IDBillzFan Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 interesting that Seth Rogan has joined in now, comparing it to Nazi propaganda. Gee, I wonder what those two currently have in common that makes them openly piss on something made by their colleagues. WTF are you talking about? Speaking of being irrelevant, he babbles like that when "I know you are, but what am I?" doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I don't care who said it or who's reporting it....It's a pathetic comment. His backpedaling is even more of a train wreck. Call it what it is...and stop acting like Michael Moore is a 'nobody' in the realm of modern politics. I'm not saying he deserves to be influential, but to act like he has no public forum is ignorant...and, in your current view, also convenient. Fine, you think what he says is important. I don't. If we started a thread for everything Rush Limbo said that was pure outrage we never have a thread about anything else Enjoy your little tempest in a tea pot He's got an audience. If you can't acknowledge that Michael Moore has a larger political voice that you or I, than you're being disingenuous. The fact that half the country is commenting on this topic shows that very clearly. However, it doesn't mean I give him influence or even 'listen to him.' There is a difference between listening and hearing. The comment was outrageous in my view. If he wants to say we 'shouldn't be there' that'd be fine. If he wanted to say Clint Eastwood made a crappy movie...fine. If he's going to call troops cowards...that's BS. He's now lying his azz off saying he just happened to feel a need to comment on WWII this past weekend. If Rush said it, I'd be calling him an idiot too. Not that he's not an idiot already. Edited January 20, 2015 by BillsFanM.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) This stuff from the left is so predictable. They are attempting to toss a couple speed bumps to slow the momentum of a movie that is postitive about an American military hero. Can't have America feeling good about itself on any level. I even saw a site yesterday making a big deal about the fake baby prop. Noticed that as well btw but who gives a crap. Edited January 20, 2015 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This stuff from the left is so predictable. They are attempting to toss a couple speed bumps to slow the momentum of a movie that is postitive about an American military hero. Can't have America feeling good about itself on any level. I even saw a site yesterday making a big deal about the fake baby prop. Noticed that as well btw but who gives a crap. And people think I'm paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 http://www.people.com/article/michael-moore-explains-snipers-tweets-american-sniper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Palin to the rescue! ... And of course she !@#$s it up. http://deadline.com/2015/01/sarah-palin-american-sniper-bradley-cooper-clint-eastwood-1201353999/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Palin to the rescue! ... And of course she !@#$s it up. http://deadline.com/2015/01/sarah-palin-american-sniper-bradley-cooper-clint-eastwood-1201353999/ What did she mess up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Just a question about the lefts babbling about this movie. Is i their contention that the act of sniping from long range and hidden from site is cowardice? If so wouldn't that apply to almost all forms of military attack methods? Bombers from the air are at a safe distance. Artillery fire on land and sea the same. It's war it all sucks but sniping may be one of the riskiest jobs of them all(aside from running up Omaha beach or being a tail gunner in a ww2 bomber). When you fire your location is compromised and being alone your could be in big trouble. Also they say the movie glorified war. Hardly, I felt sad for what goes on and even sadder for how f'd up the soldiers come back both mentally and physically and they spent a lot of time getting that point across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 What did she mess up? Her entire point. Blasts Hollywood for not supporting the film... when the movie was made by... wait for it ... Hollywood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 And people think I'm paranoid. I dont' think so but it's possible. I'll keep a eye on myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Just a question about the lefts babbling about this movie. Is i their contention that the act of sniping from long range and hidden from site is cowardice? If so wouldn't that apply to almost all forms of military attack methods? Bombers from the air are at a safe distance. Artillery fire on land and sea the same. It's war it all sucks but sniping may be one of the riskiest jobs of them all(aside from running up Omaha beach or being a tail gunner in a ww2 bomber). When you fire your location is compromised and being alone your could be in big trouble. Also they say the movie glorified war. Hardly, I felt sad for what goes on and even sadder for how f'd up the soldiers come back both mentally and physically and they spent a lot of time getting that point across. Who, besides Moore (and to a much less political extent, Seth Rogen), is "babbling" about this movie or trying to make a point that isn't self serving? I dont' think so but it's possible. I'll keep a eye on myself. Your post is filled with conspiracy. The left is slamming a war movie to make people feel bad about the military? Nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Her entire point. Blasts Hollywood for not supporting the film... when the movie was made by... wait for it ... Hollywood. Oh. I guess I was looking for a grammar flub or something like that. Yeah. I voted for that woman. I think I'm write in voting for Willie Nelson from here on out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Oh. I guess I was looking for a grammar flub or something like that. Yeah. I voted for that woman. I think I'm write in voting for Willie Nelson from here on out. At least Willie will get you high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Just a question about the lefts babbling about this movie. Is i their contention that the act of sniping from long range and hidden from site is cowardice? If so wouldn't that apply to almost all forms of military attack methods? Bombers from the air are at a safe distance. Artillery fire on land and sea the same. It's war it all sucks but sniping may be one of the riskiest jobs of them all(aside from running up Omaha beach or being a tail gunner in a ww2 bomber). When you fire your location is compromised and being alone your could be in big trouble. Also they say the movie glorified war. Hardly, I felt sad for what goes on and even sadder for how f'd up the soldiers come back both mentally and physically and they spent a lot of time getting that point across. That's not a "left" perspective. A hell of a lot of people think sniping, aerial bombing, etc., are cowardly. It's a common perspective throughout the Middle East (and not uncommon outside of it) that the West is cowardly for bombing them, and not fighting toe-to-toe. Snipers have routinely been considered cowards - it's only a recent development that it's considered a "warrior" specialty. And ball gunner, not tail gunner. And that was a lot less dangerous than being a Russian in...anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That's not a "left" perspective. A hell of a lot of people think sniping, aerial bombing, etc., are cowardly. It's a common perspective throughout the Middle East (and not uncommon outside of it) that the West is cowardly for bombing them, and not fighting toe-to-toe. Snipers have routinely been considered cowards - it's only a recent development that it's considered a "warrior" specialty. And ball gunner, not tail gunner. And that was a lot less dangerous than being a Russian in...anywhere. So hijacking a commercial plane full of innocent civilians and crashing it into a building is the honorable, courageous thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 So hijacking a commercial plane full of innocent civilians and crashing it into a building is the honorable, courageous thing to do. That was the Bill Maher discussion that got him pulled from ABC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That's not a "left" perspective. A hell of a lot of people think sniping, aerial bombing, etc., are cowardly. It's a common perspective throughout the Middle East (and not uncommon outside of it) that the West is cowardly for bombing them, and not fighting toe-to-toe. Snipers have routinely been considered cowards - it's only a recent development that it's considered a "warrior" specialty. And ball gunner, not tail gunner. And that was a lot less dangerous than being a Russian in...anywhere. I remember reading that that was pretty much the attitude towards firearms in general when they were first introduced on the battlefield. They didn't require the skill that a swordsman needed to have, and could kill from a safe distance, without having to directly face your opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I remember reading that that was pretty much the attitude towards firearms in general when they were first introduced on the battlefield. They didn't require the skill that a swordsman needed to have, and could kill from a safe distance, without having to directly face your opponent. There was a lot of that mentality in the 18th and 19th century. And, from the perspective of those centuries it makes sense. I worked with a stunt guy here who is an edge weapon expert (the kind of guy who choreographs sword fights and the like) and he still feels that way despite serving 20 years in the Marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I remember reading that that was pretty much the attitude towards firearms in general when they were first introduced on the battlefield. They didn't require the skill that a swordsman needed to have, and could kill from a safe distance, without having to directly face your opponent. I've heard the same rationale for internet debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That's not a "left" perspective. A hell of a lot of people think sniping, aerial bombing, etc., are cowardly. It's a common perspective throughout the Middle East (and not uncommon outside of it) that the West is cowardly for bombing them, and not fighting toe-to-toe. Snipers have routinely been considered cowards - it's only a recent development that it's considered a "warrior" specialty. And ball gunner, not tail gunner. And that was a lot less dangerous than being a Russian in...anywhere. It's war. It's messy. The point is to kill the enemy. Protect your own. I guess we could have been manly and tried a ground war on Japan in 1945 but the US pussied out and dropped the bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts