Fans want Moore

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: syzygy
these fans are likely sprung from the only demographic group that voted in the majority for kerry. they are young, naive, still incubating, and one day enough of them
will turn to the dark side and leave these pyrrhic victories behind. as for now, lets not turn their tv off and deprive them of their cartoons.

Your reasoning seems to go that since the only demographic group that voted in the majority for Kerry is young people, everyone who voted for Kerry is in that demographic. At least that's what I gather from your post.

Interestingly enough, looking at the numbers would seem to indicate that young people don't make up and kind of majority among non-Bush voters, so using traits of that group, even if those traits were true, to paint the entire group doesn't make a lot of sense.

As far as fans of the movie go, given the huge success of the movie, I'd say more than 9% of the voters like it, wouldn't you? Doesn't that number seem a little low? Well it is, it's the percent of voters that are both younger than 29 and Kerry voters.

But what do I know, I'm only 21

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: raildogg
LMAO @ Moore

Laughing at Moore, eh?

I'm not sure I'd be lauging, unlike you (or anyone else on this board for that matter), people seem to actually care what his political opinion is.

Interesting. Does that mean that people shouldn't be laughing at Bush since the same could be said of him? Or any of the other crazy 'right wing' people?

Not at all, I was only trying to point out how silly raildogg's comment was in a thread about how Moore won some important award for his work. It would be like posting "LMAO @ Bush" in a thread about him winning the election. It just doesn't fit.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm really looking forward to his new piece on the big pharms. Those dirtbags rank right up their with the Bush White House.

You obviously have no clue...

MM is going to possibly ruin an industry, one of the only thriving in the liberal bastion of John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts...Moore will try and paint a negative picture of big pharma and parallel them with the tobacco industry based on old data and or old business practices...fact are the industry as a whole is in the process of revamping the way they do business for the better.

While some pharma activites are less than to be desired, the fact is that the people working in the industry are doing so for the right reasons and helping to advance science.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: raildogg
LMAO @ Moore

Laughing at Moore, eh?

I'm not sure I'd be lauging, unlike you (or anyone else on this board for that matter), people seem to actually care what his political opinion is.

Interesting. Does that mean that people shouldn't be laughing at Bush since the same could be said of him? Or any of the other crazy 'right wing' people?

Not at all, I was only trying to point out how silly raildogg's comment was in a thread about how Moore won some important award for his work. It would be like posting "LMAO @ Bush" in a thread about him winning the election. It just doesn't fit.

I just find him to be very funny. Thats all. He should try out a career as a comedian.

But thats just my opinion.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm really looking forward to his new piece on the big pharms. Those dirtbags rank right up their with the Bush White House.

You obviously have no clue...

MM is going to possibly ruin an industry, one of the only thriving in the liberal bastion of John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts...Moore will try and paint a negative picture of big pharma and parallel them with the tobacco industry based on old data and or old business practices...fact are the industry as a whole is in the process of revamping the way they do business for the better.

While some pharma activites are less than to be desired, the fact is that the people working in the industry are doing so for the right reasons and helping to advance science.

By making themselves immune from liability via riders in the Patriot Act?

Or how about having newly-inaugurated Republican Presidents appointing a new head of the FDA and then a few months later approving a drug that had been rejected for the last 16 years because another Republican buddy was CEO of that company?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm really looking forward to his new piece on the big pharms. Those dirtbags rank right up their with the Bush White House.

You obviously have no clue...

MM is going to possibly ruin an industry, one of the only thriving in the liberal bastion of John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts...Moore will try and paint a negative picture of big pharma and parallel them with the tobacco industry based on old data and or old business practices...fact are the industry as a whole is in the process of revamping the way they do business for the better.

While some pharma activites are less than to be desired, the fact is that the people working in the industry are doing so for the right reasons and helping to advance science.

You obviously have some personal interest in the big pharms or you wouldn't be protecting them.

Why are they thriving in the first place? At the expense of the true well being of people...that's how.

If it takes ruining the pharms to change how they help people, so be it.

The industry as a whole has a LONG, LONG way to go if they want to revamp their core business philosophies...which in earnest, they don't want to revamp at all because they are making so much money the current way.

Here is a FACT: since TV advertisements of prescription drugs was approved several years back, the big pharms have spent 5x their R&D budget on media advertisement. Shows you where their priorities really are. They introduce dozens of new drugs every year, but about 10% of them are actual new drugs...most are "me-too" or copycat drugs.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why are they thriving in the first place? At the expense of the true well being of people...that's how.

I didn't realize the "true well being of people" was how you measure a successful business.

People such as yourself and Michael Moore seem to think that pharmaceutical companies should exist to serve the public, and nothing else. In reality, however, their goal is make a profit by serving the public. They are a business like any other. Get over it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why are they thriving in the first place? At the expense of the true well being of people...that's how.

I didn't realize the "true well being of people" was how you measure a successful business.

People such as yourself and Michael Moore seem to think that pharmaceutical companies should exist to serve the public, and nothing else. In reality, however, their goal is make a profit by serving the public. They are a business like any other. Get over it.

Making a profit ethically should be the key. But, to you, you don't care how the almighty dollar is made.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why are they thriving in the first place? At the expense of the true well being of people...that's how.

I didn't realize the "true well being of people" was how you measure a successful business.

People such as yourself and Michael Moore seem to think that pharmaceutical companies should exist to serve the public, and nothing else. In reality, however, their goal is make a profit by serving the public. They are a business like any other. Get over it.

Just like school bus companies are there to make a profit. Nevermind them driving on bald tires, THEY NEED TO MAKE A PROFIT!!!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why are they thriving in the first place? At the expense of the true well being of people...that's how.

I didn't realize the "true well being of people" was how you measure a successful business.

People such as yourself and Michael Moore seem to think that pharmaceutical companies should exist to serve the public, and nothing else. In reality, however, their goal is make a profit by serving the public. They are a business like any other. Get over it.

Making a profit ethically should be the key. But, to you, you don't care how the almighty dollar is made.

Really? Where did I ever say that?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why are they thriving in the first place? At the expense of the true well being of people...that's how.

I didn't realize the "true well being of people" was how you measure a successful business.

People such as yourself and Michael Moore seem to think that pharmaceutical companies should exist to serve the public, and nothing else. In reality, however, their goal is make a profit by serving the public. They are a business like any other. Get over it.

Just like school bus companies are there to make a profit. Nevermind them driving on bald tires, THEY NEED TO MAKE A PROFIT!!!

You are an idiot.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why are they thriving in the first place? At the expense of the true well being of people...that's how.

I didn't realize the "true well being of people" was how you measure a successful business.

People such as yourself and Michael Moore seem to think that pharmaceutical companies should exist to serve the public, and nothing else. In reality, however, their goal is make a profit by serving the public. They are a business like any other. Get over it.

Making a profit ethically should be the key. But, to you, you don't care how the almighty dollar is made.

Really? Where did I ever say that?

Between the lines.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur
Between the lines.

Statements of fact do not always encompass personal belief. Nice try.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ntdz
Bush won the official "People's choice award." Michael Moore is accepting his little statue while Bush is making policy.

There are people who still believe Bush is making policy? :laugh:

Just like there are people who believe Moore actually made a factual documentary. :laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ntdz
Bush won the official "People's choice award." Michael Moore is accepting his little statue while Bush is making policy.

There are people who still believe Bush is making policy? :laugh:

Just like there are people who believe Moore actually made a factual documentary. :laugh:

There was more truth to Moores Documentary than Bushes reasons for invading and occupying Iraq!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ntdz
Bush won the official "People's choice award." Michael Moore is accepting his little statue while Bush is making policy.

There are people who still believe Bush is making policy? :laugh:

Just like there are people who believe Moore actually made a factual documentary. :laugh:

As opposed to a non-factual documentary? Hehe.

Dictionary.com:

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was more truth to Moores Documentary than Bushes reasons for invading and occupying Iraq!

ROFL. You wish.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was more truth to Moores Documentary than Bushes reasons for invading and occupying Iraq!

ROFL. You wish.

Where are the WMDs?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was more truth to Moores Documentary than Bushes reasons for invading and occupying Iraq!

ROFL. You wish.

Where are the WMDs?

The difference, my friend, is that Bush had sources telling him otherwise. Of course, we now know that the intelligence surroudning those sources was faulty. Show me a single FACTUAL document that supports anything Michael Moore presented in his movie.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was more truth to Moores Documentary than Bushes reasons for invading and occupying Iraq!

ROFL. You wish.

OWNED

Sorry, I didn't mean to actually give you a reasonable argument. I know you PNAC members have a hard time arguing real facts.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was more truth to Moores Documentary than Bushes reasons for invading and occupying Iraq!

ROFL. You wish.

Where are the WMDs?

The difference, my friend, is that Bush had sources telling him otherwise. Of course, we now know that the intelligence surroudning those sources was faulty. Show me a single FACTUAL document that supports anything Michael Moore presented in his movie.

my memories of moore's film tell me that most of what he presented was video clips so on their own those should be pretty factual. His means of presentation is obviously quite slanted but that doesn't mean it's a lie.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was more truth to Moores Documentary than Bushes reasons for invading and occupying Iraq!

ROFL. You wish.

Where are the WMDs?

The difference, my friend, is that Bush had sources telling him otherwise. Of course, we now know that the intelligence surroudning those sources was faulty. Show me a single FACTUAL document that supports anything Michael Moore presented in his movie.

So although you admit Bush's sources were false, his motives were true? Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur
Between the lines.

Statements of fact do not always encompass personal belief. Nice try.

Then answer my reply to bozack:


By making themselves immune from liability via riders in the Patriot Act?

Or how about having newly-inaugurated Republican Presidents appointing a new head of the FDA and then a few months later approving a drug that had been rejected for the last 16 years because another Republican buddy was CEO of that company?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was more truth to Moores Documentary than Bushes reasons for invading and occupying Iraq!

ROFL. You wish.

Where are the WMDs?

The difference, my friend, is that Bush had sources telling him otherwise. Of course, we now know that the intelligence surroudning those sources was faulty.

SO that makes them true?

Show me a single FACTUAL document that supports anything Michael Moore presented in his movie.

Just one? OK, thanks for making it easy on me
http://www.bootreport.com/archives/000055.html

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The difference, my friend, is that Bush had sources telling him otherwise. Of course, we now know that the intelligence surroudning those sources was faulty. Show me a single FACTUAL document that supports anything Michael Moore presented in his movie.

my memories of moore's film tell me that most of what he presented was video clips so on their own those should be pretty factual. His means of presentation is obviously quite slanted but that doesn't mean it's a lie.

Exactly.

But, what you have in daniel1113 is a Bush-God fanboi. The Bush can do no wrong as he's inspired by God so, obviously, Michael Moore is a big fat liar.