Donald Trump
Comments
-
I need to take a bit of this back. I’ve not yet watched Sicko either.cincybearcat said:
What a great argument on his behalf. I’ve watched every one of his documentaries. I will eventually watch this one when it doesn’t give him as much $ likely. But I’m not a fan of his style (he is on screen way too much cause and I personally think he more like Ali G then a true documentary maker). I actually tend to agree with his viewpoints in the documentaries, bough I really found F 9/11 to be pretty awful. I’m a huge gun law advocate and hated bowling for Columbine. I believe his only motive is himself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What a tired argument.cincybearcat said:
Haven’t seen this one. I’ve seen all his other ones. His only interest is making himself appear in “documentaries” and making himself $ and improving his life.1ThoughtKnown said:^^^
I respect your view (and your thoughts on Moore are not all wrong), but your opinion can hold little water unless you have seen the documentary.
Its strange to me people want to silence a guy who genuinely wants to make the world a better place. Take 90 minutes, watch the doc and draw your own conclusion (the same way you would reading the any of the rags you talked about which are owned by corporations or the corporations which advertise in them)
But thats a tired argument whereas not saying anything but “you are wrong” to someone is apparently a terrifically educational and intellectual argument. Yawn, I’m tired.hippiemom = goodness0 -
The filmmaker being on screen in the documentaries isn't something unique to Moore.cincybearcat said:
What a great argument on his behalf. I’ve watched every one of his documentaries. I will eventually watch this one when it doesn’t give him as much $ likely. But I’m not a fan of his style (he is on screen way too much cause and I personally think he more like Ali G then a true documentary maker). I actually tend to agree with his viewpoints in the documentaries, bough I really found F 9/11 to be pretty awful. I’m a huge gun law advocate and hated bowling for Columbine. I believe his only motive is himself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What a tired argument.cincybearcat said:
Haven’t seen this one. I’ve seen all his other ones. His only interest is making himself appear in “documentaries” and making himself $ and improving his life.1ThoughtKnown said:^^^
I respect your view (and your thoughts on Moore are not all wrong), but your opinion can hold little water unless you have seen the documentary.
Its strange to me people want to silence a guy who genuinely wants to make the world a better place. Take 90 minutes, watch the doc and draw your own conclusion (the same way you would reading the any of the rags you talked about which are owned by corporations or the corporations which advertise in them)
But thats a tired argument whereas not saying anything but “you are wrong” to someone is apparently a terrifically educational and intellectual argument. Yawn, I’m tired.
Him being a recognizable character and/by putting himself into the films obviously has helped him getting funding and wide releases.
You seemingly having something against him is clouding your view of the films I think
His technique is to push through a subjective narrative with himself as the guide -- and not have Tom Hanks do a VO like Ken Burns. It's a style. But I don't think how you can see it as "his motive is himself" unless you, as I wrote above have something against him. Do you hate fast cutting and handheld camera in films too?
And yeah, it is tired."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
He's on the cover. And his "documentaries" are mostly propoganda. I prefer documentaries that look at all sides of complex issues or focus on the human subjects instead of the filmaker.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The filmmaker being on screen in the documentaries isn't something unique to Moore.cincybearcat said:
What a great argument on his behalf. I’ve watched every one of his documentaries. I will eventually watch this one when it doesn’t give him as much $ likely. But I’m not a fan of his style (he is on screen way too much cause and I personally think he more like Ali G then a true documentary maker). I actually tend to agree with his viewpoints in the documentaries, bough I really found F 9/11 to be pretty awful. I’m a huge gun law advocate and hated bowling for Columbine. I believe his only motive is himself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What a tired argument.cincybearcat said:
Haven’t seen this one. I’ve seen all his other ones. His only interest is making himself appear in “documentaries” and making himself $ and improving his life.1ThoughtKnown said:^^^
I respect your view (and your thoughts on Moore are not all wrong), but your opinion can hold little water unless you have seen the documentary.
Its strange to me people want to silence a guy who genuinely wants to make the world a better place. Take 90 minutes, watch the doc and draw your own conclusion (the same way you would reading the any of the rags you talked about which are owned by corporations or the corporations which advertise in them)
But thats a tired argument whereas not saying anything but “you are wrong” to someone is apparently a terrifically educational and intellectual argument. Yawn, I’m tired.
Him being a recognizable character and/by putting himself into the films obviously has helped him getting funding and wide releases.
You seemingly having something against him is clouding your view of the films I think
His technique is to push through a subjective narrative with himself as the guide -- and not have Tom Hanks do a VO like Ken Burns. It's a style. But I don't think how you can see it as "his motive is himself" unless you, as I wrote above have something against him. Do you hate fast cutting and handheld camera in films too?
And yeah, it is tired.
He's definitely a filmmaker with an agenda. I just don;t like his style and do think he makes it about him.hippiemom = goodness0 -
He speaks truth to power. What do YOU do?cincybearcat said:
He's on the cover. And his "documentaries" are mostly propoganda. I prefer documentaries that look at all sides of complex issues or focus on the human subjects instead of the filmaker.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The filmmaker being on screen in the documentaries isn't something unique to Moore.cincybearcat said:
What a great argument on his behalf. I’ve watched every one of his documentaries. I will eventually watch this one when it doesn’t give him as much $ likely. But I’m not a fan of his style (he is on screen way too much cause and I personally think he more like Ali G then a true documentary maker). I actually tend to agree with his viewpoints in the documentaries, bough I really found F 9/11 to be pretty awful. I’m a huge gun law advocate and hated bowling for Columbine. I believe his only motive is himself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What a tired argument.cincybearcat said:
Haven’t seen this one. I’ve seen all his other ones. His only interest is making himself appear in “documentaries” and making himself $ and improving his life.1ThoughtKnown said:^^^
I respect your view (and your thoughts on Moore are not all wrong), but your opinion can hold little water unless you have seen the documentary.
Its strange to me people want to silence a guy who genuinely wants to make the world a better place. Take 90 minutes, watch the doc and draw your own conclusion (the same way you would reading the any of the rags you talked about which are owned by corporations or the corporations which advertise in them)
But thats a tired argument whereas not saying anything but “you are wrong” to someone is apparently a terrifically educational and intellectual argument. Yawn, I’m tired.
Him being a recognizable character and/by putting himself into the films obviously has helped him getting funding and wide releases.
You seemingly having something against him is clouding your view of the films I think
His technique is to push through a subjective narrative with himself as the guide -- and not have Tom Hanks do a VO like Ken Burns. It's a style. But I don't think how you can see it as "his motive is himself" unless you, as I wrote above have something against him. Do you hate fast cutting and handheld camera in films too?
And yeah, it is tired.
He's definitely a filmmaker with an agenda. I just don;t like his style and do think he makes it about him.Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180 -
I would tend to agree. real credible documentaries take all information into account. he just shouts wrongdoings from the rooftops with a big budget.cincybearcat said:
He's on the cover. And his "documentaries" are mostly propoganda. I prefer documentaries that look at all sides of complex issues or focus on the human subjects instead of the filmaker.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The filmmaker being on screen in the documentaries isn't something unique to Moore.cincybearcat said:
What a great argument on his behalf. I’ve watched every one of his documentaries. I will eventually watch this one when it doesn’t give him as much $ likely. But I’m not a fan of his style (he is on screen way too much cause and I personally think he more like Ali G then a true documentary maker). I actually tend to agree with his viewpoints in the documentaries, bough I really found F 9/11 to be pretty awful. I’m a huge gun law advocate and hated bowling for Columbine. I believe his only motive is himself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What a tired argument.cincybearcat said:
Haven’t seen this one. I’ve seen all his other ones. His only interest is making himself appear in “documentaries” and making himself $ and improving his life.1ThoughtKnown said:^^^
I respect your view (and your thoughts on Moore are not all wrong), but your opinion can hold little water unless you have seen the documentary.
Its strange to me people want to silence a guy who genuinely wants to make the world a better place. Take 90 minutes, watch the doc and draw your own conclusion (the same way you would reading the any of the rags you talked about which are owned by corporations or the corporations which advertise in them)
But thats a tired argument whereas not saying anything but “you are wrong” to someone is apparently a terrifically educational and intellectual argument. Yawn, I’m tired.
Him being a recognizable character and/by putting himself into the films obviously has helped him getting funding and wide releases.
You seemingly having something against him is clouding your view of the films I think
His technique is to push through a subjective narrative with himself as the guide -- and not have Tom Hanks do a VO like Ken Burns. It's a style. But I don't think how you can see it as "his motive is himself" unless you, as I wrote above have something against him. Do you hate fast cutting and handheld camera in films too?
And yeah, it is tired.
He's definitely a filmmaker with an agenda. I just don;t like his style and do think he makes it about him.
I have watched most of his movies, but I also take them with a grain. his style is like Inside Edition for Lefties.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Ummm what? What do I do about what? Am I not permitted to not like his 1-sided style of documentaries? My opinion warranted some sort of weird attack on me?Tiki said:
He speaks truth to power. What do YOU do?cincybearcat said:
He's on the cover. And his "documentaries" are mostly propoganda. I prefer documentaries that look at all sides of complex issues or focus on the human subjects instead of the filmaker.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The filmmaker being on screen in the documentaries isn't something unique to Moore.cincybearcat said:
What a great argument on his behalf. I’ve watched every one of his documentaries. I will eventually watch this one when it doesn’t give him as much $ likely. But I’m not a fan of his style (he is on screen way too much cause and I personally think he more like Ali G then a true documentary maker). I actually tend to agree with his viewpoints in the documentaries, bough I really found F 9/11 to be pretty awful. I’m a huge gun law advocate and hated bowling for Columbine. I believe his only motive is himself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What a tired argument.cincybearcat said:
Haven’t seen this one. I’ve seen all his other ones. His only interest is making himself appear in “documentaries” and making himself $ and improving his life.1ThoughtKnown said:^^^
I respect your view (and your thoughts on Moore are not all wrong), but your opinion can hold little water unless you have seen the documentary.
Its strange to me people want to silence a guy who genuinely wants to make the world a better place. Take 90 minutes, watch the doc and draw your own conclusion (the same way you would reading the any of the rags you talked about which are owned by corporations or the corporations which advertise in them)
But thats a tired argument whereas not saying anything but “you are wrong” to someone is apparently a terrifically educational and intellectual argument. Yawn, I’m tired.
Him being a recognizable character and/by putting himself into the films obviously has helped him getting funding and wide releases.
You seemingly having something against him is clouding your view of the films I think
His technique is to push through a subjective narrative with himself as the guide -- and not have Tom Hanks do a VO like Ken Burns. It's a style. But I don't think how you can see it as "his motive is himself" unless you, as I wrote above have something against him. Do you hate fast cutting and handheld camera in films too?
And yeah, it is tired.
He's definitely a filmmaker with an agenda. I just don;t like his style and do think he makes it about him.
So - anyhow - what do you want to know. I'm pretty sure I've actually made a bigger impact on the safety of manufacturing and environmental sustainability than you or Michael Moore. Where should I send my resume?hippiemom = goodness0 -
no, if you criticize anyone on the left you are then taken to task about what your contributions to society are.cincybearcat said:
Ummm what? What do I do about what? Am I not permitted to not like his 1-sided style of documentaries? My opinion warranted some sort of weird attack on me?Tiki said:
He speaks truth to power. What do YOU do?cincybearcat said:
He's on the cover. And his "documentaries" are mostly propoganda. I prefer documentaries that look at all sides of complex issues or focus on the human subjects instead of the filmaker.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The filmmaker being on screen in the documentaries isn't something unique to Moore.cincybearcat said:
What a great argument on his behalf. I’ve watched every one of his documentaries. I will eventually watch this one when it doesn’t give him as much $ likely. But I’m not a fan of his style (he is on screen way too much cause and I personally think he more like Ali G then a true documentary maker). I actually tend to agree with his viewpoints in the documentaries, bough I really found F 9/11 to be pretty awful. I’m a huge gun law advocate and hated bowling for Columbine. I believe his only motive is himself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What a tired argument.cincybearcat said:
Haven’t seen this one. I’ve seen all his other ones. His only interest is making himself appear in “documentaries” and making himself $ and improving his life.1ThoughtKnown said:^^^
I respect your view (and your thoughts on Moore are not all wrong), but your opinion can hold little water unless you have seen the documentary.
Its strange to me people want to silence a guy who genuinely wants to make the world a better place. Take 90 minutes, watch the doc and draw your own conclusion (the same way you would reading the any of the rags you talked about which are owned by corporations or the corporations which advertise in them)
But thats a tired argument whereas not saying anything but “you are wrong” to someone is apparently a terrifically educational and intellectual argument. Yawn, I’m tired.
Him being a recognizable character and/by putting himself into the films obviously has helped him getting funding and wide releases.
You seemingly having something against him is clouding your view of the films I think
His technique is to push through a subjective narrative with himself as the guide -- and not have Tom Hanks do a VO like Ken Burns. It's a style. But I don't think how you can see it as "his motive is himself" unless you, as I wrote above have something against him. Do you hate fast cutting and handheld camera in films too?
And yeah, it is tired.
He's definitely a filmmaker with an agenda. I just don;t like his style and do think he makes it about him.
So - anyhow - what do you want to know. I'm pretty sure I've actually made a bigger impact on the safety of manufacturing and environmental sustainability than you or Michael Moore. Where should I send my resume?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
What does "truth to power" even mean?0
-
I had to look it up as well, as I keep hearing this and never truly knew what it meant. it means basically, as I understand it, taking risks to speak up about something you believe in.mrussel1 said:What does "truth to power" even mean?
I don't hink michael moore is a good example of that. someone who is, is someone who actually has something to lose by being an activist/speaking up. if his movies flop, he is risking very little, if anything at all.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
So it's about that individual's "truth", which is what I expected. Yeah, I'm not seeing much "truth to power" these days. Probably the person that first spoke to Farrow would qualify. MLK, obviously. But otherwise, the internet mob will always get behind something.HughFreakingDillon said:
I had to look it up as well, as I keep hearing this and never truly knew what it meant. it means basically, as I understand it, taking risks to speak up about something you believe in.mrussel1 said:What does "truth to power" even mean?
I don't hink michael moore is a good example of that. someone who is, is someone who actually has something to lose by being an activist/speaking up. if his movies flop, he is risking very little, if anything at all.0 -
Rosenstein has been summoned to the White House. Figures that 45 is in New York. He can't do his own dirty work. If Rosenstein refuses to resign, will 45 'bravely' fire by tweet? This could get ugly.Post edited by njnancy on0
-
not truth but whatever...POWER though.Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180 -
The question is..then what? Who assumes control of the Mueller investigation? Will it be a new appointee (I'm not sure if a deputy has to go through confirmation) or would an existing deputy take the reigns? If the latter, I would think the investigation is safe. If there's a new deputy and they don't have to go through confirmation, then you can expect a hack. It will interesting if Sessions acquiesces to such a miscarriage of justice. He has been surprisingly resolute recently. It appears he is trying to salvage his legacy.njnancy said:Rosenstein has been summoned to the White House. Figures that 45 is in New York. He can't do his own dirty work. If Rosenstein refuses to resign, will 45 'bravely' fire by tweet? This could get ugly.0 -
It looks like the WH leaked that Rosenstein resigned. I assume that was an attempt to get him to resign but I don't think it's going to work. Rosenstein seems to take no shit from this piece of shit white house.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
The solicitor general, Noel Francesco, would be the next in line and would assume the control (or devastation) of the Mueller investigation.The President can appoint any previously appointed, senate confirmed person if the position is open due to death, resignation or inability to perform duties. Rosenstein's people say he will not resign. Creating an opening through firing someone would not fit into that definition described in the vacancy act. But rule of law does not seem to matter much to this President.mrussel1 said:
The question is..then what? Who assumes control of the Mueller investigation? Will it be a new appointee (I'm not sure if a deputy has to go through confirmation) or would an existing deputy take the reigns? If the latter, I would think the investigation is safe. If there's a new deputy and they don't have to go through confirmation, then you can expect a hack. It will interesting if Sessions acquiesces to such a miscarriage of justice. He has been surprisingly resolute recently. It appears he is trying to salvage his legacy.njnancy said:Rosenstein has been summoned to the White House. Figures that 45 is in New York. He can't do his own dirty work. If Rosenstein refuses to resign, will 45 'bravely' fire by tweet? This could get ugly.
Amazing how he is using an article in what he refers to as 'fake news' as his impetus to do what he has wanted to do.
The solicitor general has entanglements with Trump's legal firms.
There is no protection for Mueller; Congress has declined to pass a law to do so.
This is serious shit.0 -
Noel Fransisco, the Solicitor General, is then in charge of the Mueller probe. What the hell is a solicitor general? LOLmrussel1 said:
The question is..then what? Who assumes control of the Mueller investigation? Will it be a new appointee (I'm not sure if a deputy has to go through confirmation) or would an existing deputy take the reigns? If the latter, I would think the investigation is safe. If there's a new deputy and they don't have to go through confirmation, then you can expect a hack. It will interesting if Sessions acquiesces to such a miscarriage of justice. He has been surprisingly resolute recently. It appears he is trying to salvage his legacy.njnancy said:Rosenstein has been summoned to the White House. Figures that 45 is in New York. He can't do his own dirty work. If Rosenstein refuses to resign, will 45 'bravely' fire by tweet? This could get ugly.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
what an absolute clusterfuck.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
to be fair, is it not normal for the Chief of Staff to be the one to fire people?njnancy said:Rosenstein has been summoned to the White House. Figures that 45 is in New York. He can't do his own dirty work. If Rosenstein refuses to resign, will 45 'bravely' fire by tweet? This could get ugly.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Monday Massacre ala Nixon. The Trump team definitely planted this story. It seems to be foolish timing.0
-
The Solicitor General argues Supreme Court cases.HughFreakingDillon said:
Noel Fransisco, the Solicitor General, is then in charge of the Mueller probe. What the hell is a solicitor general? LOLmrussel1 said:
The question is..then what? Who assumes control of the Mueller investigation? Will it be a new appointee (I'm not sure if a deputy has to go through confirmation) or would an existing deputy take the reigns? If the latter, I would think the investigation is safe. If there's a new deputy and they don't have to go through confirmation, then you can expect a hack. It will interesting if Sessions acquiesces to such a miscarriage of justice. He has been surprisingly resolute recently. It appears he is trying to salvage his legacy.njnancy said:Rosenstein has been summoned to the White House. Figures that 45 is in New York. He can't do his own dirty work. If Rosenstein refuses to resign, will 45 'bravely' fire by tweet? This could get ugly.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help