out of it. Which is really what most of my jokes based on stereotypes are about--undermining that stereotype's effectiveness.

Hmmm, how would I respond...

I have noticed myself that when I try to be funny like that, it just doesn't work. As you can see from the discussion you linked, people don't get it unless they know you. In one discussion I pretended to hate amateur adventure game developers and people totally missed what I meant - just a joke. Jokes like that are funny when you get them, but when you don't get them... How am I supposed to know the difference between a joke and a parody? Try explaining that to a suicidal 13-year-old. (About a third of all teenage suicides are committed by gays. When was the last time someone committed suicide because somebody couldn't tolerate the fact that (s)he was a Texan/etc?)

[mag]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

Hmmm, how would I respond...

I have noticed myself that when I try to be funny like that, it just doesn't work. As you can see from the discussion you linked, people don't get it unless they know you. In one discussion I pretended to hate amateur adventure game developers and people totally missed what I meant - just a joke. Jokes like that are funny when you get them, but when you don't get them... How am I supposed to know the difference between a joke and a parody? Try explaining that to a suicidal 13-year-old. (About a third of all teenage suicides are committed by gays.

Well, it's not like I said, "All gays should die." I think it was pretty obviously just a bit of good natured fun at the expense of Sanjuro's Texan machismo. I don't think anybody's going to be sunk into a depression because of it.

Humor is funny in that it gives you a subtle look into societal attitudes. Jokes are based on "common sense," so what people joke about tells you something about what they accept as truth. If people can't joke about something like homosexuality, I don't think that's a good thing. It means that homosexuality is something society doesn't consider acceptable or appropriate to talk about. People who insult gays are looking for exactly that kind of defensive reaction. But if you can laugh at it like you would laugh at anything else, that validates it in a way. And it also steals a lot of the homophobes' thunder because it's kind of hard to make fun of somebody for something they're making fun of themselves for. So I think it's very important that we be able to joke about this. Obviously, you still have to make sure it's not totally tasteless, but I don't think that what I said was in any way out of line.

Originally Posted by deadworm222

When was the last time someone committed suicide because somebody couldn't tolerate the fact that (s)he was a Texan/etc?)

Well, I know that being stuck in Texas would be enough to make me want to kill myself.

mag

[Wormsie]

"Save the hippy!"

[Wormsie]

Your "jokes" were more like name calling. If you think that all those people who use "fag" or "gay" as insults are gay rights activist...



I have to admit that you've got a point, though.

[mag]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

Your "jokes" were more like name calling. If you think that all those people who use "fag" or "gay" as insults are gay rights activist...

No, that's kind of the point.

It's really all about context. In this context I don't see how it's really insulting. It was really more about Texans than gays anyway.

And BTW, your "Save the hippy!" comic frightens and confuses me.

mag

[jjacob]

Ehm, so anyway how 'bout dem elections?!

Anyone else have this sneaking suspicion that by this time next week we'll be even more confused about who's stolenwon the election?

[Terabin]

I know who I'm voting for.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Well, once again you're just wrong. This is exactly the kind of question every other presidential candidate in history has had to answer.

And as I said, this being a free country, people are more than welcome to ask again. So this "you're just wrong" business has got to stop. You have no case. You're saying the same thing I'm saying.

Originally Posted by mag

That's because the majority of Europeans are anti-Bush. But that's a bias on the part of the people who wrote the letters, not the Guardian.

Look, the Guardian has a left-wing bias whether you want to admit it or not. Look it up. My gosh, I just typed The Guardian into a search engine and "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" popped up. What is the first line they write? "The Guardian is a British newspaper published by Guardian Newspapers Limited. It is a serious broadsheet newspaper with relatively left wing politics."

Originally Posted by mag

So you can't actually point to anything the Guardian has specifically done wrong in their reporting. You just don't like it. Because their left-wing. FOX News would never have such an obvious partisan bias.

Yes, I don't trust them because they are incredibly left-wing. Exactly. The same reason you don't trust Fox News because you perceive them as being right-wing. Oh I know you say it's because they have no journalistic standards and all that nonsense... But the truth of the matter is, you just don't like their politics.

Originally Posted by mag

I never said that that was Moore's interpretation, though. I said that if that's what Moore was saying, then I think he's wrong. But I can't tell you what Michael Moore believes because I'm not Michael Moore. I can only go by what's in the film.

Sorry mag, you lost. The more you say on this subject makes you look all the more like a poor loser. When someone is defeated they need to move on. I'll clear this up for you, so there aren't anymore questions on the matter. You said "The facts he gives are true. I just don't agree with his interprotation of those facts in this case." Then you said, "We don't actually know what Moore's interpretation is." And now, since I've caught you in this incredibly idiotic mistake, you have changed your story to say, "I said that if that's what Moore was saying, then I think he's wrong." No mag, that's not what you said. You know it, and everyone else who is reading this thread knows it. We can stick a fork in you... It's all over.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, you're wrong. Probably because you can't read.

Whoo... What a killer attack. No, YOU'RE WRONG!

Originally Posted by mag

I did look at it. And it's exactly what I said. They threw in a few events so that stupid people like you would look at it and think that Bush was busy while he was relaxing down in Crawford.

Again, I say take another look at it. You clearly didn't. Actually, I'm sure you did, but your bias won't let you admit that Bush was doing plenty on his "working vacation".

Originally Posted by mag

No, all you really revealed was your own difficulties with reading. But don't worry. We already knew about that.

LOL. Look, I don't want to be too hard on you mag. I completely understand why you are in denial about this. If I were in your shoes I would be embarassed as well. But if there are any questions about who can't read here, one need only scroll up a bit and see where I've quoted your various positions on this issue word for word. You're finished. Everyone knows it but you.

Originally Posted by mag

Don't go looking to deadworm for help. I already had this conversation with him.

I love how Republicans get so defensive about being politically correct whenever it suits their purposes. Too bad you don't give a damn about minorities any other time. Equality means just that--equal. I'm not going shield anybody just because they happen to be a certain race or religion or sexual orientation. Besides, the best way to fight an insult like that is to coopt it--make a joke out of it. Which is really what most of my jokes based on stereotypes are about--undermining that stereotype's effectiveness.

Plus, I'm guy. I find something to make fun of with everybody. If deadworm wants to make fun of me for being a white guy, fine. Just like I might make fun of Jaz for being German. Or like I make fun of fov for being a Red Sox fan. Or like you for being from Texas. Or like you for being a Republican. Or like you for not being able to read. Or like you for being a sadastic asshole. Well, I think you get the point.

Ah, so it's all just a big joke eh? Hardy har. How do we know where the jokes end and the honesty begins? Oh wait, I almost forgot... You're a liberal. The honesty never begins.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, I thought Moore did a good job of showing a realistic portrayal of the troops. I also thought a number of the soldiers he showed were quite intelligent. As far as I can tell your only criterion for whether or not a soldier is "dumb" or a "redneck" is whether or not they agree with you. And that isn't giving them credit at all.

Well, understand that I do give the troops credit. My attack was on Moore, not the troops. Many (I dare say "most" if memory serves) of the soldiers in the film did appear to be rednecks and I do despise rednecks (if you had lived in Arkansas for three years like I did, you would as well)... But the troops as a whole, I support them very, very strongly.

Originally Posted by mag

You haven't proven anything. Show me how his saying "eggs" instead of "egg" is an intentional attempt to mislead and not just bad writing, and maybe you'll have an argument. As it is, you've got nothing.

mag, this is another example of you trying to battle back when you've clearly been defeated. You are now trying to say that Moore's lie was just "bad writing." That is the most excruciatingly piss poor defense ever. You concede that it's an error, but to actually say it's a lie, though it clearly is...that's just too much. .However, since you are a liberal, it is very much in keeping with the tradition of your politics I suppose. If you saw something in the Constitution that you didn't like, your reasoning that it doesn't belong there would be, "It was just bad writing."

Originally Posted by mag

Enron did stand to benefit. That's also something we know to be true.

The only thing that's even debatable is whether Bush went to war for oil. And frankly, you'd have to be pretty naive to think that oil wasn't a reason.

Ohhh, you mean you would think I was naive if I said it wasn't a reason? Cool. Then let me say, I don't think it was a reason. Excellent.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Yes, and if we had gone in to get rid of Saddam Hussein, I probably would have been able to support him. But that's not why we went into Iraq, and it shows in the way we've conducted ourselves since the war began. Because Bush was more interested in setting up his own little client kingdom, innocent people are paying the price. Besides, the president's first priority is to protect the American people. That's a responsibility Bush ignored when he let al Qaida, our main enemy, get away so he could go conquer Iraq.

Oh please... Sure there have been problems and they are damn slow, but really... We won't be there forever. And we have been protected. Have we been attacked since 9/11? No. Three years ago the leader of al Qaida had the power to arrange a devastating attack. Now he has the power to...get a videotape on American TV where he looks utterly defeated and afraid. He's threatening the red states. He's trying to scare Americans into voting for Kerry. If you watch that video and/or read the script of what he's saying...he's now essentially saying, "If you stop hunting me, we won't attack anymore." The man is terrified.

Originally Posted by mag

Oh, there's a LOT of evidence that suggests it won't happen. Pick up a copy of Imperial Hubris, or read anything that's ever been written about Afghanistan by anybody in the intelligence community. What we have there is not a system that can last, and everyday the Taliban is becoming more and more powerful over there.

As for women voting, that election in Afghanistan was a joke. It was more fraudulent than anything Catherine Harris could even dream of.

As I said, in some years we will know if you were right or if I was right. As for the election bit... How can we expect a country having its first election to not have fraud when we have been holding elections for centuries, and we have all kinds of fraud?

Originally Posted by mag

This is one of the greatest myths of the Bush administration. It really betrays a complete lack of understanding about how al Qaida operates. That 75% that has been "captured or killed" have all been replaced. Al Qaida is growing faster than they're being killed. And many of the people included in that figure are al Qaida members who are being held in places like Iran. Their "imprisonment" is really just for show. And even if it were true, it still wouldn't matter. Al Qaida's organization was designed specifically to allow it to continue operating even if all of its leaders are captured or killed.

Thank you for that Richard Clarke talking point. Perhaps you missed the fact that I mentioned that already. Also, you should see the film The Battle of Algiers. Perhaps you have already... I can hope can't I? I know all of these things. But in this particular case, al Qaida has been harmed by this. And I think that had you seen the same bin Laden video I just saw, you would agree that he looks like half the man he used to be.

Originally Posted by mag

Apparently, you didn't see the same video I did. Because he looked fine to me. I don't see a lack of confidence in, "We did not find it difficult to deal with Bush and his administration, because it is similar to regimes in our countries, half of which are governed by the military and the other half of which are governed by the sons of kings and presidents; and we have a long experience with them." In fact, if I were a betting man I'd say this was al Qaida's warning for their next big attack.

I already commented on this above. So I agree. We didn't see the same video.

Originally Posted by mag

No, you're stupid because you're taking their words out of context. The 9/11 Commission proved that Iraq and al Qaida weren't working together.

No. You are taking their words out of context. They even said the media was going wild on this subject and being misleading on the subject. The 9/11 Commission shows that there is no evidence Iraq and al Qaida were working together with regard to 9/11. It doesn't say that they weren't working together otherwise in the past. And they have clarified this.

Originally Posted by mag

It doesn't matter. The search wasn't a factor.

I believe it was.

Originally Posted by mag

The plan is supposed to be to destroy the terrorists, not just export our violence so that it's not happening here. When you send troops into combat it's supposed to be for practical, achievable gains. It's not so that you can use them as bait.

I don't know how you figure we had to send troops into Iraq to "fight for this country." Maybe down there in Texas the Republican Guard was getting ready to cross the Rio Grande and sack Houston, but up here we're doing just fine. Iraq wasn't threatening us at all.

I do support the troops. In fact, of the two of us, I seem to be the only one who does. I'm the one who's saying we shouldn't send our troops to be slaughtered for no reason. You can't support the troops and support Bush at the same time. Bush is the one who's getting our troops killed. It has to be one or the other.

LOL!!! Just listen to yourself will you?! "You can't support the troops and support Bush at the same time. Bush is the one who's getting our troops killed. It has to be one or the other." This point is completely blown out of the water by military people themselves! They are 73% in support of Bush! Wake up and experience reality.

Originally Posted by mag

I wish I had your confidence about it.

It's not that I think it's not close or that Bush couldn't win in a fair race. But I believe there will be just enough fraud to put Kerry over the top. The good news is...by 2008 I don't believe anyone will want to re-elect Kerry...

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Well, I know that being stuck in Texas would be enough to make me want to kill myself.

Man, I want in on this "good natured fun" then. But I'll put a little dose of politics on top. You are aware that a state's number of electoral votes are proportionate to population, right? So let's see... Pennsylvania lost 2 votes in the last decade, and Texas gained two in the same span. Looks like people are packing up and leaving your shitty state and coming here. If you ever visited (please don't, but I'm just saying...), perhaps you'd see why.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by Ninth

I don't get this. It might have been the worst Cannes since you're alive, but there certainly where some films of notice there. 2046 was great (seen it a week ago) for example. And Old Boy was interesting, albeit not a masterpiece.
And there were probably many other good movies that I can't remember.
I think it's kind of weird that Moore got the Palme for Farenheit, when it's obviously not his best movie, artistically speaking, although it might be his most important one.

EDIT: Of course, you had to post (though is your case, perhaps it should be called something else, like ppppooooossssstttt) while I was typing. Anyway, even though 2046 wasn't in it's final cut, I'm pretty sure it was already something to behold. Wong Kar Wai is a master, there's no denying this.

Ninth, sorry man, I just saw this post... Anyway, I think that if politics were left out, you and I would really get along. You seem to have pretty good taste in films. Yes, Wong Kar-Wai is an excellent filmmaker.

However, about 2046, you and I have only seen the final cut apparently. The word out of Cannes was that it still needed some work at the time, and was certainly just that: a work in progress. Kar-Wai, like Stanley Kubrick on 2001: A Space Odyssey, was still editing the film the very day that it finally premiered which was on the last day of the festival I believe. What happens in the editing room is so crucial...films live or die based on that most of the time.

Take Terrence Malick's film The Thin Red Line. It was supposed to be the big start for the career of the actor Adrien Brody. He was the leading role of the film. A huge production, and there he was...the star of it all. But shockingly, Malick decided after filming was completed that he wanted to change everything up and take the film in a whole new direction. He ended up making a three hour film, with Adrien Brody in about a ten minute guest star role! That's how drastically the editing can transform a film. Another example is the film The Brown Bunny. Roger Ebert called it the worst film in the history of the Cannes film festival. A complete bomb. He failed to mention that it was also a work in progress. But after Vincent Gallo edited the film to it's completion, Ebert saw the final cut, and awarded it *** (out of ****).

The fact that Kar-Wai was rushing to get a viewable version of 2046 out in time for Cannes is not a good thing. Great artists should never be rushed. Again, I haven't seen the Cannes cut of the film, but the word is that it was quite a different film from what you and I have seen. And the reason I specifically mentioned that it wasn't in its final cut is because knowing Kar-Wai's work, skill, and talent...I couldn't see any respectable body of judges awarding Moore's film with the top honor over 2046. The only explanation simply had to be the fact that 2046 wasn't complete.

[mag]

The final Electoral Vote Predictor gives Kerry a lead of 298-231. w00t!

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Look, the Guardian has a left-wing bias whether you want to admit it or not. Look it up. My gosh, I just typed The Guardian into a search engine and "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" popped up. What is the first line they write? "The Guardian is a British newspaper published by Guardian Newspapers Limited. It is a serious broadsheet newspaper with relatively left wing politics."

I never said the Guardian isn't liberal. I said you don't have any proof that they're untrustworthy. No matter what your bias is there's only so many ways to interpret "This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas." Unless you're accusing them of outright lying, which I find hard to believe, whether they're liberal or not doesn't matter. These are the facts.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Yes, I don't trust them because they are incredibly left-wing. Exactly. The same reason you don't trust Fox News because you perceive them as being right-wing. Oh I know you say it's because they have no journalistic standards and all that nonsense... But the truth of the matter is, you just don't like their politics.

Wow. Now you have the power to read minds. You should take this act on the road. You can make some real money.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Sorry mag, you lost. The more you say on this subject makes you look all the more like a poor loser. When someone is defeated they need to move on. I'll clear this up for you, so there aren't anymore questions on the matter. You said "The facts he gives are true. I just don't agree with his interprotation of those facts in this case." Then you said, "We don't actually know what Moore's interpretation is." And now, since I've caught you in this incredibly idiotic mistake, you have changed your story to say, "I said that if that's what Moore was saying, then I think he's wrong." No mag, that's not what you said. You know it, and everyone else who is reading this thread knows it. We can stick a fork in you... It's all over.

Yes, I know you'd like me to shut up since you don't have a prayer of winning this debate. But if you look at all of what I said you'll see that what I said was, "I don't know if Moore is implying that that was the main reason, but if he is I think he's wrong."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Whoo... What a killer attack. No, YOU'RE WRONG!

Hey, I can only disprove the same tired argument so many times. You're not addressing anything I've said. You just repeat the same line that I've already shown to be false over and over again. If you want to know why you're wrong, go back and read what I wrote. Otherwise, just be content in the knowledge that you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Again, I say take another look at it. You clearly didn't. Actually, I'm sure you did, but your bias won't let you admit that Bush was doing plenty on his "working vacation".

See above.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL. Look, I don't want to be too hard on you mag. I completely understand why you are in denial about this. If I were in your shoes I would be embarassed as well. But if there are any questions about who can't read here, one need only scroll up a bit and see where I've quoted your various positions on this issue word for word. You're finished. Everyone knows it but you.

Well, somebody's certainly finished. But it's not me.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ah, so it's all just a big joke eh? Hardy har. How do we know where the jokes end and the honesty begins? Oh wait, I almost forgot... You're a liberal. The honesty never begins.

You know it from the obvious sarcasm. Like I said, it's all about context. Besides, the whole point of it was to watch you get defensive about your masculinity. You were just too stupid to understand the reference.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Well, understand that I do give the troops credit. My attack was on Moore, not the troops. Many (I dare say "most" if memory serves) of the soldiers in the film did appear to be rednecks and I do despise rednecks (if you had lived in Arkansas for three years like I did, you would as well)... But the troops as a whole, I support them very, very strongly.

Why did you have to move to Arkansas to find rednecks? You live right there in Texas.

But you did say that you support all the troops except the ones Moore shows in his film. That means you don't support all the troops.

I wouldn't call the troops in Fahrenheit 9/11 "rednecks." And living in western Pennsylvania, I have some experience with rednecks. They are pretty typical soldiers. They're speaking more openly than soldiers are usually allowed to do on camera. But they're not that unusual. Young, yes. Unsophisticated, sure. But not rednecks. And if you think about it, it makes sense. A very large percentage of the soldiers in our military aren't there because they feel such a strong desire to serve our country as much as because it's the only work available to them. A lot of the kids over there came out of the worst parts of society, and the military was really the best option for them. So of course you have a lot of poor people, what you would apparently call "rednecks."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

mag, this is another example of you trying to battle back when you've clearly been defeated. You are now trying to say that Moore's lie was just "bad writing." That is the most excruciatingly piss poor defense ever. You concede that it's an error, but to actually say it's a lie, though it clearly is...that's just too much. .However, since you are a liberal, it is very much in keeping with the tradition of your politics I suppose. If you saw something in the Constitution that you didn't like, your reasoning that it doesn't belong there would be, "It was just bad writing."

An error is different from a lie. You haven't shown me how this was done to deliberately mislead people. It looks to me as though if it is an error, it's just that. I don't think Moore was sitting up all night thinking of malicious ways he could use plural forms of words to mislead people.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ohhh, you mean you would think I was naive if I said it wasn't a reason? Cool. Then let me say, I don't think it was a reason. Excellent.

Well, you're naive. But we've already established that.

mag

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Oh please... Sure there have been problems and they are damn slow, but really... We won't be there forever. And we have been protected. Have we been attacked since 9/11? No. Three years ago the leader of al Qaida had the power to arrange a devastating attack. Now he has the power to...get a videotape on American TV where he looks utterly defeated and afraid. He's threatening the red states. He's trying to scare Americans into voting for Kerry. If you watch that video and/or read the script of what he's saying...he's now essentially saying, "If you stop hunting me, we won't attack anymore." The man is terrified.

Yes, we have been attacked since 9/11. We've been attacked a lot more since 9/11. All we've done is moved the violence to where we don't have to look at it. And you've got to be high on something if you think bin Laden looks "defeated" or "afraid" in that video. Pretty much every analyst who's looked at it says he looks about as good as ever. His message of "if you stop attacking me, I'll stop attacking you" has always been his message from day one. He knows he's not going to topple the American government. He just wants them to stop oppressing Arabs. So that's nothing new.

Furthermore, you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that just because they haven't hit the US recently that that means they can't hit us. They're actually more capable of doing so now than ever before. The only question is when, and al Qaida is patient. They can wait us out for as long as it takes.

And if you think bin Laden's video was an attempt to swing the election in Kerry's favor, you're dumber than I thought. I don't think this was really done to influence the election, but if it was I'm pretty sure Kerry isn't the guy he wants. So far Bush has done everything bin Laden wanted. Why would he want to replace him? Besides, bin Laden isn't a stupid person. He knows that Americans rally around their president when they're threatened. If this was an attempt to effect the election, it was most likely a favor to an old friend of the family for a job well done.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

As I said, in some years we will know if you were right or if I was right. As for the election bit... How can we expect a country having its first election to not have fraud when we have been holding elections for centuries, and we have all kinds of fraud?

Yeah, but at least with our elections you can pretend that they're fair if you're not really paying attention. The election in Afghanistan was just a joke.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Thank you for that Richard Clarke talking point. Perhaps you missed the fact that I mentioned that already. Also, you should see the film The Battle of Algiers. Perhaps you have already... I can hope can't I? I know all of these things. But in this particular case, al Qaida has been harmed by this. And I think that had you seen the same bin Laden video I just saw, you would agree that he looks like half the man he used to be.

Okay well, while you assess how bin Laden "looks" and how many times he calls us a "paper tiger," I'll be looking at actual objective evidence.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I already commented on this above. So I agree. We didn't see the same video.

Yeah, I saw the actual video, and you saw some other video that only you seem to have in which bin Laden looks in some way weak and afraid.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

No. You are taking their words out of context. They even said the media was going wild on this subject and being misleading on the subject. The 9/11 Commission shows that there is no evidence Iraq and al Qaida were working together with regard to 9/11. It doesn't say that they weren't working together otherwise in the past. And they have clarified this.

The most anybody has found is that some Iraqi officials had a few meetings with members of al Qaida. That's it. There's no indication that they ever worked together. And that's exactly what the 9/11 Commission found. To me that doesn't seem like a real good reason to start a war.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I believe it was.

Well, good for you, but you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL!!! Just listen to yourself will you?! "You can't support the troops and support Bush at the same time. Bush is the one who's getting our troops killed. It has to be one or the other." This point is completely blown out of the water by military people themselves! They are 73% in support of Bush! Wake up and experience reality.

How does 73% of the soldiers supporting Bush disprove that Bush is the one getting our troops killed? I guess you're using that special kind of logic that makes sense only in the mind of an extreme conservative.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

It's not that I think it's not close or that Bush couldn't win in a fair race. But I believe there will be just enough fraud to put Kerry over the top. The good news is...by 2008 I don't believe anyone will want to re-elect Kerry...

Well, if it comes down to fraud, then Bush will take it. Bush is the best cheater we've ever had in politics. But Kerry has the Kennedies on his side, so he should be able to at least put up a fight.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Man, I want in on this "good natured fun" then. But I'll put a little dose of politics on top. You are aware that a state's number of electoral votes are proportionate to population, right? So let's see... Pennsylvania lost 2 votes in the last decade, and Texas gained two in the same span. Looks like people are packing up and leaving your shitty state and coming here. If you ever visited (please don't, but I'm just saying...), perhaps you'd see why.

Actually, I know some of the people who moved from Pennsylvania to Texas. Trust me. It's not a loss. I'm not supposed to tell you this but since you brought it up, Texas is actually where we're sending everybody we don't like. We figured you have enough rednecks and losers down there that you'll never notice.

mag

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by mag

The final Electoral Vote Predictor gives Kerry a lead of 298-231. w00t!

W000000000t! I didn't even read the rest of your message but that little bit just left me in a haze of a jolly optimistic high This is the first time I've gotten any sprinkle of hope for Kerry's victory!

*Goes off to party.. or something

[mag]

Originally Posted by jjacob

W000000000t! I didn't even read the rest of your message but that little bit just left me in a haze of a jolly optimistic high This is the first time I've gotten any sprinkle of hope for Kerry's victory!

*Goes off to party.. or something

I wouldn't start celebrating just yet. A lot of those leads are by a razor thin margin. We still don't know what will happen. But I'll take any good news I can get. Keep your fingers crossed.

mag