Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Oscar SNubs "2016"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

    Originally posted by Rakkasan View Post
    wow nice spin... FACT ( as your president likes to say) hollywood is liberal.... FACT hollywood loved bush bashing.... Moore could of had two dogs fucking and someone scream "bush lied people died" and that movie was going to get instant stardom... FACT it was even covered in the MSM and promoted

    FACT progressive = hypocrisy....
    You did not address any of the points I made.

    Now some of what I say is, of course, mere opinion; but some is — as my president likes to say — fact. And I was hoping that you would make some attempt to deal with the facts.

    For instance, the producer of D'Souza's film complained that they were snubbed by the Academy because it has a conservative viewpoint. As evidence, he offered up the box office success of the film ($33 million domestic plus $0 internationally — 2016 Obama's America (2012) - Box Office Mojo). I assume we agree on this.

    I pointed out that the liberal Fahrenheit 9/11 had far greater financial success ($119 million domestic plus $103 million internationally — Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) - Box Office Mojo) but did not garner an Academy Award nomination, either.

    So my first question is: If a conservative documentary makes $33 million and doesn't get an Academy Award nomination and a liberal documentary makes $222 million and also doesn't get an Academy Award nomination, where is the evidence of a double standard by the Academy in this case?

    I also pointed out that Disney refused to release Fahrenheit 9/11, which is true, as you saw from the link provided. On the other hand, Disney did air The Path to 9/11, which upset a lot of liberals for its perceived anti-Clinton bias, which is also true.

    So my second question is: If a major Hollywood studio both refuses to release an anti-Bush film, yet decides to air an anti-Clinton mini-series, how do you reconcile this behavior with your liberal media conspiracy?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

      Originally posted by Rakkasan View Post
      no offense but that is a lot of spin... Moore has been lauded in Hollywood for his Politics not his movies.... he during a time did a "toby keith" that being during the war he capitalized on it and made an anti bush war. ( keith made a bunch of patriotic music) he is a 2% who takes tax money and a total hypocrite but is loved for the simple reason that he flipped off the most hated man in the world.. GWB.....
      As I said earlier, I haven't seen a lot of Michael Moore movies and I've never sat through a whole one in it's entirety.

      I've never seen Sicko so I can't comment on the quality of that movie or on it's general Oscar-worthyness.

      The Moore movie I've seen the most of is Bowling for Columbine.

      It won the Best Documentary Feature Oscar in 2003.

      I didn't see any of the other films that were nominated in that category that year so I don't know how it compared to them.

      What I do know is that Bowling was a damn good documentary.

      In my opinion it was a very one-sided documentary that was intended to highlight a particular (political/social) point of view.

      But there's nothing wrong with that when you're making a documentary.

      The point is to "document" something, even if it's only one side of an issue.

      I thought Restrepo was an amazing documentary, probably one of the best I've ever seen. It too was very one sided. The only Taliban you saw in that movie were either dead or in the process of being made dead. Nevertheless, I'm sure the Taliban had a certain point of view that differed drastically from the POV of the American servicemen deployed to Kunar Province; the non-Taliban residents of Kunar, I'm sure, has still another POV.

      You don't have to tell "the whole truth" to make a decent documentary film.

      You just have to do a good job telling the part of the story that you set out to document.

      Incidentally, the film that won Best Documentary Feature in 2004 was The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara.

      As I'm sure you're aware, McNamara was many things but I don't think anyone would ever consider him a "darling of the left".

      I don't know if you've seen The Fog of War but whatever he was McNamara was anything but apologetic for a career spent, largely, killing people or ordering people to their death.

      If Hollywood was so intent on honoring people for their political activisim or for advocating for leftist policy, at the expense of discounting great films that didn't toe the leftist line, Fog of War wouldn't even have been nominated, let alone won.

      Again, absent any real evidence of "political activisim" that caused great films to lose awards they should have won, or lousy films to win awards they should have lost, I'm just going to take it on faith that the folks in Hollywood, fucked up in so many ways though they may be, know a good deal more about what makes a great film than you or I do and I'm going to trust their judegment when it comes to comparing them for the purpose of distributing awards that they sponsor.

      You can disagree.

      You can call that spin.

      Frankly, I think you're wrong and that you are being more of a partisan political ideologue than the folks you're accusing of the same offense.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

        Originally posted by soot View Post
        As I said earlier, I haven't seen a lot of Michael Moore movies and I've never sat through a whole one in it's entirety.

        I've never seen Sicko so I can't comment on the quality of that movie or on it's general Oscar-worthyness.

        The Moore movie I've seen the most of is Bowling for Columbine.

        It won the Best Documentary Feature Oscar in 2003.

        I didn't see any of the other films that were nominated in that category that year so I don't know how it compared to them.

        What I do know is that Bowling was a damn good documentary.

        In my opinion it was a very one-sided documentary that was intended to highlight a particular (political/social) point of view.

        But there's nothing wrong with that when you're making a documentary.

        The point is to "document" something, even if it's only one side of an issue.

        I thought Restrepo was an amazing documentary, probably one of the best I've ever seen. It too was very one sided. The only Taliban you saw in that movie were either dead or in the process of being made dead. Nevertheless, I'm sure the Taliban had a certain point of view that differed drastically from the POV of the American servicemen deployed to Kunar Province; the non-Taliban residents of Kunar, I'm sure, has still another POV.

        You don't have to tell "the whole truth" to make a decent documentary film.

        You just have to do a good job telling the part of the story that you set out to document.

        Incidentally, the film that won Best Documentary Feature in 2004 was The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara.

        As I'm sure you're aware, McNamara was many things but I don't think anyone would ever consider him a "darling of the left".

        I don't know if you've seen The Fog of War but whatever he was McNamara was anything but apologetic for a career spent, largely, killing people or ordering people to their death.

        If Hollywood was so intent on honoring people for their political activisim or for advocating for leftist policy, at the expense of discounting great films that didn't toe the leftist line, Fog of War wouldn't even have been nominated, let alone won.

        Again, absent any real evidence of "political activisim" that caused great films to lose awards they should have won, or lousy films to win awards they should have lost, I'm just going to take it on faith that the folks in Hollywood, fucked up in so many ways though they may be, know a good deal more about what makes a great film than you or I do and I'm going to trust their judegment when it comes to comparing them for the purpose of distributing awards that they sponsor.

        You can disagree.

        You can call that spin.

        Frankly, I think you're wrong and that you are being more of a partisan political ideologue than the folks you're accusing of the same offense.
        The thing is, these awards are completely subjective and often do not reflect popular opinion. But then again, they are determined by industry insiders, presumably experts in their field, and what they like and what the rest of us like will not always overlap (and of course, the "rest of us" don't always like the same thing as each other, either).

        What I find annoying about D'Souza & Company's complaint is that it begins with the premise that, objectively, they deserved an Academy Award nomination and ignores the possibility that, even if the Academy was "wrong," it might have been wrong for reasons other than partisan politics. After all, non-political movies (and actors and directors, etc.) are "snubbed" by the Academy all the time; heck, Michael Moore's magnum opus was snubbed by the Academy as well.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

          If Michael Moore is so FOS why is he always being invited onto Fox and treated with respect?
          Is the Conservative media so hypocritical in it's thirst for ratings?
          I only post this because all the Conservatives are calling his movies crap.
          Apparently, Fox likes crap.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

            Eh, there was a lot of hype over "Brokeback Mountain" and that movie was pretty damn horrible. It's all about what agenda you're pushing. I'd have to see the movie in question to make any judgement call of my own. I'd probably approach it with caution because I know that there are a lot of logic fallacies and wild assertions in these types of films.

            Has anyone in commenting in this thread actually seen the movie? If not, then all of this conversation is kinda moot, is it not?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

              Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
              If Michael Moore is so FOS why is he always being invited onto Fox and treated with respect?
              Is the Conservative media so hypocritical in it's thirst for ratings?
              I only post this because all the Conservatives are calling his movies crap.
              Apparently, Fox likes crap.
              I honestly think that Moore is my least favorite liberal, and I can't be the only one. The only fox I seem to watch are the hitchens debates, and the Moore debates. Hitch because even though I disagree with almost everything that he says, I love watching him bury the poor bastards. Moore is a different story. I tend to watch so I can see him lose.

              I don't watch any tv news outside of YouTube. I haven't had cable in years. But if I hate that fat fuck as much as I do, he's gotta be great for ratings among normal fox viewers.

              And as far as 2016 is concerned - i filed that under f9/11 and promptly ignored it.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

                Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                ...and best supportin' actor (John C. Reilly).
                If the world was fair he'd be nominated for something for damn near every movie he's in.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

                  Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                  ahoy Fishjoel,

                  i haven't seen it, but be meanin' to.

                  i think Mr. D'Souza be a very smart swabby - he's the only fella i'd ever seen hold his ground reasonably well against the mighty Christopher Hitchens, i've watched a few 'o thar debates on the internets.

                  did ye see it, and did ye enjoy it?

                  - MeadHallPirate
                  Saw the movie, did not see the debate. The movie was pretty horrible. One dude was straight up gay and the other dude was like....either not gay or didn't know he was gay yet. They go up to work on the mountain with the cattle and BAM! Buttsex!

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

                    Maybe I'm being simplistic here but have you considered that maybe they just didn't like it rather than being a political conspiracy?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

                      Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                      Maybe I'm being simplistic here but have you considered that maybe they just didn't like it rather than being a political conspiracy?
                      Agreed, that's why I said I would have to see it for myself to see how well it was made. That aside, it wouldn't be a shocker if that actually was the case.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

                        What has been seen cannot be unseen...

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

                          Not to just pop in on this message board and spoil the fun by clarifying the boring old facts but.....

                          It was not the Michael Moore film "Fahrenheit 911" that won an Oscar or was even nominated for one.

                          It was "Bowling for Columbine."

                          Carry on.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

                            Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                            Not to just pop in on this message board and spoil the fun by clarifying the boring old facts but.....

                            It was not the Michael Moore film "Fahrenheit 911" that won an Oscar or was even nominated for one.

                            It was "Bowling for Columbine."

                            Carry on.
                            Of course. A non-objective, full of assumptions and half-truths, politically motivated look at guns in this nation being awarded by Hollywood. I know I am shocked...

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

                              Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                              Of course. A non-objective, full of assumptions and half-truths, politically motivated look at guns in this nation being awarded by Hollywood. I know I am shocked...
                              Right, I was gonna add that since it was anti-gun it's just as good for some of you to get bent out of shape about. But decided to leave that out. But glad you came through Sluggo.

                              Anyways, the point of the OP was that the Oscar snubs an Obama bashing film like 2016 while awarding a Bush bashing flim like Fahrenheit 911. And that's not factually correct.

                              But continue to be all mad about it and swear that everyone else is "drinking the koolaid".

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Re: Oscar SNubs &quot;2016&quot;

                                Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                                Not to just pop in on this message board and spoil the fun by clarifying the boring old facts but.....

                                It was not the Michael Moore film "Fahrenheit 911" that won an Oscar or was even nominated for one.

                                It was "Bowling for Columbine."

                                Carry on.
                                Wow you are right i totally forgot it didnt get the nod .... thanks and sorry for the mix up on my part i just remembered all the oscar hype and that lump of shit making some comment there during the show that i thought he won...

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X