17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists...by Michael Moore

michaelmoore.com/

This is pretty funny.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]http://www.michaelmoore.com/

This is pretty funny.

or that you can’t trust people over 30.

Hear hear.

Hear hear.[/quote]

Hell, you can go to any large city in America and find better looking-crack whores than the Bush twins.

Still, Moore is correct because it is a lot of fun to watch those two spoiled rich kids make their daddy look like the piss poor parent he apparently is by getting drunk off their asses and making complete public fools of themselves. LONG LIVE THE BUSH TWINS!!! :smiley:

I can think of 55 reasons (well, ok, maybe only 54 – Chafee is a wanker) for Democrats to go ahead and slit their wrists.

Dude, the sort of thing they do is exactly what 90% of teenagers and young adults back home do. There’s nothing to do with “piss-poor parenting” in it. They just get attention because of their old man.

And Squid - For fuck’s sake. That’s all. For fuck’s sake.

[quote=“cableguy”]
Hell, you can go to any large city in America and find better looking-crack whores than the Bush twins.

Still, Moore is correct because it is a lot of fun to watch those two spoiled rich kids make their daddy look like the piss poor parent he apparently is by getting drunk off their asses and making complete public fools of themselves. LONG LIVE THE Bush TWINS!!! :smiley:[/quote]

so cableguy, how did you election predictions turn out? oh. you were completely and utterly wrong? is that why you’re back to your “personal insults make cableguy look smart!” routine? :bravo:

[quote=“Flipper”][quote=“cableguy”]
Hell, you can go to any large city in America and find better looking-crack whores than the Bush twins.

Still, Moore is correct because it is a lot of fun to watch those two spoiled rich kids make their daddy look like the piss poor parent he apparently is by getting drunk off their asses and making complete public fools of themselves. LONG LIVE THE Bush TWINS!!! :smiley:[/quote]

so cableguy, how did you election predictions turn out? oh. you were completely and utterly wrong? is that why you’re back to your “personal insults make cableguy look smart!” routine? :bravo:[/quote]

Oh, please! At least my attacks are aimed at public figures which is different than what some forumosans do to me by their insults aimed directly at me. (Just look at what Squid said about me in this thread).

Also, you surprise me because you have been posting here long enough to know that I was simply expressing an opinion, which is what most people do on this site, especially in the IP forum.

So, please, before you go accusing me of doing something to “look smart” take the time to read what others on this site say about me and other public officals they don’t like. Then your post won’t appear as if you simply don’t know what you are talking about.

BTW, the comments about Bush’s daughters are facts. (Have you ever seen the Bush twins and then looked at a crack-whore? If yes, can you honestly say that the twins look better? :noway: Also, Bush as an unfit parent is an opinion based on how his brats act in public but I believe it to be true. :laughing: ).

Now, please, go ahead and prove my point by making some snide or nasty comment toward me. I want to prove my point. Thanks. :smiley:

[quote=“cableguy”] … I was simply expressing an [color=red]opinion[/color], which is what most people do on this site, especially in the IP forum.

BTW, the comments about Bush’s daughters are [color=red]facts[/color]. (Have you ever seen the Bush twins and then looked at a crack-whore? If yes, can you honestly say that the twins look better? Also, Bush as an unfit parent is an [color=red]opinion[/color]…[/quote]

OK, I’m confused. Are you posting fact or opinion? Do you know the difference?

Come on - Bush may or may not be a good parent (I’ve heard comments by him that make me suspect he isn’t, but we hardly know enough to judge accurately), but the Bush twins seem to be perfectly normal young women; their behavior at college was no worse than that of my sister and her friends. (I’ll admit it is worse than my behavior at college, but then all I did was study all the time.) (I’m also guessing their behavior is better than their father’s at the same age.) As for the crack whore comment - well, I’ve seen better looking whores, and I’ve seen worse. Their appearance is hardly the most important thing about them.

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“cableguy”] … I was simply expressing an [color=red]opinion[/color], which is what most people do on this site, especially in the IP forum.

BTW, the comments about Bush’s daughters are [color=red]facts[/color]. (Have you ever seen the Bush twins and then looked at a crack-whore? If yes, can you honestly say that the twins look better? Also, Bush as an unfit parent is an [color=red]opinion[/color]…[/quote]

OK, I’m confused. Are you posting fact or opinion? Do you know the difference?[/quote]

Yes, you are confused and you are also a confusing person. I posted an opinion about Bush but a fact about his daughters. Sorry an intelligent person like yourself couldn’t see that.

Also, I am surprised you would weigh in on this issue as you are the one who likes to espouse the idea that freedom of speech is so important. I quess to you it is as long as the person is saying something nice about the person or people you like. You are free to do that, Tigerman, but watch out that you don’t start showing too much inconsistency in your posts or someone may accuse you of being a hypocrite.

Some people on this site love to bash Moore, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Arafat but they seem to have problems when someone does the same to Bush or his slutty daughters. Sorry, but that reeks of hypocrisy to me.

since you seem to be an expert on crack whores, can you list exactly what physical traits are common amongst crack whores? :laughing:

Well, I knew that “witty” reponse or something similiar would be coming from one of the more intelligent :unamused: members on this site. (If this were a boxing match, Flipper, I could have slipped past your punch quiet easily because I saw that one coming well before it could have done any damage at all. :slight_smile: Still it’s good to see you tried).

Actually, I don’t know any crack-whores so I can’t answer your question. Thus, it was wrong of me to state that the Bush twins look worst than crack-whores. So, here and now I want to issue an apology.
If there are any crack-whores visiting this site, and if I offended you in any way by comparing you to the Bush twins. I am sorry. :blush: My words were unfair and unkind to you.

[quote=“cableguy”] … I was simply expressing an [color=red]opinion[/color], which is what most people do on this site, especially in the IP forum.

BTW, the comments about Bush’s daughters are [color=red]facts[/color]. (Have you ever seen the Bush twins and then looked at a crack-whore? If yes, can you honestly say that the twins look better? Also, Bush as an unfit parent is an [color=red]opinion[/color]…[/quote]

Pardon me. It is not my intent.

Refresh my memory… what fact did you post about the Bush girls?

I do indeed believe strongly in freedom of speech. And I believe in your freedom to state your opinions and to use any facts that might support the same. I am confused, however, because I do not understand to which fact you refer with respect to the Bush girls.

What have I done here that is hypocritical?

Bush’s daughters are "slutty’? Is that a fact, or is it your opinion? If only your opinion, what facts can you cite to support your opinion?

And why is it hypocritical to argue/debate the characters of any of the people you listed above?

And now this:

Reassuring Liberals that they are Morally Superior :laughing:

[quote=“Tigerman”]And now this:

Reassuring Liberals that they are Morally Superior :laughing:[/quote]

"…[i] But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don’t come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man. [/i]"

Excellent analysis by Brooks, imo. I think the Dems are going to have to open their minds to what can only be described as real life here. I mean, Brooks isn’t trying to somehow sucker Dems, he - and many other Republicans - are actually reaching out and trying to explain, honestly, why the Dems are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

If and when the Dems cool down (imo, “the rage of the drowning man” is a very good description, honestly), I would encourage them to read another essay, too. It’s by a former Democrat, Peggy Noonan, who also extends some excellent, excellent advice (the advice is, in fact, almost two years old now; the sooner the Dems learn from it, the better, imo).

Bitter medicine, perhaps, but it’s also a roadmap back to relevancy for the Democrat party (written in March, 200[b]3[/b]).

From her essay:

[url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003143][i]"…You [the Democrat party] have grown profoundly unserious. This is the result of the win-at-any-cost mindset. A recent illustration: President Bush broke through to the great middle of America and persuaded them we must move in Iraq. He was able to do this not because the presidency is the Big Microphone–President Clinton used to complain that Rush Limbaugh had the big microphone–but because he honestly believed, in his head and his heart, he was acting to make our country and other countries safer. Maybe history will show him right and maybe not, but people can tell his passion springs from conviction.

Democratic leaders, on the other hand, have by and large approached Iraq not with deep head-heart integration but with what appears to be mere calculation. What will play? What will resonate? These questions are both inevitable and a part of politics. But again, they are not the purpose of politics. Lincoln himself said, “Public opinion is everything,” but he was speaking of public opinion as a fact he had to consider as he tried to push the country in a new direction. He did not think public opinion itself was a direction. And he didn’t think it was a policy. "[/i][/url]