Cool News
SUPER BOWL: V FOR VENDETTA Commercial!
Hey folks, Harry here.... Yeah - I loved that FedEx Dinosaur & Caveman ad, but folks... this is THE movie being sold at the SUPER BOWL. V FOR VENDETTA will be the movie to kick your ass hardest, first this year. It's playing at SXSW and at the Berlin Film Festival. The Super Bowl spot showed a bit more than I would have liked, but they wanted every second to count. And having the largest audience on TV get the message "Governments should be afraid of their People" is a damn fine thing! Fucking love this film... now go get the spot:
SUPER BOWL - V FOR VENDETTA spot!!!
-
+ Expand All
-
And didn't half of the London waterfront exploding remind you a little bit of the White House exploding in Independence Day?
-
Damn good commercial.
-
That Nimoy Aleve one was the worst so far. I wonder how much he got paid for that.
-
Alan Moore would love that title. And I am not going to say you know what.
-
Hah! On only my first day at AICN
-
So this really wasn't pushed back b/c it sucks?
-
gotta keep tryin
-
Seriously, how many times do we have to be reminded your long haired-pompous fat-ass liberal?
-
could you rub the fact that you saw the movie before we poor saps did anymore. we're already jealous so need to rub it in
-
....it says it won't be up until it has been shown on your SuperBowl. With the time difference and all, I have no clue when to look again... so... when is that game of yours finished?
-
...the quick shot of Natalie Portman in the little girl/ballerina outfit? Straight out of the comic. Wonder if it means that Bishop Lilliman gets offed like in the comic too, heh-heh.
-
Hey Harry, now that I have your attention, why isn't your scene from The Faculty or at least a pic from it online ANYWHERE other than some small 160x120 screen caps?
-
I mean seriously...how many times is Disney going to recycle The Shaggy Dog...the last time they did it, the guy that did Aladdin's voice and played Steve on Full House was the guy that changed to a dog...
-
I love how Harry thinks this movie will have an effect on society. It could make billions in the box office and wouldn't even register a blip. Silly silly man. But then again, what else can we expect from someone that thinks Clockwork Orange is a call for anarchy?
-
...how many people watching the Super Bowl saw the "V for Vendetta" commercial, and instead thought it was a Burger King ad with that creepy King.
-
BK for BKendetta. Remember, remember, 2.50 for a whopper.
-
I think coming after Bush's very bizarre "All Hail Big Government" state of the union speech, at least a few people will notice similarities and catch the idea of a leader governing through fear.--------- On a semi related note, did anyone else think that Bush's 5-minute schpiel about how we must stop the creation of MANIMALS to be extremely cuckoo?
-
What it's inspired me to do is do a Chicken George-esque run through of one of my favourite songs. You see, V For Vendetta will help you guys break from your natural instincts to bend down on your knees and be fucked in the ass, and this is exactly what this song did for people back in the '70s. So without furhter ado, I present to you Gil Scott-Heron's The Revolution Will Not be Televised: You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by the
Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
The revolution will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.
There will be no pictures of you and Willie May
pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
or report from 29 districts.
The revolution will not be televised.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.
Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
women will not care if Dick finally gets down with
Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be televised.
There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb,
Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare Earth.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be right back after a message
bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.
The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live. -
Pure ownage.
-
Not been a fan of the trailers so far, but that spot definitely looked quite a bit better.
-
I really liked the V for Vendetta comicbook. But with France being burned and a whole lotta misbehaving by our enemies, it's just not a time the USA to take another "Bush Sucks" movie. This movie looks like a failure.
-
Still hate the Burger King crap the most. Hummer was cool. Sharpie funny. The usual beer stuff. Blockbuster should be blown up. And, Mickey D's is ripping off its rival with the plastic icon??????? Bad agency, bad, bad agency.
-
It is perfectly legit to question any government, even be it your own, at anytime. Otherwise they just shoehorn you into neverending war and poverty, and tell you that tommorrow will be the day you can ask questions. Or the day after. Or the day after that. There will never be a lack of strong leaders, so question the ones you have at all times. Vendetta was from the 80's, and nothing has changed since, except for the fact that we're a little more aware, and now we need to be as strong as ever. United and divided, we'll work for what is true, and deny that which is false.
-
LOSES!!! HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
-
Suck it Starbucks
-
What!!?? It hasn't even come out yet! What if it blows!? See, this is where bias comes from. Read the source before seeing this thing.
-
JEROME BETTIS IS THE SEXIEST TOMBOY BEANPOLE ON THE PLANET!
Phew, yes!!! I've been waiting years for the appropriate moment to post that! -
Watching this movie will be like watching Bush get impeached. Pure "there's hope for society yet" bliss.
-
BNAT '05. Try to keep up.
-
Watching this will be like watching Bush get impeached. Pure "there's hope for society yet" bliss.
-
The game was boooooriiiinnngggg.
The V commercial was probably the only movie trailer I saw, and it was decent. ___KNEEL___ -
The game was boooooriiiinnngggg. The V commercial was probably the only movie trailer I saw, and it was decent. ___KNEEL___
-
I'm serious. I'll riot, but it won't be against the government. ... PS, I love how you geeks act like you're going rise up in armed revolt. You're funny.
-
I thought for sure there would be a new one aired on the Super Bowl. It's weird how the movie is less than 5 months away and we still have not seen a single trailer with any dialogue/acting from Brandon. I wonder if Warner Bros. is nervous about this new Superman? I think the fans are! I think theres an expectation that he'll be at least as good as Christopher Reeve.
-
The real scam is that the fear of the government is highly overrated by people who mistrust whomever happens to be in power at the moment. When Clinton was in there, Republicans feared the ATF and the politically correct thought police. Now that Bush is in, Democrats fear Patriot Act goose steppers. It's all a big crock. There's nothing oppressive going on when a big corporation buys a Super Bowl ad spot that blatantly advises people to be vigilant against tyrrany. Good message? Yes. But, to believe it's even vaguely topical to our current situation is utter hogwash. I have yet to hear ONE compelling example of the trampling of our basic rights since the security footing in the U.S. changed. No, being hassled at the airport, and similarly minor inconveniences, most definitely do not count.
-
...so it's doubtful this movie is going to make a dent in the current political climate. What does Harry think is going to happen? A bunch of fat geeks are going to step away from ther dvds/videogames/internet porn and start attacking government institutions wearing goofy white masks? No, they'll probably say 'that was cool' and then move onto their next media fixation. As long as we're sitting in movie theaters watching action-revenge films like a bunch of zombies and not voting then the establishment doesn't care what message is being sent. Michael Moore made Farenheit 9/11 for christ's sakes and Bush still got elected.
-
Flako said: "I really liked the V for Vendetta comicbook. But with France being burned and a whole lotta misbehaving by our enemies, it's just not a time the USA to take another "Bush Sucks" movie. This movie looks like a failure." ----- Flako, if what appears to be a pretty faithful adaption of a book written in the mid-80s strikes you as a "Bush Sucks" movie, that says more about Bush than it does the film or the filmmakers. This movie is gonna cause so much controversy not because of how the left reacts to it, but because it is going to remind the right so much of their Frat Boy Caligula leader that they will be screaming about it constantly on Fox News and in the Washington Times.
-
because if he is, he's a damn good one. what a retard.
-
Hoping to go to the nice, stately cinema they have there. Not looking at this spot as I've been getting too excited about the film and don't want to blow my wad too soon.
Anyone else watching it in Berlin? -
"An uncompromising vision of the future... From the creators of The Matrix trilogy"
I have a bit of a problem with that. Yes, they wrote the screenplay to the film, yes, they're producing it. But the tagline gives the impression that this is THEIR story; it isn't.
It's Alan Moore's story. -
That you haven't heard one compelling example of basic rights being trampled since the implementation of the Patriot Act is only a sign that you have either been willfully ignorant... or simply have a great big pair of rose-colored glasses. What about the innumerable cases of foreign nationals being detained for weeks/months at a time without charges with no ties to terrorist organizations? What about spying on human rights groups? Get a fucking clue.
-
voted in favor of what war? you know we never went to war, right?
and way to justify invading iraq by saying hussein was a bad guy. why aren't we in... oh... say... EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD where WORSE shit has been going on?
god you people are stupid. -
Duh. You fail at answering my question. I don't give a damn about foreign nationals. The Constitution doesn't extend to them whatsoever. Fringe groups have always been monitored to one degree or other. That, whether good or ill, has not changed. Move past the hate and tell me how we, as Americans, have had our basic Constitutional rights trodden upon or rolled back since 9/11. You can't. You're repeating political talking points and fear mongering. Yeah, I take my shoes off at the metal detector in the airport and I had my trunk searched at a casino in Vegas. In both cases, I thanked the officers for their efforts and let them know that some of us appreciate what they do.
-
Oh, dear.
-
Saw it recently, and I've got to say the implications are certainly convincing... here it is for the curious: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
-
Can't wait!
-
THIS oughtta be good...
-
Sure it is. But two things: 1) he wanted his name removed from the movie. 2) Marketing, marketing, marketing. When you say "from the creators of 'The Matrix,' people will know who you're talking about. Or at least, they'll be familiar with their work (speaking of which, you're outraged that the awesomely awesome Alan Moore doesn't get a fellating in the preview but you don't even care that James McTiegue has the credit for his movie placed with the Wachowskis? But I digress...). But if you were to say "From acclaimed comic book writer Alan Moore," people wouldn't know who the heck you were talking about. Leaving his name off of a thirty-second spot, per his request, doesn't seem that unreasonable. Look, I respect the man for his talent and his considerable contribution to popular comic books, but there is just waaay too much hero worship going on with this guy. You can't freak out everytime someone doesn't throw roses at his feet.
-
Feb 06, 2006 12:57:41 PM CST
Anyone else think of "1984" when watching the opening?
by anna valerious
Except John Hurt is Big Brother this time...
-
The Democrat and Republican hard-core have always tried to score points off each other. Meaningless little turf fights. Self-indulgent attempts at one-upmanship to see if they could grab a headline at the other guy
-
I hate to label fellow citizens as fools, but... Wow. No rolling back of our rights, you braindead air suckers say? TURN ON THE TV. TODAY. See that?!? It's a frikin' bipartisan hearing on SPYING ON AMERICANS. Read a freakin' NEWSPAPER already. 'cantankerous' can, of course, keep his serving of butt fuckings to himself. The Bush admin drops the ball on security before 9/11, and now 'the rules don't apply'. What the FUCK does that mean, motherfucker?!? We used to SHOOT PEOPLE DEAD for talking like that. IN PUBLIC, no less. You blabber something weak about Clinton for ten years ago, and fail to notice Gitmo, Torture, Spying, Outing Agents, No-Bid Contracts, Billions MISSING, Saudi Family Ties, IRAQ, Osama, TRILLIONS in National Debt, 30,000 deads civilians, and then you got the NERVE to talk about 'rules'. FUCK OFF. You know why this country is pissed, and yet you jerkoff your little peckers to killing the masses. And guess what? Beyond my verbal abuse, and beyond the truth, lies JAILTIME. Your shit is going to hit the floor soon enough, while you watch your precious coddled 'leaders' carted off to prison not from new laws made to punish being American, but existing laws meant to protect us all. This is the bullet that will not be dodged, and as your hijacked party slowly bleeds to death from the exit wound, simply lay there and reflect on 'the Obstructnist'.
-
Bloody awesome! Let's hope it's on a par with the first Matrix - is it true one of The Wachowski Brothers is now a bird??????? Might make the Oscars a bit more interesting I suppose!
-
May I suggest that when you look at a newspaper you read a little further than the hysterical headlines that say
-
...I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. Is it the comic exactly? No, hardly. Does it have the premise and spirit of the comic condensed into a two-hour movie? Absolutely. While LXG was terrible and FROM HELL only pretty good, this is by far the best movie I saw last year. I can't wait for my friends - liberal and conservative alike - to see this film and finally get to talk about it with them.
-
This story was written in the early to mid 80s, back before Bush's Presidency, when he was still George Bush's black sheep son, running through the halls of the White House, drunk with his dinger hanging out, pissing off Nancy. Indeed, the Wachowski's wrote the script in the late 90s, before they had done the Matrix. Isn't it telling that despite this, and despite the fact the film doesn't even take place in America, the government in this film is reminding people of Bush? You yourself have said the film is "Bush hating," which I take to mean that even you find similarities. It's kind of like "Revenge of the Sith"... Lucas never said he was trying to portray Anakin or the Emperor as being Bush-like. But it was awful interesting that the public came up with that impression on their own. That says more about Bush than it does these films.
-
It's not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's about rule of law. By your statements (or Rush's talking-points), you condone holding so-called "enemy combatants" indefinitely without charge, you condone torture, you condone spying on law-abiding American's, and you condone outing CIA agents that hold differing political opinions than you. While I believe your stance is reckless, traitorous, and psychotic, in a free society that's your right. The fact is these same policies you support are engendering a far deeper hatred in America than anything that has gone before. Osama couldn't have envisioned a better terrorist recruitment ad and training ground than Iraq today! "Get a tan and kill American's!" That's right, Iraq today, courtesy of Rummy, Cheney, and W. This White House's policies are making America less safe since September 11. The average American has no idea how damaging Abu-Ghraib has been to us. But, knowing how you're a hard-core supporter of the President, that probably doesn't matter though. It's just angry Democrats trying to tear down your beloved leader. Man, your blind devotion to party before country is spooky. Many who agree with BushCo. will admit this White House has done some underhanded things (manipulated American's fear with specious claims of mushroom clouds, outed Valerie Plame as political payback for Joseph Wilson's daring to speak out, to name a few). Not you! Wrap yourself in the flag and see only "those nasty, evil Democrats," fine. While "Fearless Leader" amasses power, in the most secretive White House ever, I would hope you aren't to quick to march lock-step with an Executive Branch that is contemptuous of the Legislative Branch and the American people. Then again, why not? This gives you an opportunity to feel superior to somebody, and salve your bruised ego. America will withstand the damage 43 has caused. One day Congress and BushCo. will reap what they've sown. Oh, and lay off the Kool-Aid.
-
... Trying to lead those with sight. My venomous (and truthful) comments aside, your comeback amounted to calling the American Way a giant 'PR War'. I'd call your comments slippery, but they are honestly just muddled. You claim the NSA spying was more than partisan politics, and then ignore who made these orders. Let alone ignoring the other points I can list off again and again. And to those whining and kicking and screaming about Harry and Co. having actual views... Your not helping the argument about not being total conformists, this argument has been done over and over these past few years, you keep coming back to this site anyways, and Harry & Co. simply aren't going to change. Deal. An aside to those actually talking about the movie... Thanks. If not for the constant onslaught of Freepers that are drawn to this site like a moth to a flame, I'd happily be doing the same.
-
i love you man
-
I'm not an American. I loved V for Vendetta, and I'm looking forward to the movie. As far as whether or not it might get people thinking, welll... it might, but don't hold your breath. Someone just said: "average americans don't have a clue how damaging Abu Ghraib has been to us" or something to that effect. I'm just here to second that emotion, beacuse if it's true- if you guys don't know just HOW MUCH the world's opinion of you guys has changed in the last few years, you might want to look into it. I'm not on the right or left, (i actually think it's amusing how americans rely on a colour-coded, binary metephor to define their politics) but I can tell you, you guys went from being the handsome popular kid in the class (who maybe wasn't the nicest, or the brightest, but still popular and handsome) to being percieved as the child-molesting principle with hacked up kid body parts in the locker room. Things have fucking changed for you. wake up.
-
I'm not an American. I loved V for Vendetta, and I'm looking forward to the movie. As far as whether or not it might get people thinking, welll... it might, but don't hold your breath. Someone just said: "average americans don't have a clue how damaging Abu Ghraib has been to us" or something to that effect. I'm just here to second that emotion, beacuse if it's true- if you guys don't know just HOW MUCH the world's opinion of you guys has changed in the last few years, you might want to look into it. I'm not on the right or left, (i actually think it's amusing how americans rely on a colour-coded, binary metephor to define their politics) but I can tell you, you guys went from being the handsome popular kid in the class (who maybe wasn't the nicest, or the brightest, but still popular and handsome) to being percieved as the child-molesting principle with hacked up kid body parts in the locker room. Things have fucking changed for you. wake up.
-
But he's much closer than any liberal candidate! Think about the willingness to torture and to wire tap without any oversight and to use nationalism to keep the population clapping instead of thinking! How far will those wacky republicans go???
-
I guess casting John Hurt as Big Brother must've seemed like a clever idea at the time but wholy crap, he is really hamming it up, huh? And I know this is based on a comic book, but could Hugo Weaving possibly be wearing a gayer costume? Oh, and he's referred to as a "terrorist". I guess the filmmakers were trying to get a mention on The O'Reilly Factor (worked for Mel Gibson).
-
Hey JohnGalt dont bother watching this movie. Go back to watching reruns of Desperate Housewives.
-
Pretty good. And I'll probably take your advice about the movie, Stank Breath.
-
Again, tell me the right we have lost. I swear I'm listening. And no, the right to securely phone Al Qaeda operatives overseas from your home in Newark is NOT a protected right as far as I'm concerned. That's the only people who need to worry about your much exaggerated "domestic spying" program. Problem the left has is that they don't have an ALTERNATIVE to any of our current policies. Until they do something other than focusing on "We hate Bush!" voters will not trust them to protect the country. Honestly, it would be better if you took this to heart and shelved the venom. I'm really hoping we can go back to a two party system.
-
This would've been a great movie to come out after the Waco massacre. People shouldn't fear their governments? That's kind of a "duh" message but for most people around here I guess that depends on whether the government has an R label or a D label.
-
Take a situation and amp it up until it exceeds the threshold of acceptability. Then put words in your opponents mouth and condemn him for what you say he said. The Bush administration is playing hardball, and only a fool would suggest they do otherwise. It would be one thing if they were really crossing the line and the liberals were acting in good faith to pull us back from the brink. But that isn
-
Huh? Try reading it again, sober this time
-
Regardless of my personal political leanings, I'm very fired up for this film. I'm not equating events in the film with any real-life political struggles, though I don't mind if other people do. I don't expect this film to energize anyone's latent political agenda or to make anyone angry enough to rise up against W. Mostly I'm just fired up for an intelligent, emotional, well-acted, violent as hell story about a futuristic terrorist. Right on.
-
"Also, I am an american and I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks of me or my country even if my life depended upon it, I still could not care less." Hahaha, this kind of attitude is partially why other countries hate the US. Good work!
-
this is the first time I've actually paid attention to this film and I'm actually pretty stoked about it. I totally agree the "Government is your enemey" device is woefully out dated, but very effective ... who doesn't like the enemy being all powerful and all-encompassing (heck, that plot device made the trite Enemy of The State work ... I'm sure it will work here). This one may actually get my ass to the theatre.
-
which is what I want to have with Natalie Portman. Right before I flip her over ...
-
Move past what hate? I haven't even discussed political talking points. I'm talking about weakening our legislative branch in favor of one particular executive which will impact our nation more than this week when you had your trunk searched. Never mind that none of our new airport policies involving shoes and bag searches are doing anything to make us safer, mind that there's a reality beyond your personal existence, and what's going on this week. Being male, I'm not ever planning on having an abortion. Sure would be nice if women were allowed to have one. I may never be the first born American child from an Iraqi family. Sure would be nice to not have my dad (if I was), with no ties to anything remotely terrorist, wrongfully imprisoned. It's shocking to me that so many people find absolutely nothing wrong with a man who turned 9/11 into an excuse to deliver on a PRE-EXISTING agenda (war in Iraq) and, if not lied, deliberately obsfucated the truth, taking personal charge of a non-existent, unwinnable, "war" on terror. And to suggest that anyone that criticizes him is un-American/un-Patriotic/liberal (heaven forbid I be "liberal!" being open-minded and progressive sucks! when has anything good ever come from being open-minded and progressive?!). But whatever, you'll either ignore more or rant about me being an overly-defensive democrat/liberal/whatever. But to answer your question... how have my personal liberties been impacted beyond some minor inconveniences? They haven't. But you're asking the wrong question. Because it's not just my duty to look out for myself and my right to purchase a Big Mac. My life is being impacted by the packing of the Supreme Court (and will be, for generations). My life is being impacted by terrible economic policy that is showing hollow signs of growth (hello, 80s!) and will ultimately collapse to some degree or another. And we're all being impacted by appearance of a government that is willing to create a veneer of safety by introducing us to mild inconveniences like bag searches. And suddenly, as if anything has been solved, we're all ok. Try not to think about Saudi Arabia being both (a) our greatest Middle Eastern ally and (b) the biggest harborer of terrorists. Try not to even begin to think about how American and Israeli policies and big oil money may have perhaps impacted that area of the world in a negative fashion. Let's just take a hard-line approach and when, shockingly, it continues to change absolutely nothing, we can retreat to our continent and be molly-coddled by an executive who will keep us safe in our beds by preaching to us about fear and terror and spying on our neighbors.
-
just some thoughts... "We are holding enemy combatants until we think they are not a threat to the US and then we are letting them go. Unfortunately a number of them have cropped up in other terrorist activities shortly afterwards" really? um, because to make a long response short: no they haven't. you're just making shit up out of your ass. that's b.s. that's never been the issue in the first place. you're out of your mind. "They have no legal rights because they are not American citizens or enemy soldiers under the Geneva Convention and serious people are not inclined to start handing out favors to those who want to kill us." Do you have any idea who's been wrongfully, perhaps illegally imprisoned? Do you have any idea how minute the percentage of these people that wish anyone harm is? Let alone, "want to kill?" And even if I'm wrong, and it is a sizable percentage... who decided this? Really, how do YOU know this any more than I? Because the same group of people that created a NEW intelligence agency, just to hear what they wanted to hear about Iraq, "discovered" some information? The same group of people that kick out of their inner circle anyone willing to play devil's advocate? "Then you start redefining torture to include using real harsh language and hurting someones feelings" once again, you're absolutely living in a bubble. What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about measures to allow good ole fashioned torture torture? That even the most staunch republicans blushed at? There was no reform or lowering of what was considered torture. Bush just decided we could step back a hundred years and go back to torturing. Maybe because it works on 24? I don't know. "Then you misrepresent what is happening with the NSA wiretaps (law-abiding Americans, indeed) and willfully ignore the statutes that say the wiretaps are legal," Um, there are no statutes that say the wiretaps are legal. Pretty much every single legal expert yet to weigh in on the issue thinks they're pretty gosh-darn unconstitutional. Bush is arguing ex-post-facto that they should be made legal based on war-time powers granted him by Congress... but he's currently wrong. "The Abu-Ghraib scandel was idiotic. A few guards misbehaved and took pictures of prisoners with panties on their heads." That's not what happened. Go read a newspaper. And the issue wasn't that one or two douchebags acted that way, it was that such behavior was not just condoned, but encouraged, from those much higher up in the military. That people are good at shifting the blame down to a few nobodies and feigning ignorance doesn't mean that all wrongs are committed by a few nobodies. Those "deranged zealots" are no more or less crazy that religious extremists in other religions, just more violent (and let's just forget that Christians ever did anything bad. Like Inquisite. Or sweep child abuse under the rug.) Our short-sightedness, our treatment of an entire region based on the actions of an extreme few, or out of our own selfish oil-interests, is not doing anything to improve the Middle East's, or the world's, perspective of us. And you know why that's important? Because it makes us a helluva lot safer than having more nuclear weapons than anyone else that we will never, ever use.
-
They basically run through the streets screaming, "THEY'RE GONNA KILL US ALL! SAVE ME! DO WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO, BUT PLEASE SAVE ME! SUSPEND THE BILL OF RIGHTS! PLEASE, DADDY GOVERNMENT, SAVE ME FROM THESE SCARY MEN!" They live in a state of complete fear. I'll tell you one thing, Reagan would be disgusted to hear Republicans talking about how great the government is.
-
You make some excellent points and put a couple of words in my mouth. I'm all for a strong debate. I would never question anyone's patriotism for being against any particular foreign policy. That's yet another canard objectors to the war are constantly parroting, "I'm being debased because I'm against the war!!!" BS. I'd like to know of one example of a Republican office holder calling Nancy Pelosi a weak kneed America hater. It just hasn't happened. On the other side, you have the chairman of the Democratic party and president of the NAACP calling Bush everything in the book including Hitler. That's right, concentration camps are on the way. Greenpeace activists are going to be locked up in camps to serve as slaves for Dick Cheney! What a bunch of baloney. You're definitely right that my own post 9-11 experience is anecdotal and meaningless at the end of the day. The atmosphere out there in the country at large is the thing. My point is that the fears people are putting out there are massively overblown. You use the well worn phrase about "packing" the court. How silly. I saw where Alito, who Dems insisted was to the right of Rush Limbaugh, voted to stay someone's execution on the basis that the needle may hurt as someone is lethally injected. Knee jerk? "Turning back the clock?" I don't think so. Your statement that it is "nice" for people to be able to have abortions just boggles me. Nothing nice about killing a defenseless and innocent person, but that's off topic. I have to agree with your point about Saudi Arabia, as well. I wish to God the President would tell the truth about those jerks. But, every past president down the line has treated them as a faithful ally. I have to assume there's something going on that we aren't privy to. Perhaps they've made the judgment that the devil you know (Saudi dictators) is better than the one you don't. I have to differ with you on your assessment of the economy. Apparently, groth is "hollow" whenever Republicans are at the helm. I'll tell you what was hollow. Clinton's economic boom was based on stock speculation and Internet pipe dreams. Bush has had to deal with all that phony wealth disappearing when the market finally corrected itself. Then 9-11 on top of it. We're doing amazing to be digging out of that hole and rememeber, it's the Bush justice department who brought down Enron, Worldcom and Healthsouth, not Clinton's. So, to veer this back to Vendetta, no I don't think it was a coincidence that the story was penned during the Reagan years and the movie was made during the Bush, jr. years. Those time periods are the absolute apex of the left's fear that we're all going to be forced to use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper and Pat Robertson will be named Supreme Czar of National Morality. Sorry, those fears are just plain hand-wringing nonsense. But, hopefully the movie won't be so overtly preachy that I can't enjoy watching it.
-
Who the hell is weakening the legislature? The executive branch and the legislative branch have always fought for power. The scope of executive power that the Bush people employed to authorize the wiretaps seemed perfectly fine to you duplicitous liberals when Clinton was thinking the same way. Now it
-
I meant to say, ErrantNight you ignorant slut in my previous post. My bad.
-
of evil. But war-mongering far worse. And thats what Bush is, a fucking AWOL chicken-hawk-war-monger pushing a short-sighted neo-con agenda at the expense of America's respect and credibilty. A very serious offense when we should raising the spirits of the entire world not just nascar dads and racist frat boys.
-
ErrantNight: "really? um, because to make a long response short: no they haven't. you're just making shit up out of your ass." ......
Um, yes they have. Try Googling Abdul Ghaffar or Abdullah Mehsud for starters. You -
Just about to break out with a really good natured exchange with ErrantKnight and maybe even find some common ground when Cantankerous starts name calling and even MISTAKENLY targets me in his subject line. lol
-
have either joined or rejoined terrorists groups. Oh yeh those are some great numbers to justify human rights abuses. The fact is, the majority or detainees at guantanamo are held without proof or charge.
-
Because you seem to think you know me. Clearly you don't. As for the last part of your statement, if there was proof that 188 of them were involved in terror groups before they were detained you might have had a point, but there isn't and you don't.
Oh and just for the people arguing about abortion, what are you views about abortion for a rape victim? -
What sort of burden of proof do you think we should require before we can detain terrorist suspects that were captured on foreign soil? The same as we afford criminal suspects in the US? Should our soldier read them their Miranda Rights on the battlefield?
How would YOU balance the desire for due process against the urgent need for information about an embedded enemy who has expressed the desire to kill large numbers of Americans and has demonstrated the fanatical will and capability to pull it off? Would you play explicitly by the rules (going so far as to adopt rules that don -
Since you pose a very logical question, I'll take a stab. For the anti-abortionist, you've got two moral imperatives there. Sympathy for a newly created human being knows no bounds. It doesn't matter what brought us into the world. Poor, rich, wanted and unwanted, we're all people not deserving being stabbed in the head while in the womb. (a very liberal view when you think about it) Yet, any compassionate person looks at a rape victim and is desperate to do something, anything to make the sickening trauma of rape recede. It's common sense that carrying the child could be emotionally impossible for the woman. So, which one wins out? Honestly, I have no idea. I truly believe abortion is snuffing out a life. Yet, I'm open to hearing other points of view where the moral cost of preventing the abortion approaches the moral cost of the abortion itself. Rape and life of the mother are two of those times. Convenience, financial instability or embarrassment, which represent the justifications for the overwhelming majority of abortions, don't come close.
-
to justify so many people being kept at guantanamo for so long. I'm a US citizen I have a right to know why my government does what it does and to whom. You really think that it's cool to keep INNOCENT people locked up indefinitely because they MIGHT know something about something? You are cool with basically creating a situation where ANYONE can be locked up on no evidence. For godsake cantankerous grow a fucking conscience. And please don't try and argue that you do have a conscience because you are concerned with the lives of innocent Americans, we all are, but some of us understand that what is happening in guantanamo is so wrong so contradictory of the constitution and basic human right (which, seeing as we are peddling them to iraqi's we really should be observing them ourselves) that there truly is no justifaction for it, in it's current form. Hell I'm fine with terrorists being locked up and interrogated for information, I'm cool with a suspected terrorist being detained and interrogated, but for 3 years? Without proof or evidence? It helps no-one creates terrible resentment with the people who's hearts and minds we should be winning not pissing off and ultimately means that America is a little less a beacon of hope and freedom and a little more like the regimes we so sorely need to defeat.________ gboyama, well thanks for a interesting intelligent view of things. I was very anti abortion up until someone I know was raped and became pregnant. But the thing is can we really compare moral costs? And then make a judgement? Once you are ok (not saying "you" in particular gboyama) with killing a unborn child for one reason how much moral highground do you have left when it comes to other reasons for abortions? I mean if a child is going to be born into poverty and live a wretched life is it ok to say "no you can't have an abortion but this woman was raped and she can"? I agree that abortion is probably done for...insubstantial reasons in some cases but really, having an abortion isn't a decision taken lightly. I'm sure if asked the woman having it done there would be ample justification in her mind and isn't it better to at least have a place where it can be done hygenically and safely than having women go to "backstreet" clinics? Women are always going to have abortions legislation won't stop them, merely make them go somewhere dangerous to do it.
-
You think that innocent people have been retained at Gitmo for three years? You might want to consider the possibility that the innocent people are among the 188 who have been released and that there IS evidence that the ones who are being kept are real, honest to goodness terrorist types! Of course you
-
And you seem to forget all the people concerned about Gitmo because of the INNOCENT people there. Of course they aren't doing it for shits and giggles but why on earth should we trust that all the people there now are terrorists when it's already been proved that mistakes have been made?
-
that you are fine with innocent people being detained and possibly abused indefintely. Hmm I wonder what other regimes around the world are ok with that too....
-
I'd just like to drop in here for a second again and speak for the entire non-American world if I could... This is a really interesting debate and everything, terrorists, gitmo, Camp X-Ray, and all that, but, (and I can't even keep track of who's side I'm even on anymore) The rest of the world is absolutely horrified by what your government is doing in Cuba. now before that Pantera guy jumps down my throat again or starts correcting my typos, I'd just like to point out that the rest of the world is acutely aware that there is a difference between America and it's goverment. If someone in France or Belgium or Japan says "Bush Sucks", that's not an insult directed at Jerry Anderson of 123 Maple lane, Alabama, or Nancy Cartright of Springfield, Conneticut. I think it was Mark Twain, a very bright American, who said: Loyalty to your country always, loyalty to your government when they deserve it." does that make Mark Twain a dirty Terror-loving traitor? Patriotism is a good thing. being a mindless drone isn't patriotism, it's willful ignorance. If you refuse to question the decisions made by your government you aren't being a good patriot, you're betraying your country, because YOUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR COUNTRY. (sheesh, you'd think Americans of all people would understand this, they fought a war of independence for christ''s sake!) Thank you and goodnight.
-
go to this little old link if you want to laugh-
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20323 -
Where? Please spell it out. Tell me how you would handle terrorist suspects that were captured in other countries
-
And I am an American, I hardly think we are evil. If you can't stop putting words in my mouth and arguing against them instead of what I actually say then you just come accross as very very stupid. Now listen, is it not possible that the authorities THINK that the people there are involved with terrorism and are therefore keeping them there indefinitely trying to prove it or get information from them? You think that there aren't innocent people still there, because some have been let go years after their capture? Are you truly that ignorant. And what about the innocent people who were captured abused and then released. Do you even give a shit about them? My "other way" was saying lock terrorists up and interrogate suspected terrorists but don't do it to innocent people INDEFINTELY and without EVIDENCE. I'm interested as to why you think that the laws and moral America wants other people to follow don't apply to America itself? Ever been to the UK they have been dealing with terrorism on their soil for ooh about 100 years and they didn't decide to create a prison camp to interrogate Irish people they thought MIGHT be terrorists. Even after 7/7 they still didn't set up similar camps or systems for dealing with suspects. Oh and thanks for confirming you are ok with the situation where ANYONE (yes even you cantankerous) can be detained without trial, without evidence, indefinitely. That's a interesting insight in to how your mind works.
-
with this all day. Here's my last post on the matter, I'm sure you have better stuff to do too.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng ____ http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng _____ http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_gitmo ___ http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/03/25/one-rule-for-them-/ ___ http://www.latimes.com/la-na-gitmo22dec22,0,2294365.story ____ http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,941876,00.html -
The rest of the world is horrified by what the US government is doing in Cuba but it turns a blind eye to what the CUBAN government is doing in Cuba. HA HA, good one!
-
it's called the Bill of RIGHTS, not Bill of Suggestions. It is the law of the land. Deal with it. If you do not like living in a country with freedom of privacy, speech, and due process, then go move to Saudi Arabia. Love it or leave it.
-
weren't you the one whining that people were putting words in your mouth? I thought you guys were yelling at eachother over alleged/proved human rights abuses that may or may not have been perpetrated by the AMERICAN government, I never suggested that the rest of the world was turning a blind eye to crimes committed by the Cuban government. That's what's called a leap of logic, and it's how people deflect interest from the flow of a debate or a conversation in order to distract from the fact that your argument is a weaker or failing one. Simple, and usually effective, if your opponent falls for it. In this case, it reveals that you're doing one of two things: arguing for argument's sake, or losing the argument. either way, you just lost some cred. And speaking of semantic didacticism; what can you possibly mean by "to question a decision by your government does NOT mean you have to oppose it"? This is an absurd statement. If you care to, I'd love to hear you try to back this up. Oh yeah- and that quote by Twain- if you think about it fairly, either side could use that quote to strengthen their position, but these days, in this climate, with the Republicans controlling all branches of government, and millions of "these colors don't run" (and the like) stickers everywhere, doesn't it seem more likely that Twain's statement refers to the patriot quietly speaking out against the Neo-con agenda? or are you one of those right wingers who needs to believe in the fantasy that you're a put-upon, persecuted minority in order to support to your ideology?
-
Think this movie will be screened in any of these countries? Americans piss and moan about oppression but have no idea what it really is. Bottom line: this movie will NOT be seen where it's message might have some minimal impact. So quit bitching about Bush and go eat some freedom fries. P.S. government sucks.
-
Cameron1: "My "other way" was saying lock terrorists up and interrogate suspected terrorists but don't do it to innocent people INDEFINTELY and without EVIDENCE." ...... And you think the US is doing it any differently? We are grabbing suspected terrorists, interrogating them for information, releasing any innocent people we captured in error, and keeping the individuals we find to be terrorists. I assume reparations of some sort will be granted once the truly wronged get a lawyer. The ones who we release in error won
-
Who exactly does the Bill of Rights apply to? Everyone in the whole wide world?
-
Noooo, _I_ suggested that the rest of the world is turning a blind eye to the years of human rights abuses perpetuated by the Cuban government upon their own people that make Gitmo look like pretty damn small potatoes. It might be called deflecting the flow, it
-
You heard me. Love it or leave it. If you hate America and the Constitution so much, move to Syria.
-
The other point that needs to be made is this: If you Republicans want to argue that these illegal acts like warrentless wire-tapping and suspension of habeas corpus are not illegal, that's fine. If you want to argue that torture prisoners by raping them with broom handles, and forcing them at gun-point to suck off other men isn't a violation of the Geneva Convention, and cruel and immoral, that's fine too. People have the right to be wrong and ignorant and not respect democracy. But what you CAN'T argue is that these things are effective. We are currently getting our asses kicked in Iraq. At least have the courtesy to admit that these things have been, at the least, unpragmatic. One of the reasons we won WW2 is because we had the moral highground, and the respect of the world. All you people bragging how they don't care that the Swedes and Canadians and the Danes don't like us need to keep in mind that if Canadians don't like us, no one will be on our side. Another reason why we are losing the war in Iraq.
-
Good question! Luckily for us, Thomas Jefferson answered it in the Declaration of Independence when he said that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable. Unalienable means everyone in the whole wide world. Yes, even brown guys with beards.
-
that so many of these apologists for the current administration have to fall back on comparison's with the world's worst regimes to defend Bush's policies. 'You think warrantless wiretapping is bad? Go live in North Korea, that'll give ya somethin' ta cry about!'
Might there be something very wrong with the United States when the only way to defend our actions is to stand next to Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro and wait for a favorable comparison?
The United States of America is the greatest nation on earth because it came up with the following innovation: To be a nation of laws, not men. Laws which are transparent, whose evolution is decided by the joint cooperation of multiple political parties and branches of government, who share, and check, each others power.
The Bush administration's argument that the congress' granting them authority to wage war in AFGHANISTAN translates to the blanket authority to wiretap U.S. citizens without the oversight of the courts is ridiculous on its face. One has logically nothing to do with the other, and I would dare ANYBODY to find a U.S. Senator, Democrat or Republican, who would agree that they understood that they were authorizing this new, hugely broad domestic presidential power when they approved the war.
I'd love to see all the 'small government', 'libertarian' conservatives blow a blood vessel if they'd seen Clinton try to appropriate such unchecked, massively overreaching powers. They'd be on the hill with torches before you could say 'Ruby Ridge'.
The idea that people should shut up and TRUST the president misses the entire point of having a country bound by the rule of law. A few months ago, people were defending the broad powers of the patriot act by saying that even though the government had the power to look into library lending records, they'd never used it. So, don't sweat it, they said. A month later, they were looking through somebody's library records. Because they could. Bush hasn't used my google patterns against me yet. So, no worries, right? Bullshit. The point of laws is that they set precedents for what is lawful, what is defensible, what is the public allowed to know, and what we can impeach our elected officials for. These are no small matter, and they are NOT to be enacted unless we are prepared to see government exploit these laws to the fullest. Less than a month ago, Bush helpfully explained tp the press corps that all surveillance was approved by judicial review. Except that we now know that a lot of it wasn't. And this is a government that's supposed to operate on, ahem, TRUST? How many grievous intelligence failures must an administration suffer before the skeptics are allowed back into the ranks of the patriots?
And my capacity for TRUST would be a whole lot more forgiving if Bush and the Republican 'Strong-On-Defense' team would actually do something to make the country safer, like pushing to award Security Funds to areas based on Risk factor, instead of spreading the funds so Fargo gets the same amount of Homeland Security money as my home city of... NEW YORK. Remember us? But the Bush administration has zilch to say about using the security money as a big fat pork playpen.
No, I'm not in a habit of trusting politicians. I'd rather have laws to nail them to the wall and define criminal behavior so there's a coherent system to overseeing their activity and nailing them when they try to mislead and defraud their constituents.
Is that too hight a bar to set for the united states? Or is it O.K. as long as we're slightly less of a scumbag than the fucking psycho islamofascists of Iran and Saudi Arabia? -
Did anyone tell the Bushies that current FISA regulations allow them to start a wiretap BEFORE they have a warrant? Yep, they can tap whoever they want, and can wait 72 HOURS before they have to take the radical step of... asking a judge for an extension. Yeah, they're really dealing with unreasonable oversight.
One might also ask Attorney General Gonzalez why, if the current regulations on domestic/foreign surveillance were unsatisfactory, NO ONE in the administration complained or even brought up the subject.
Oh, that's right. Someone DID ask at the hearing. he just didn't answer. Nice transparent government we've got.
But hush... let's TRUST the same people who held a closed-door policy meeting with major energy companies(including the infamous ENRON), and won't let the public know what they discussed or how policy was decided, even after it was revealed that many of those same companies conspired to FAKE AN ENERGY SHORTAGE in order to artificially drive up the price of energy to mr. and mrs. john q. public. This was the 'shortage' that browned-out california. Yeah, I'm just brimmin' with trust. -
..by negator and cisco and tapler,but seeing as you appear to be missing every point but one, cankerous here we go one more time: The people in guantanamo bay are not all proven to be terrorist, they suspects in as much as they were picked up by the military in Afgahnistan and other places. That's all. They aren;t all enemy combatants as many of the released peole have said they were just hauled randomly into custody by the US army. Therefore we are keeping utterly INNOCENT people incarcerated and abused/tortured for very long periods of time with no evidence to do it, and only trying to find evidence by repated interrogation. DO YOU THINK THAT'S OK? I mean you are ok with a country which tells everyone it stands for truth and justice, rounding up random people from foreign contries with no justification and keeping them in cells for as long as the authorities want. Authorities which by the way, have to answer to NO-ONE but their higher chain of command. You are honestly ok with innocent people being unjustly illegally imprisoned in YOUR name and you not knowing ANYTHING about the reasons they are there. That's fine then cankerous you be a total idiot, too shortsighted and ignorant to understand the consequences of what we are doing.
-
..by negator and cisco and tapler,but seeing as you appear to be missing every point but one, cankerous here we go one more time: The people in guantanamo bay are not all proven to be terrorist, they suspects in as much as they were picked up by the military in Afgahnistan and other places. That's all. They aren;t all enemy combatants as many of the released peole have said they were just hauled randomly into custody by the US army. Therefore we are keeping utterly INNOCENT people incarcerated and abused/tortured for very long periods of time with no evidence to do it, and only trying to find evidence by repated interrogation. DO YOU THINK THAT'S OK? I mean you are ok with a country which tells everyone it stands for truth and justice, rounding up random people from foreign contries with no justification and keeping them in cells for as long as the authorities want. Authorities which by the way, have to answer to NO-ONE but their higher chain of command. You are honestly ok with innocent people being unjustly illegally imprisoned in YOUR name and you not knowing ANYTHING about the reasons they are there. That's fine then cankerous you be a total idiot, too shortsighted and ignorant to understand the consequences of what we are doing.
-
against Islamic extremists who want to destroy America and all it's secular humanist and sexual freedoms; WHY are American gay rights groups being spyed on? Aren't they DEFINITELY on the other side from Islamic terrorists; feminism and homosexual acceptance are the absolute ACME of 'evil Western decadence' to the mullahs. So why is Bush listening in on queers?
-
... Sources from MILITARY INTELLIGENCE (That's right kids, those far-left hookah humping dudes at MILITARY INTELLIGENCE) surmised that a vast majority of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib posed no threat to american forces and had nothing to do with insurgents or Al Qaida. Gee whiz, I sure hope Don Rumsfeld's 'confused' policy on prisoner abuse didn't reach them before we figured that out. But even if the people stacked in naked pyramids, with dogs snapping at their unguarded genitals, WERE insurgents.... what intelligence did we gain from these tactics? Where was the part where we asked them questions? Where is the documentation of the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of these methods?
Oh, I'm sorry. I should keep my mouth shut. I shouldn't criticize Rumsfeld, because at least he hasn't shut down dissenting, independent media like Putin. Oh, wait, I can't criticize Putin. After all, he's not as bad as Pol Pot. Actually, Pol Pot wasn't so bad if you put him next to Adolf...
-
Hmm, does this release date have anything to do with St. Patrick's Day which is the saint of Ireland? Then we see the British parlament being blown up, similar to what Guy Fokes had attempted. Hmmm
-
"We are grabbing suspected terrorists, interrogating them for information, releasing any innocent people we captured in error, and keeping the individuals we find to be terrorists. I assume reparations of some sort will be granted once the truly wronged get a lawyer. The ones who we release in error won
-
Actually, Pol Pot is still pretty bad, even if you put him next to Hitler. But I'm quibbling.
-
And regarding detainees returning to fight... You mean the five out of 188 that have been released? You're right... I didn't realize the number was that high... I was wrong. That's a pretty good percentage. 5 out of 188. Good show.
-
The inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with who is and is not covered by the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution protects only US citizens and anyone on US soil, which is why the sneaky Bushies specifically chose Gitmo to hold the innocent brown people they indiscriminately snatched from their beds at night so they would have someone to torment when they weren -
Bush is too liberal. Too much big government. Screw that. Oh, I miss Ronald Reagan...
-
is that they are sort of like sound-bites, they sound good but they rarely tell the whole story. For instance
-
to argue against man made global warming. And cantankerous I guess you didn't bother to read those articles I linked to. Not a suprise really, you seem to belive trusting in the administration is the best thing to do, oh yeh that's right you sound like Britney Spears now, bravo. And your comparison murder is shot to hell as you forget to mention what the consequences of killing a huge a proportion of innocent people, in an attempt to save your life or your families life, would be.
-
Lay off of him, Cameron! He lost a leg during the War on Christmas. He fought valiantly at the Battle of the Mall of America, against those evil jews trying to take Christmas away. Didn't your mama teach you not to ridicule disabled veterans?!
-
Hey Cantankerous- these are some of the most lucid arguments you've made so far. I still don't agree with you, but now I believe I have a litte more insight into what makes you tick, which helps. Personally, I think Negator kind of blew us all away with his argument, but I'd like to add something if I could. Call it a hunch, but you said something that got me thinking- you said:"When you lefties proclaim that you are fighting injustice and oppression when you constantly bash the US, we
-
"I've seen it!" Oh, wait...nevermind. And dstrbo1, that kind of reasonable, rational statement isn't going to get you anywhere in a talkback. You have to make BIG, BOLD statements that will SHOCK and/or AWE. Try denying the Holocaust or claiming global warming will kill us all within the next 30 days. Speaking of which, why hasn't Michael Moore made a global warming "documentary" yet? He's missing the boat on this one...Brokeback Planet. "I wish I could quit you, foreign oil!"
-
Ever noticed how practically ALL the scientists NOT funded by large scale fossil fuel energy companies say man made global warming is real? And the ones who are funded by those companies (a very small minority) seem to tow the line they energy companies want them too?
-
There's a self-selection process for environmental scientists as well. Basically you don't even enter the field unless you are already taking as your jumping off point the notion that the earth needs to be protected from Man. I think climate change is probably a reality, and that there's no real way to know what its effects will be or how severe they will be. But at the same time, I also recognize that science won't be objective when it's mixed with social or political commitment. If you hate industrial society, you are probably just a leeeeetle bit more likely to find results that call into question the foundation of that society.
-
I'm not sure. Some extrapolation may be necessary.
-
but the earth DOES need to be protected from man. That's a given. So the enviromental scientists are quite correct.
-
by your selective lack of reading up on the issue. oh and don't bother coming back with "i've done lots of reading" I'm sure you have just not of non-biased sources.
-
Okay, so we're all going to burn to a crisp and/or freeze to death. No need to let it ruin your day.
-
Ah! Bush is a greedy businessman solely out for profit, so EVERYTHING he does must be opposed. If it resembles a legitimate cause, that is only because of clever manipulation of the mindless masses, except for the likes of you who see through the fa
-
How about Leo J Strauss? Try a few google searches and the shut the fuck up, your ignorance is astoundng yes, but now it's really just boring.
-
I tried. back to juvenile dick and fart jokes.>>>
Some dogs are just naturally submissive, I guess. Bush comes around and starts sniffing, and folks like Catankerous just can't help but lay back and spread 'em. -
The true puppet masters behind the Bushco neocon agenda. Didn
-
Amazing how you can blow so much hot air that it actually creates a protective force field around your malformed brain. While you're screaming incoherently about tin foil hats and Bush 'protecting our asses', you might have noticed that I brought up several facts about current legislation regarding domestic spying and cited specific examples of the Bush administration's record of indifference when it comes to security matters. You might have responded to some of them, but you were obviously too busy transcribing one of O'Reilly's latest bloviations. You might like to try thinking for yourself and responding to an argument by providing factual examples to contradict the assertions of your opponents. Like answering just ONE of my points: Why is it that the white house finds it necessary to spy on domestic calls without notifying congress? They already have the perfectly legal power to wiretap somebody for 72 hours before they have to get a warrant or ask for an extension. And in cases of 'emergency', they actually are allowed to engage in warrantless search, seizure, and surveillance for a FULL FIFTEEN DAYS. Why is it necessary to engage in a covert surveillance program without informing ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT? Are their Al Quaida members in the legislative branch? Do you think the terrorists don't already assume they are being watched, and take precautions to keep their conversations from being monitored? The fact is, the administration has NO ANSWER for these questions. And their justifications are 'unpersuasive and make no logical sense', according to Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Judiciary Commitee and REPUBLICAN. But don't trust me, I'm just a registered Republican who shouldn't care who tramples on the bill of rights and should think that the president has the right to torture and spy on whoever he wants without oversight or legal justification. Because he's the King of America, right? Cantankarous, it's unthinking retards like YOU that are ruining this country. I can't wait to put you in uniform and watch you shit your pants the moment you realize that the armor on your humvee isn't available, while another round of tax cuts has just been passed. Fuck you, you ignorant bag of fart-air.
-
reading all of this half-assed political back-and-forth is like watching a class full of retards fight a class full of drunks.
I'll let you decide which group corresponds to which political group... -
that pretty much all political discourse can be described in such a colourful way. Have you read the papers lately?
-
you should publish a book, containing selected comments from various talkbacks on the state of America, according to weird, misanthropic film nerds with funny names. I think it would be a hit with the kitsch crowd.
-
Ah cantankerous that was brilliant, you proved without a shadow of a doubt what a lightweight you really are. I mention the PNAC and you spout some bullshit about conspiracies??? What a wonderful way to not only miss the point but ignore it completely and backtrack to your rather lame "the left are crazy" rants, which in sctuslity only make YOU look crazy. But hey thanks for doing my job for me and proving you are a brainless wonder. And seeing as you didn't even bother to look up Leo J Strauss you again show yourself up as one of those "trust the president no matter what" jerks. I mean I suprised you can be so naieve but apparently you can. So you enjoy thinking the "left" are all nuts when they present you with damning information about certain people in the administration. If you wat to be one of the stupid ill informed babies that's cool. I'll go and talk with some REAL republicans who actually know HOW to debate rather than just do the talkbakc equivalent of sticking their fingers in the ears every time they are faced with something which MIGHT possibly cause them to change their opinions. You are a intellectual coward cankerous, but hell anytime you want to be thoroughly schooled again, I'll be around.
-
I am sure you are well read up on the NSA wiretaps and you know both sides of the argument, as do I. Do you really need me to rehash the reasons here? I
-
You had a point? I don -
You had a point? I don
-
I hear that Negator76 is a Republican, though I
-
Sadly, I'll agree with you. And I think there should be a new rule: if someone considers The Daily Show a source of news, that someone should put the bong down and shut the hell up.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts