XPost: alt.politics.british, misc.legal, talk.politics.misc   
   From: forget@it.com   
      
   Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > Ken Smith wrote:   
   >>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   >>>Ken Smith wrote:   
   >>>>Jon C wrote:   
      
   >>>>>There are so many great arguments against Bush and company, it amazes me   
   >>>>>that this guy needs to make shit up and mislead people over and over to   
   >>>>>get his point across.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Moore sees the world through his lens,   
   >>>   
   >>>Moore lies.   
   >>   
   >>Bush lies.  [...]   
   >   
   > Even if true, immaterial.  Bush is President of the United States.  Moore is   
   > just a scruffy malcontent.  You besmirch your own reputation (such as it is)   
   > to the extent that you defend Michael Moore.  (But in your case, I suppose   
   > that it really doesn't make any differnece.)   
      
      "All men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others?"   
      
      When a scruffy-looking malcontent like you lies, no one usually gets   
   hurt.  [You don't have the standing to complain about Moore's looks!]   
   When Bush lies, hundreds of people are killed and maimed.   
      
      I have the right to hold Bush to a higher standard.  Indeed, I have   
   an obligation to hold Bush to a higher standard.  He willingly entered   
   into a fiduciary relationship, with obligations emanating from that   
   relation.   
      
   >>>Personally, I think he's the ideal spokesman for the left, because he's so   
   >>>over the top with his mendacity and prevarication that even some of his   
   >>>fellow leftists want to keep him at a distance.   
   >   
   >>You mean, like Drugs "Abu Ghraib's just a fraternity prank" Limburger?   
   >   
   > The media missed the point on that one, and misreported it.  What Limbaugh   
   > REALLY said was that it was "no different than a Skull & Bones initiation   
   > ritual".   
      
      I heard him defend it today, but it's not a defense.  While al-Qaeda   
   doesn't respect the Geneva Conventions, and no one suggests that they   
   do, neither does the Bush Junta.   
      
      I'm more inclined to believe Lynddie England.  No question that their   
   unlawful treatment of prisoners of war was intentional, and ordered from   
   on high.  (If al-Q had any smarts, they would have just laid low and let   
   Bush implode.)   
      
      That having been said, we're running out of reasons for this W-ar.   
   First, the WMD.  No.  Then, the al-Qaeda links.  No.  Then, to liberate   
   the people.  No.  Now, it seems that we didn't like how Saddam tortured   
   his people, and Bush wants to show everyone how it's done. :)   
      
   >>[...]   
   >   
   >>>But let's be forthright about who he is ...   
   >   
   >>>... Oh, that's right ... you're Ken Smith ... standing up for mendacity   
   >>>and prevarication ... as usual.   
   >   
   >>I don't support the Bush Junta's shameful lies for a moment.   
   >   
   > You're the liar.   
      
      I really don't support the Bush Junta's shameful lies.   
      
   >>And I AM an active Republican.   
   >   
   > Of the RINO variety.   
      
      You mean, the Republicans who don't countenance deficit spending?   
   The Republicans who don't like our country to get into unnecessary wars   
   all around the globe?  Remember what Bush said when he lied his way into   
   the White House?   
      
      Real Republicans don't care what happens in other people's bedrooms.   
     Real Republicans want government to get the hell out of our lives.   
   I'm of the opinion that you are a religious fascist in Republican clothing.   
      
   >>>Ken, get help, please.  Before it's too late.   
   >>   
   >>If you are prepared to pay for Geoffrey Fieger to represent me, [...]   
   >   
   > I didn't know that Fieger was a psychiatrist.   
      
      You're the one who needs a nice padded cell.  BTW, how did the prelim   
   go on your alleged baby-killing bro-in-la?   
      
   >>>>>I don't blame Disney at all.  I think this has less to do with upsetting   
   >>>>>Bush than it does not wanting to produce and distribute a film that is   
   >>>>>slanderous and grossly misleading.  That's smart business, IMO.   
   >   
   >>>>When they fire Hannity at WABC, they can talk that talk.   
   >   
   >>>I doubt that Hannity is an employee of WABC.  He probably has an   
   >>>arrangement where he owns his own production company which provides a   
   >>>product (The Sean Hannity Show) to WABC in exchange for the use of their   
   >>>production facilities.   
   >   
   >>Okay, then disassociate themselves with him.   
   >   
   > In other words, when they disassociate themselves from money?  Man, get your   
   > head screwed on!   
      
      Moore's movies are invariably profitable.  To say you're not going to   
   distribute his material for financial reasons is another way of saying   
   that you're being bought off by the Bush Junta.  To say that you're not   
   going to distribute his material for political reasons is hypocritical,   
   and evidence that you're *really* getting bought off by the Bush Junta.   
      
   >>At any rate, they can't claim to be "apolitical" and associate themselves   
   >>with Hannity, but not Moore.   
   >   
   > Sure they can.  Hannity makes them a bundle.  Moore might make them a little   
   > chump change.  But who needs the hassle, in exchange for peanuts?   
      
      How much does Hannity make them?  Do you know?  Or is it that Disney   
   has a political agenda?  Or more to the point, that they are being paid   
   off by the Bush Junta for squashing Michael Moore -- with *FLORIDIANS'*   
   tax dollars?   
      
   >>That's so hypocritical that even you should be able to see it.   
   >   
   > I see no hypocrisy here.  When money talks, nobody criticises its accent.   
      
      As the Bush Family Crime Syndicate's ties with Hitler proved....   
   >   
   >>>There's probably also a barter arrangement there where they can fill break   
   >>>time with some of their own local spots, while agreeing to carry the   
   >>>national spots provided by Hannity (that all syndicates of the show must   
   >>>air along with the show).   
   >   
   >>Fine.  Break the arrangement.  [...]   
   >   
   > What was that you were saying about contract law?   
      
      If they should break the arrangement with Moore on grounds that they   
   don't want to be too political, they should also break the arrangement   
   with Hannity.  Otherwise, they should just confess that the Bush Junta   
   is buying them off....   
      
   >>>>Beyond that, they should honor their commitment (as evidenced by the ~$6M   
   >>>>they threw at the movie) to distribute it, on time and as originally   
   >>>>contemplated.   
   >>>   
   >>>What was originally contemplated was a documentary, one that didn't   
   >>>contain any lies.   
   >   
   >>Everyone knew what to expect from Moore.  [...]   
   >   
   > Yeah, B.S.   
      
      IOW, not right-wing religious nutter propaganda.  You're all for free   
   speech for you, but not for the other guy.  You're at least a consistent   
   goosestepper....   
      
   >>>>Moore's movie, regardless of what you think of the guy, has a shelf life   
   >>>>and needs to be distributed now.   
   >>>   
   >>>Tough noogies on Michael Moore.  My heart bleeds.   
   >>   
   >>And you'd be screaming bloody murder if it was Sean Hannity.  That is the   
   >>fundamental difference between us: I actually walk my talk.   
   >   
   > What, you walk about as a mendacious prevaricator?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)