Frankster14 wrote:DaveDave's got a lot of free time on his hands to be posting 7 million times about his BFF Mike Moore...

Reality check - next exit...

The only time my posts even approached being about Michael Moore is when I corrected a poster who erroneously assumed one of his movies was about climate change. Despite your intimations I don't really care that much one way or another about Mr. Moore. I do, however care deeply about people saying things without knowing what they're actually talking about, and instead merely regurgitating easily disprovable falsehoods.

On that topic, if anyone would like to make any substantative arguements against the things I have said instead of snarky comments on how much free time I have (I've always got time to speak the truth) I'd love to hear them.

And yes Mescalero, I do want America to become more socialist! You're still crazy if you think Obama is moving us anywhere substantially in that direction. Either that or you've bought into the Republican Party's redefinition of the term to mean 'anything leftward of us'.

nursekimk wrote:do items ever repeat?
Kim in Puyallup Wa

Roomba, Roomba, ROOMBA!

I bought one despite having seen BFC and finding it a disturbingly flawed movie. Why? Because there are some really GREAT movies in the collection that are well worth the $50 on their own, and there's nothing that says I have to watch or even keep the ones I don't care for. Any three of the movies would probably cost $50 on DVD, so this is a fantastic deal. Thanks, woot!

As for the people who refused to buy the set because they didn't want to give ANY support to Mr. Moore, enjoy your spite-driven rhinoplasty. You missed out.

Gone at 8:30 when I got to work !
I would have been in for one.

slamjoe wrote:While the Republicans held the majority during that time period we are referring to, they only had tight control from a period between '94 to '96. The Community Reinvestment Act was brought on by the Democrat president during the same time. Had the Republicans opposed that, they would have been charged with "racism" and every -ism under the sky you could have imagined and lost seats in Congress. You're right to blame "Congress" but let's be specific. Barney Frank (Democrat), Chuck Schumer (Democrat), Christopher Dodd (Democrat)... I'm sure several Republicans soiled themselves as well but those three came away unscathed when they should bear the greatest burden. Conflict of interest, much?

Everyone can go in circles with the blame game. What I don't buy is that just because you inherit hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit, you turn it into trillions of dollars in deficit and blame the guy before you.

The Community Reinvestment Act was not responsible for the record numbers of defaults and foreclosures over the past several years. The problem was greedy banks who found they could bundle good with risky mortgages and call the package a safe investment. They made a ton of money with these vehicles, so started giving loans to people without having them prove income or assets. The "blame the CRA" cry (ie blame minorities and liberals) is something that conservatives came up with after the fact.

btw Obama's not blaming anything on Bush (even though he should be) -- the other day he said (paraphrasing) "You guys want to pin the economy on me, fine; I own it."

whyaylooh wrote:

When in doubt, hit Reply, and read the quoted message. The quoted message will show up the way it was originally written, without filters, in the space where you enter your response.

Elegant circumnavigation and an excellent tip. Thanks!

whyaylooh wrote:It's a Woot filter, replacing a word synonymous with "slowed", and considered by some to be a derogatory term -- lately they've been referring to it as "the `R' word" -- when used to describe individuals with mental developmental disabilities, or comparing someone or something negatively to such a person. (Can't actually say it, because it'll just get filtered. ;) )

When in doubt, hit Reply, and read the quoted message. The quoted message will show up the way it was originally written, without filters, in the space where you enter your response.

I am infatuated with your explanation. ;) I stand edified. Thanks!

mattmsstate wrote:Its not the dissent that bothers me, its the outright lies. His continuous habit of passing off propaganda and deception as fact infuriates me. Even more frustrating are the mindless fools who lap it up and accept it as gospel.

Believe it or no, other people, are smart thinking beings also.. We aren't all mindless zombie lackeys. We also are capable of critical thinking, the same as you. Just because I dont believe as you do, does not make me a mindless lapdog. It is documentary film, in my opinon he is a decent filmmaker, but in no way is he an Errol Morris or even Werner Herzog. It is intended to make you think, and I beleve he filmed/corrected was what he believed to be true, not an outright deception. HOWEVER, truth is subjective. I certainly dont believe everything I read/view, including this film.

And the rest of you just take a deep breath, nobody is taking your guns.

Charlton Heston is "palling around" with Michael Moore in the same movie collection! In for one!

Hardcorebetty wrote:If i throw this fast enough at an intruder, will it strike my enemy down? I just want to make sure it also offers safety.

I laughed so hard at this post I think a little pee came out. Made my day -- thanks.

I don't post here often, but it's been fun reading some (nowhere near all) of the comments on Michael Moore and George Bush.

My take:
- George Bush was a bad president. He didn't single-handedly cause the recession, but he was fully invested in a mindset that did. Both Republicans and Democrats bought into that mindset, but it was certainly far more associated with Republicans than Democrats.

- Michael Moore is an Dr. Clayton Forrester who is skilled at putting together inflammatory films that he can get away with calling "documentaries". He lies and rearranges/misinterprets/makes up facts, always with a particular political agenda predecided on. Anyone looking to him for accuracy probably also looks to Barry Bonds for integrity.

coynedj wrote:Anyone looking to him for accuracy probably also looks to Barry Bonds for integrity.

That was awesome...

People who hate Michael Moore (or any other filmmaker) without seeing any of their films are balderah.

Arragh, why did I not check Woot last night?! (bangs head on desk yet again) And speaking as a trigger happy gun rights type, I don't give a flying hoot (woot?) about BfC being in the mix. Jeez.

krlaw6 wrote:So I missed two opportunities - to buy a great set at a great price, and to toss a Micheal Moore movie in the garbage. Damn!

See, even though I disagree with your view, I still like this post. You make sense!

Read all the books, that is education.. In this case view all the movies, even the ones you don't agree with... I should have finished High School... Naw, it is more fun being stupid...

It's sold out folks! How long are you butt tards going to chime in about how much the inclusion of my film "killed it" for you? You couldn't buy it now if you wanted to anyway suckas!!!! You can all eat a taco filled with my belly button lint.

And I'd like to thank all my dedicated supporters! Thank you thank you thank you! Even if you don't support my ideals and purchased this, you have just taken a few stitches out of the moral fabric of this "great" nation! You may now commence hating America!

Later taters!

I just about did this;then I saw Michael Moore (Donuts, please) on the list. I will rot in hell before that fat ass gets a nickel of my money.

I'm sorry, but Bowling for Columbine is not and will never be on anyone's "Essential" lists.

If I bought this set, I would have turned that dvd into a coaster.

srodolff wrote:I'm sorry, but Bowling for Columbine is not and will never be on anyone's "Essential" lists.

Especially not the Heston family's...

SkippyFlipjack wrote:

btw Obama's not blaming anything on Bush (even though he should be) -- the other day he said (paraphrasing) "You guys want to pin the economy on me, fine; I own it."

you can't be serious. He always talks about "inheriting" this economy. Everytime he states that, he's blaming Bush.

Mark today down and count how many times he or his supporters will continue to blame the previous administration when the failures known as the $800 billion dollar stimulus package, cap and trade, universal health care will have done more harm to the economy

SkippyFlipjack wrote:The Community Reinvestment Act was not responsible for the record numbers of defaults and foreclosures over the past several years. The problem was greedy banks who found they could bundle good with risky mortgages and call the package a safe investment. They made a ton of money with these vehicles, so started giving loans to people without having them prove income or assets. The "blame the CRA" cry (ie blame minorities and liberals) is something that conservatives came up with after the fact.

man, even a simple wikipedia entry could correct your false assertions. What enabled "greedy" banks? let's start with legislative amendments of CRA in 1999 that repealed Glass-Steagell. Now banks could bundle and securitize a wide array of products and services. And if a bank wanted to change its designation to financial holding institution, they would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect. In other words, go with the flow, or go out of business. When the geniuses in elected office start writing policy and regulation that force banks to adapt whether or not they are sound investments or involve high risk, it doesn't end well.

It's not the sole reason to blame but certainly a part of it. Put some blame on Clinton (D), Gramm (R), Dodd (D), Schumer (D) and Barney Frank (D)

and for the record, once again,

michael moore ruins the deal.

shollingworth wrote:Lots of good movies but Bowling For Columbine ruins the deal. I'll pass.

More like 29 movies and a "Frisbie".

Sure wish I had checked into Woot sooner...this was a helluva deal.

Tekker wrote:It seemed fairly obcious to me those people had no intention of buying it anyway. All the rest is rhetoric.

SUPPORT MENTAL HEALTH!!!
.....or I'll kill you

True. People who don't like MM don't like great deals on movies. Hell, they don't like movies at all. And, they all lie!!! Totally obcious.

slamjoe wrote:you can't be serious. He always talks about "inheriting" this economy. Everytime he states that, he's blaming Bush.

That's because he thinks the President is in control of the economy. He isn't. Bush's term mostly saw years of low unemployment and economic growth. He didn't make that happen. Nor did he make the housing bubble. Nor did he make it burst.

The White House can do a lot of things. Fixing the economy isn't one of them. But hey, let's spend lots of money we don't have trying to do it anyway. What could go wrong?

momof2angels wrote:Ok, I'll admit it - I'm a techno-Dr. Clayton Forrester...if these are played on a non-widescreen tv, how do they look? Does it cut of some of the picture? All right, you can all stop laughing now - (but this is a serious question)

No, the picture doesn't get cut off. The whole width is shown on your screen. That means that when the movie is playing a strip of black will be across the top and the bottom of the screen, since the movie won't take up that space.

(Actually, it's the movies in non-widescreen format that are cut off on the sides to fit your TV monitor, because movies are filmed in widescreen format.)

I like Mike, please feel free to hate me, as I have been turned, in the early 90's I was a Rush fan. Sicko has brought attention to a dirty secrete.

I have a close friend who's wife and him had full time jobs kids car house insurance... you get the idea.
So she gets sick, she gos to a doctor he does not know what is wrong so he send her to a specialist, he does not know what is wrong, she is sent to a different type of specialist.

Her employer puts her on disability for missing too much work (%60 of 40 hours) she worked 50 hour weeks with time and a half at 40. (so she is taking home less then half of her normal income.)

No on can figure out what is wrong. Xrays CatScans MRI she is sent to a different 'medical group', the run all the expensive test, and give up, one doctor told the husband on the side he should divorce her for insurance reasons and live with her in sin.
Her disability company, showing 'doctor proof' there is nothing wrong with her, ends the disability payments.

Finally the last place she is sent they do a series of test and found what she had, it took 18+ months every person she went to see is sending my friends a bill, even the ones who say it was in her head.

She was under his insurance, both considered the current jobs they held as temporary until collage was an option.
So here is what happened,
they now has no savings and is stuck with his current employer, why because he can not get a different job as the new job's insurance will not cover treatment for the wife because of preexisting condition.

He tells this story with the punch line being this is free market insurance at it's best.

slamjoe wrote:and for the record, once again,

michael moore ruins the deal.

You don't get it....it was sold out way before you even posted this -- the choice to buy or not is OUT OF YOUR HANDS!!!

And did the boycott accomplish anything?

Yes! It illustrated the idiocy of letting politics interfere with a great bargain!

I bet none of the boycotters would have been bothered by "Trumph of the Will."


I didn't check Woot last night -- guess I'll go check Ebay...

disraeli wrote:

I didn't check Woot last night -- guess I'll go check Ebay...

best I can find is "buy it now"for $160...

Guess the Wooters will show up in a week or so.

I was in for 3- I'd be glad to sell some if you want!

slamjoe wrote:I recommend you watch John Stossel's 20/20 piece on National Health Care.

sicko=widely inaccurate

John Stossel has a right-wing filter just as distorting as the pinkish scrim through which lefties like Moore interpret the world.

MichaelMoore wrote:I was in for 3- I'd be glad to sell some if you want!

Michael, you are a rich m*th*rf*ck*r, you should give me one you f*t f*ck socialist!

Whatever happened to 'from each, according to their capacity, to each, according to their need?'

hackard wrote:I bought one despite having seen BFC and finding it a disturbingly flawed movie. Why? Because there are some really GREAT movies in the collection that are well worth the $50 on their own, and there's nothing that says I have to watch or even keep the ones I don't care for. Any three of the movies would probably cost $50 on DVD, so this is a fantastic deal. Thanks, woot!

As for the people who refused to buy the set because they didn't want to give ANY support to Mr. Moore, enjoy your spite-driven rhinoplasty. You missed out.

All of these movies can regularly be had at any good used CD store on DVD for $3-5. Get all that interest you for under $50.

disraeli wrote:John Stossel has a right-wing filter just as distorting as the pinkish scrim through which lefties like Moore interpret the world.

You are right......they are both hacks, but at least Moore is funny.

DARN YOU WOOT! The one time I don't check you, you toss out the DVDs! I could have added these to my collection of 1100!

Does anyone know what was the winning number for woot's birthday bag of surprise? 5 or 6