Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (55764)	7/22/2004 11:37:48 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793782

Another movie that will hurt Bush. If Frank Rich says this, it must really be slanted. RICH: 'MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE' MORE PARTISAN THAN 'FAHRENHEIT 911' Thu Jul 22 2004 20:56:59 ET "I cannot recall when Hollywood last released a big-budget mainstream feature film as partisan as this one at the height of a presidential campaign." So believes NY TIMES's Frank Rich about the upcoming PARAMOUNT thriller MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. "Freed from any obligations to fact, MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE can play far dirtier than FAHRENHEIT 911," writes Rich in a column set for release this Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE. "This movie could pass for the de facto fifth day of the [Democrat] convention itself." MORE "The American people are terrified," says Streep's villainous senator early on as, John Ashcroft-style, she wields a national security report promising "another cataclysm, probably nuclear." And so we watch her and the rest of the Manchurian Global cabal exploit that fear in any way possible, using the mass media as a brainwashing tool, manipulating patriotic iconography for political ends. "Compassionate vigilance" is one campaign slogan. A televised election night rally features a Mount Rushmore backdrop (as in a signature Bush photo op) and a chorus line of heroic cops and firemen (reminiscent of the early Bush-Cheney ads exploiting the carnage at ground zero)." drudgereport.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (55764)	7/23/2004 9:06:54 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

First off, they are all computer generated. So there is no difference whither they were printed off the computer or scanned and copied. Excuse me? Since when is an "original" computer generated? Are you referring to autopenned signatures? <g> What counts is that they were circulated documents that had been marked up and edited. Seriously, what counts is not whether they were originals or copies but whether they were the only copies. I think when people say "original" sometimes they mean "uncopied" or the "sole copy." What matters is whether the document is available elsewhere or not.