Cool News
Quint chats up V FOR VENDETTA director James McTeigue!!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with another V FOR VENDETTA interview, rounding out the trinity of interviews I've done on the movie, the first going back to my chat with Natalie Portman ("We love you, Natalie!") at Comic-Con last summer. My chat with co-creator David Lloyd went up a couple days ago to a bit of controversy. We go into some spoiler material and even though I warned about spoilers in the introduction and put a giant red spoiler tag on the story it seemed people weren't prepared for it. I'm sorry to those that got upset about that.
McTeigue and I go over some mild, mild spoilers below, but nothing as big as the Lloyd chat. I hope you enjoy.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Where are you calling from?
QUINT: Austin. Austin, Texas.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Austin, Texas. Very good.
QUINT: You ever been to Austin?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: I have not. You know, I've never made it down there for the festival (SXSW). I'd like to get down there at some point. I've heard very good things about it...
QUINT: So, I take it you're not coming out to South By Southwest with the movie then.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: No, I'm not because I've got to bring it to London, unfortunately. I have a bunch of press and it has its premiere in London around that same time, so I can't get out there, unfortunately.
QUINT: Well, next film then. If it plays South By or Butt-Numb-A-Thon again, like V did, then you'll have to come out with it.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Yeah, it was good to show you guys that. Got a lot of positive response from you guys. Got out into the world on a very positive note, which I'm very appreciative of.
QUINT: Well, you won't find a better audience than the Butt-Numb-A-Thon audience. It's just full of hardcore movie lovers.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: I'd love to get down there for the Butt... How did you say it? Butt-Numb-A-Thon?
QUINT: You got it.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: (laughs) Sounds like an interesting experience, the back to back to back films. Reminds me of staying at University and seeing films like that.
QUINT: So, I guess before the publicists start getting pissed off that we're just sitting here bullshitting we should probably jump into it. Do you remember the very first time you picked up Alan Moore and David Lloyd's V books?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Um, yeah. I mean, working on THE MATRIX stuff, I guess you can't help but be submerged in the world of the comic or the graphic novel. Probably for me, it was probably around the mid-'90s, around the time of THE MATRIX. When was that? '96/'97? I'd read a bunch of other Alan Moore stuff... For better or for worse, I guess probably for better, it (V) had kind of passed me by, so it was one of the ones that I came to a bit late. You know, I'd read WATCHMEN and FROM HELL and a couple of the other more recent ones and finally got around to V.
I also knew 'round about that time that The Boys (Wachowski Bros) had done a pass on a script on it. So, I guess it was 'round about that time.
QUINT: So, did you read their script first or the graphic novel?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: No, I read the comics first and I think to read the comic you can't help but to be struck, no matter when you pick that graphic novel up, at how prescient it is. I know people's political consciousness ebbs and flows and we've gone through another time when... you know, I think people's political consciousness are peaked at the moment. They're more interested. You know, when Alan Moore and David Lloyd wrote it, it was another of those times, it was on the back of the Thatcher period and they felt the need to say something. I think all those things come and go, you know?
QUINT: Well, it kind of struck me a bit when I saw it BNAT because when word got out that there were reshoots and the movie was being pushed back, I was expecting the movie to lose some of the more overt terrorist imagery, but instead I found a movie that seemed to be even more up to date with mentions of London bombings, etc.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Well, the odd thing about that or the sort of crazy thing about that is that stuff that's in there I shot 2 months before the London bombings ever happened. Part of the reshooting stuff we did was mainly to flesh out Evey in the cells with V. I did a pass at it and then felt that it could be fleshed out a little more, but that stuff with the guy standing outside of the tube station... If you'd look at our production records you would see that was in May when I actually shot that stuff.
I think that's a fair call when people say, "Oh, they're reshooting... maybe it's because of the London bombings." You know, it was horrific. I was cutting at the time they happened. You can never condone anything like that.
So you know... I think the press put 2 and 2 together and made 5 when the actual reality was when all that stuff about the guy outside the tube station and the avian flu and all that stuff... that all comes from a script that comes from... I think the shooting script was finished in November 2004.
QUINT: That's crazy, but still the fact that the studio didn't pressure you into removing that kind of stuff from the movie is a pretty major deal in the Hollywood system these days, where the studios want to make everybody happy.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Without it sounding hollow, you know, because some of these things kind of do... Warner Bros has been nothing less than 100% supportive, which is fantastic. I guess you look at their slate of films in the last little while I think for a big Hollywood studio they're willing to stick their neck out. Obviously, with the Wachowski's as producers and with Joel (Silver) as producer and me directing... we have a long history with those guys and they know that we're not going to do anything that isn't good, that we're going to make the best possible film that we can.
The great thing about the studio is they'll trust you with the material, so it was amazing. I didn't have any creative interference at all, which is pretty amazing for someone directing their first time out.
QUINT: I've loved the marketing campaign Warner Bros has put behind this movie. The posters are all beautiful and it just feels like they're embracing the political aspect of this and not pushing it to the side and trying to draw people in with the action bits.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: I think they recognized the quality in the material. I think it's a good script, I think it is a good allegory. There's a lot at the moment... you know, "Is it about Bush's America?" and all that kind of stuff. I say no to that. I say it's an allegory about all governments. It totally depends on what you take into the theater, what you're going to take out of the theater. Some people will see it about Great Britain, maybe if you see it in Australia you'll see it about John Howard's Australia.What I would say is it's about all governments at all times, you know, and the way that you should have a voice and it's perfectly fine to have a voice.
I can see why people will see it like that and that's fine, too, because the last thing I want to do is tell people how to think about it. I think, hopefully, that's one of the things the film does. It asks questions, doesn't give you the answers, but lets you think about things.
QUINT: So, backing up just a little bit, you were Assistant Director on the MATRIX flicks and you also worked on ATTACK OF THE CLONES. How did you make that lucky transition to directing, especially with something as high profile and as complex as V?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: I guess going through that whole MATRIX trilogy... and I guess one of the closer relationships with a director on a film set, besides with the DP, is the AD. Over the years I became friendly with The Boys and we would always be talking about different stuff, whether it was about comics or novels or film... I don't know, I think you end up building an innate kind of trust and when they're looking to have their hand in something, but not wanting to direct it because they've been doing THE MATRIX pretty much flat out for 10 years... V was a good thing to do.
Part of their genius is their trust in you. At the point when they said, "We want you to direct it" there was never any other discussions other than me going ahead and doing it. You know, yeah. I think they just trusted me. And yeah, it was a lucky break because the material is just incredible, amazing material. It had a decent budget. To get the complexity of the material on the screen it needed to have a certain budget. I think they knew that given my track record that I could probably handle something like that. Having a history in assistant directing... I did some very large films. You're responsible for the organizational end of that...
QUINT: Well, it's not a really surprising transition. It's not so much thought of in this way these days, but originally assistant director was meant as a kind of apprenticeship under a director and that you were expected to move on later to direct your own films.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Yeah, that history started off in Europe. There have been a lot of great directors who assistant directed. Hitchcock and even John Woo if you get into the more modern realms. But yeah, I saw it as a progressive step. I guess people always like to pigeon-hole like that. You know, assistant director is maybe more right side of the brain than it is left side of the brain, but I guess I never really saw it like that.
QUINT: Was it always your ambition to direct?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Yeah. It's funny the path that you end up on, I guess. When everyone goes to University, like if you go as a film major, you always think that you'll come out and you'll be a director, you know? (laughs) For some people it happens, but for the majority of people I think they end up doing other craftmanship roles within the film industry.
I enjoyed assistant directing and that's what I did for a long time. Then it just became almost apparent, you know, almost by osmosis that I was directing.
QUINT: When you got the job was there any hesitation on your part knowing that up to this point Alan Moore's work has been really butchered by the time it hits the screen. Was there any driving force within you to make one of the first real honest to god adaptations of Moore's stuff?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Yeah, there was. You can't go into the work of Alan Moore and not be cognizant of the other films that have gone before you.
I guess the smart thing we did when The Boys did their draft of the script was to be careful and to be true to the intent and the ideas and the integrity of Alan Moore's work. You can't do a straight page by page rendition of the graphic novel. That's never going to work in cinema, but what you can do is be in a headspace where you're making a version of all those great ideas that he tried to put into that graphic novel. Every now and then you can do the homage parts to the graphic novel and just go, "You know, he did that for very good reasons." I tried to do that and hopefully with the script and me being aware of how great the graphic novel is and trying to make something that was true to it... I don't know whether Alan will ever see it, but hopefully it's something he might enjoy if he saw it.
QUINT: The graphic novel was pretty fresh in my mind when I saw the film at BNAT and the movie really struck me as being incredibly similar to the comic. Not quite SIN CITY similar, but certainly very true to the comic. It really did feel like I was watching that world through a different lens.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Nice of you to say that. It's nice to get feedback like that.
QUINT: One of the reasons I think I took to the film was Hugo Weaving's work as V. Can you talk a little bit about what he brought to the character?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: A couple of things. The great thing about working with Hugo is I had worked with him even before THE MATRIX, I'd worked with him in Australia, so we know each other and have known each other for a long time. The thing about Hugo, besides the fact that he's a damn fine actor, is he has an amazing physicality in whatever he does and he has an amazing voice. I felt his voice really embodied, in my mind, how V should sound. We got to talking about it and he had some other really great ideas.
He was born in England and I think he was there since he was 11 or 12, so he could really tap into that rich kind of voice that V has. I think that also he understood the mask. He knew how to work with the mask and I guess he had the background. He had done the mask work when he was at drama school in Australia. I think he really quickly came to terms with how it could work and what he could do.
We made a decision really early on to go for the emotional take at all times. Instead of doing one take or two takes... I'm not going to loop his voice later, I wanted to go for the emotional take because I knew it'd be a way of getting into it when we did do the looping I could go, "Hey, Hugo. Remember what you did on take 4 or remember what you did on take 6..." I think that really helped the character as well because obviously a large part of it was looping. I think he's an amazing actor, actually. I guess it's a long way of saying I think he's an amazing actor. (laughs)
QUINT: That's another really interesting decision that I think really benefits the movie. Almost any other movie would have just decided to put a dude in the suit and just pay Hugo to come in and do the looping. To actually have him there it brings a little more to the character. You can feel Hugo's presence in the movie.
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Yeah, you can. I think for it to be real you needed somebody, you needed an actor under there that understood what the mask was doing and when you have that inanimate face... You know, you need to know how to tilt your head, you need to know how to get it into the right light, you need someone who can hit their marks. Because of the line of vision out of the mask, Hugo spent most of the time sort of looking at someone's stomach for most of it. He really kind of got a good sense of it.
I think having someone with the physicality of Hugo... it was a good decision. I'm really happy that that's the way it worked out in the end.
QUINT: I found the look of V to be surprisingly accurate to the comics. Was there any pressure to change his appearance at all?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: No, there wasn't any pressure. I went about subtly changing things, you know. I reduced the hat in size a little bit to give it a little... generally the hates that were back then in the 1600s were a little higher, a little more decorative, but I wanted him to come across a bit like an actual gunslinger, that's why I put the knives on the outside of V's suit. I streamlined the cape a little bit and put him in different boots.
Then with the mask, instead of laser-cutting it I got someone to do it out of clay, to mold it out of clay. To use a very tired and sort of cliched term, I wanted to make it organic and to feel a little more real, that you could feel that it was actually molded off of someone's face. I think that helped it, you know? Hopefully that really helped with the mask work.
QUINT: Can we talk a little bit about Adrian Biddle and his gorgeous work as cinematographer on the film?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: It was a really great experience. It's horrible that he'll never get to see it. You know, I went and had a look at the IMAX version of the film yesterday. You know, whereas it was really great to watch it, part of me was completely sad that Adrian would never get to see it in that format, to see his work up there. He's one of the greats. I think one of the first ever film he did was ALIENS, you know?
QUINT: Yeah, that's a bland looking movie right? No style to that one!
JAMES MCTEIGUE: (laughs) He also did THELMA AND LOUISE... You look at his career, it's eclectic. These films, each one of them stands alone and his imprint.
You know, the thing about Adrian is he comes to the table and he makes it look easy and, like, no fuss. There's this process now, digital intermediary process that a lot of films go through and, you know, more and more films go through as things become more digital. Right up to this film, which will obviously be Adrian's last film, he was still pushing the boundaries of that. He was curious about that and what that would mean to him as a lighting cameraman onset. You know, what you could light and how far you could take it again in the process.
So, yeah. He was a great guy to work with. It's a pity that he's passed away. Hopefully where ever he is, he'll be proud of the film.
QUINT: Before we start wrapping things up, I'd like to find out what are some of your other favorite comic properties. Are there any out there that would be dream adaptations for you?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: I guess, if I hadn't done V FOR VENDETTA, there is one on every comic book reader's shortlist, there's THE WATCHMEN. Not that I'd probably be the one to tackle that, but I'd love to see a film of that get made. I think having done an Alan Moore adaptation, it's time for me to do something else, but it'd be great if someone did that. I think whereas it would have been harder in the past, I think technology has caught up to be able to make that film. I think someone will have a go at it. I think Terry Gilliam had it for a long time and Paul Greengrass just tried to do it and there's that David Hayter script out there. I think someone will do it soon.
QUINT: Do you think if V is a hit that'll help get WATCHMEN made?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Well, you know... Once upon a time, in some regards... even though there was BATMAN and SUPERMAN, people thought comics were the subculture and I think finally now they're not. They're the culture. That's what's out there. Even if you go into the gaming community, which is huge now. Everything references comics and graphic novels. I think there's no reason that WATCHMEN shouldn't get made. I just hope that however it gets done that they do it with a great script. That's always going to be the basis for whether something is good or bad, you know? You can never dress anything up in special effects unless you have the story there to back it up.
If there is a great script for that, that could be a really great film, I think.
QUINT: What's next for you?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Yeah... Nothing I can tell you 100% at the moment, but I'm getting a bunch of good scripts across the table at the moment. Hopefully whatever I'll do will be the next logical step up from V. I was lucky to start out with a great script, surrounded by good people. You know you can do a lot worse than the Wachowski's and Joel Silver with you when you make the film. So, I had a good experience and I want to repeat the good experience! (laughs)
QUINT: What's your favorite dirty joke?
JAMES MCTEIGUE: Favorite dirty joke... wow. I haven't heard a dirty joke in a... You know, I guess in this particular climate, I kinda like what Jay Leno said... He said that he had just found out that the VP had shot someone while quail hunting, but what he didn't find out until later was that he had tortured him beforehand. That's my dirty joke for the moment seeing as I don't have a carnal one I can tell you.
Well, there you have it. Since I just found out I'm going to be at ShoWest next week, I hear I may be getting sit down time with a familiar face from V. My heart's all a flutter! So, keep an eye out for my ShoWest adventures! Hope you enjoyed the interview!
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
-
+ Expand All
-
Looking forward to spending 9.00 for it too.
-
You should have asked him what he thought of Moore's perennial grumpiness when it comes to adaptations of his stuff; even before he's seen them or read the script it seems, he badmouths the projects.
-
I'm loving this recent spread of interviews...good work to everyone who's doing them.
-
I absolutely HATE how they have used the Wachowski name in the ad campaign for this film... It's my understanding that they merely wrote an adapted screenplay and are producing it... It's sad that the general public will probably regard it as a Wachowski movie in its own right, thus giving them far more credit then they deserve... comments?
-
I think he will eventually do Watchmen, because not enough people know who is at this point so in the future he'll be known as the guy who did Alan Moore movies. I really wish he didn't quote Jay Leno.
-
SIN CITY's been out for a year and these fools are still spouting this garbage! Ready to go storyboards, you dolt! Seriously though, just go ahead and say it - you think you can tell the story better than Moore did. Can they please start giving these projects to filmmakers that give a damn about the source material?! They ruined the Matrix universe, their own baby, and now my doubts for this project are gradually taking hold...
-
Sin City was a direct adaptation, yes, and it worked because it was *already a movie to begin with*! Come on, people, it friggin' Frank Miller, his whole style is the "cinematic" thing! So hard to adapt that, yeah. "V for Vendetta" was *not* cinematic. It was a very traditionally styled graphic novel, and adapting it panel by panel would have produced a TV movie of the week. Think! --- And that whole "By the creators of the Matrix trilogy" thing is fucking awful, but I think they don't have a choice, because Moore legally removed himself from any adaptations of his work. They couldn't put his name there if they wanted to.
-
It's the same as with Hostel being advertised with "Quentin Tarantino" presents. Lots of the mainstream public does not know Eli Roth (or McTeigue in this case), but they recognize some names like Wachowski or Creators of the Matrix Trilogy. Personally, I think it's not too smart to associate the Matrix Trilogy with this movie, since I thought the trilogy wasn't more than a excellent action sci-fi movie with mediocre sequels, but that's a whole other debate. It's all in the marketing, Hideo Kojima, and a bad move at that! If people see it's a comic-adaptation (I know it's a graphic novel, but try to explain the difference to an outsider), people might not go, while if the Matrix is mentioned, they might go. All money-making decisions. I think V should be valued on its own merit. ^^^ Same reason The Island tanked at the box office. Who wants to see a movie that's brought to you with the words in the trailer: "From Michael Bay (yuck), director of Pearl Harbor and Armageddon". That's asking for troubles on a apocalyptic scale. All in all, nice interview.
-
"Is it about Bush's America? I say no to that" - but then you rattle off about how it could be any *rightist* government, because we *all* know lefties have no concept of suppression...wow...you're so deep to "raise those questions"...and as for WB, call it Alan "Castle Rock/Uber-lib" Horn support.
-
about the mcteigue/wachowski relationship and its similarities to spielberg and the poltergeist. Was there any "ghost directing" involved? Are we gettin "knife-time?"
-
He says specifically it's about 'all governments', and therefore it could be about the current British government. Last I checked, the Labour party is not 'rightist'. Why is this difficult for you to understand? Oh, I know, it's your lack of a brain and kneejerk reactions. Congratulations, sir, you are a moron.
-
I hope I can lay off filling the car up so I can see this thing on Friday!
-
in every fuckin thread somebody's gotta badmouth michael bay....if any of you assholes here could a film that's one tenth as exciting and filled action packed insanity then i'll smoke a bowl and check it out, until then FUCK OFF and let the guy blow shit up if he wants
-
if any of you asshere could *make* a film....
-
I don't care if it has anything to do with the story, if he was even a halfway decent director, he'd have convinced Natalie Portman that for some reason she needed a long, lingering, graphic, and well lit full nude scene to establish certain key plot elements of the story.
-
I want to go see this one. A problem I have is deciding which cinema to go to. There are the monster screens downtown where the hip people go and then there are the mall ones which will probably be empty. Downtown would seem to be the choice but when I say hip...I really mean people with money. This film won't be playing in any of the small older places with history for awhile. This is something to be seen with a good house I think. Here's another problem - most of the people I know would not appreciate the film. Some of them have been in various war situations - one as a child and another as a participant. Still another who might like it has the drawback in that...well he believes in "Lizard People" (insert deep sigh here). See I don't want to get someone to go just cuz I pay for the tickets. I just finished reading the graphic novel awhile back. Get the hardcover (I got the soft) cuz I expect the art is a bit larger and less taxing on the eyes. Ah well - I'll probably try for the one downtown. I'll be the one dressed in black with the ball cap down over my eyes like I usually do. Dang it's warm out today...need to go out.
-
...then what did they do? Just adapt the comic book? WTF? I know it sounds cool in the ads to throw out the word "Matrix", just like it used to sound cool to throw out the word "Tarantino" but jeez. And whoever gets bent out of shape, thinking this is about the current administration in the US, the lady doth protests too much I think. It was the same with Revenge of the Sith. These stories are about all repressive governments because all repressive governments have the same M.O. Just because Bush is the latest example doesn't mean every movie about a government creeping towards dictatorship is about Bush. Learn some history.
-
Well, thats news to me. Officially, they are the W's produced this thing and wrote the script. So I'm guessing they have final say over what goes on in the film, okay? Anybody remember ESB and ROTJ? Lucas produced em both and had final say there, too. Same goes for Spielberg on Poltergeist. If im not mistaken, the W's went so far as to direct scenes and such in V, didnt they? Dont tell me these guys arent responsiblef or this flick.
-
to stir up hype for this movie? by the way, I saw Night Watch last night and was not impressed at all. Just because a movie is russian and decent doesn't make it a must see. Frustration with the aicn hype-machine is starting to set in...
-
but I still have a funny feeling that this thing is gonna be a moderate success at the box office. Dunno why-just my spidey sense tingling, I guess
-
Yeah, it seems like this flick has been hyped to death by AICN, and ONLY aicn. And as much as I love Hugo Weaving, I will be frank: I've heard nothing but snickers in reguards to his mask. We'll see on opening day..
-
JAMES MCTEIGUE: I guess, if I hadn't done V FOR VENDETTA, there is one on every comic book reader's shortlist, there's THE WATCHMEN. Not that I'd probably be the one to tackle that, but I'd love to see a film of that get made. I THINK having done an Alan Moore adaptation, it's time for me to do something else, but it'd be great if someone did that. I THINK whereas it would have been harder in the past, I THINK technology has caught up to be able to make that film. I THINK someone will have a go at it. I THINK Terry Gilliam had it for a long time and Paul Greengrass just tried to do it and there's that David Hayter script out there. I THINK someone will do it soon.
-
The trailer came out on July 7th, which was more to do with bad luck, then anything else. There is a scene where V bombs a tube with people on board. Now I would have thought given the carnage of last July's Horrific tube bombings, which was apparently so awful, the media never showed any pictures of the slaughter, that the film makers would have at least thought hmmm, we maybe need to edit this film. Show it, release it by all means. But no they kept that scene in as well as the scene where they blow up the houses of Parliament. I think there will be some thing of backlash against this film. Especially in the UK. I am all for making films about relevant subject matters but there are limits to what people will see. I know that people arent stupid but still. Road to Guantanamom was an extraordinary piece of work. But like V it will fall into category of being either branded propaganda or a brilliant story well told.
-
This was the film straw that broke the camels back for him. Before selling his work he should have looked up the words artistic licence and they may wouldnt have got into the messy position where he is bitching about what people do to his work. The blair govt. Are turning the UK into the US the latest thing is to import us evangelism into the school system and theres more to come they are planning to introduce ID cards, they have outlawed protests, they have allowed to take peoples dna and finger prints and even in the most innocent of circrumstances and your name will be added to database and it will never be taken off. Then there is the confetti like way they are handing out anti-social behaviour orders again, yes juvenvile crime is down but the cost is you criminalising young people. The UK is slowly becoming a police state anyone in the UK who saw dispatches and its admitedly biased(the hitchens hate new labour with a passion)presnter. Orwell had a point and I amazed that Blair and his cronies are going along with it. Humourless bastards.
-
'kept in the scene where they blow up the houses of parliament'
how exactly are they to film v if they dont show that scene? besides, the last time i checked, noones actually done that yet.
the london bombings caused few casualties, in fact more were caused the following week by a misplaced american bomb in iraq. not that i don't believe assholes out there will make the comparison, but if they do, it can only lead to more ticket sales, and possibly revealing a bit of the mile wide right-wing streak in britain when you get people defending the government in v. i always like to be encouraged to despise my fellow countrymen even more than i already do. -
http://tinyurl.com/rbr9u
And, yes, he drubs V too -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11769182/site/newsweek /// MSNBC are super libs and they hated this flick
-
http://www.time.com/time/europe/eu/article/0,13716,1172195,00.html //// When Lib Mags gang up on a film made for libs, then you know it's tripe...
-
Notice how the promoters of this movie are now trying to shift the reason for seeing it from "it's a good movie" to "check out all the bush hating allegoies we put into the film"... I'm taking bets on how quickly the promoters try to pull a "we're getting censored by the far right" in order to get asses in the seats... Oh well it worked for Micheal Moore...
-
Truly, a film we should all support and watch (multiple times). It's message is one of truth, especially in today's dictatorship-like environment in which we live. When will we as American's wake up and do what must be done? What will be the straw that breaks the camels back? When will we truly be free again?
-
So let me get this straight, the guy tagets civilians in order to thwart a government that...terrorizes civilians. Is that what they want me to watch? I mean, if he were targeting the officials and the people happened to get in the way, i understand. But if he's just targeting civilians and believes the "terrorist agenda" is the way to go, I'll pass on this thing.
-
That Time article isn't even a review of the film. lmao...try posting an actual review instead of a preview.
-
I've lived in countries outside of the US. Trust me, the US is hardly a dictatorship. But hey, thats okay. You can keep drinking the kool-aid if you want.
-
Attention "Swarmy" Part of being in a dictatorship is you not posting your views, so please adhere to your belief and try not posting thus proving to yourself (at least) that a Dictatorship is in place over you...
-
This "o my God the sky is falling censorship/id card/police state/facist power grab" bullshit is WAY paranoid. I hope 10 yrs from now these people remember their rants and realize what demagouges they sounded like. as for V...looks great/stylish etc...I'm there...after all...it's from the creators of the Matrix Trilogy right??? :)
-
Since I've seen Matrix: Revolutions and I know there is nothing to worry about V;)
-
...it it's the PERFECT adaptation of his work. If it started as a comic, to him it should always remain a comic. No matter how good V is, he'll never support it. If they make Watchmen, he'll never ever support it. You really can't blame the guy though after LXG, Constantine, and From Hell. I was actually kind of pissed when I heard about the changes to V from the graphic novel, but after the fucking assrape they are doing to the X-Men franchise, this as close to the source material coming to life as anything. I'm actually looking forward to this now, unlike, of course, Alan Moore.
-
///By Jeff Giles
Newsweek
March 20, 2006 issue - "V for Vendetta" will get its share of dismissive reviews -
Ok, number one; V (in the comic at least) targets people involved in the concentration camps and members of the governemnt/police force, the regular person on the street is seen by V to need waking up from the fearful dreams the voice of fate implies. Innocent people aren't targeted. Second did smeone say "a stalinist Kerry", Hoooohahahahahhah god damn you funny fucker. I'll assume you are being facetious instead of dumb. Third if this film is a Bush bashing one I'll be interested to see what's been added from the comic to specifically tie in to the current administration. From the reviews I've read it's damn faithful to the source material (apart from the end) so anyone finding it an anti bush allegory is bringing their own prejudices to the movie. Your own petty partisan prejudices are seriously poor filters for judging this film.
-
As I said earlier, I have no idea what they will portray on the film. I also said that if he does as you are saying he is supposed to do, then I will watch it. I was simply saying what I will and will not watch. But if I hear the movie is a bit wonky in terms of direction, then i'll rent it when it comes out on dvd in 3 months.
-
no problem, I just though I should mention that V doesn't attack civillians, not in a violent way, he challenges them to examine their situation though. If you haven't read the comic I would really reccommend it, and try to do it before the film too. However good the film is there's no doubt in my mind that it won't be a patch on the original source.
-
http://tinyurl.com/jhhc7 Kind of a funny review. If they do, in fact, use pics from Abu Ghraib then it will seem like (and most likely is) targeting the current administration. Which is fine, but then they should be upfront about it in interviews as opposed to calling it a 'cautionary tale'. But then again, that may lose them greebacks at the B.O. I'll mostly likely go big screen for this flick, but I fear it will be more of the current crop of ham fisted 'see how smart and political we are' Hollywood fare.
-
that would seem a bit too pro terror for my tastes. I'll wait and see from word of mouth, i think. As much as I like Hugo Weaving, I'll not watch a movie like that.
-
Re: "Part of being in a dictatorship is you not posting your views". You're exactly right, which is why Bush sets up "speech-zones" wherever he goes (out of his view, of course), Sheehan was arrested for wearing a !t-shirt!, numerous people have been arrested, removed, or blocked from Republican political rallies, and Bush routinely demonizes and marginalizes people who disagree with his policies. And let's not even get started on the NSA spying scandal...In addition to his lack of respect for our Constitutional right of free speech, he has shown nothing but contempt for the courts and Congress (ever heard of "interpretive signing statements"?). These are pretty basic arguments that even someone of your limited intellect should comprehend as proving that, while Bush is indeed not a dictator, he crosses the lines of democracy and authoritarianism each day. The only reason that Bush is not a full-fledged despot this very day is a testament to our system of government of checks and balances and federalism.
-
every president has blocked protestors from their speeches. This has happened since the dawn of politics. EVERY PRESIDENT. AS far as the NSA spying "scandal" goes, I hope you realize I live in NY. And even in my town of buffalo, which is very liberal, everyone agrees that the spying was within his powers. Heck, hardcore leftists such as yourself demonize the guy for failing to have enough intel, ie spying, to stop 9/11 from happening. Then, when he uses his powers to gain intel to stop future attacks, you guys demonize him anyway. THis "scandal" as you call it is a non-issue; a joke among everyone outside certain crackpot circles in the DNC. Now if you want a real security issue, talk about the port deals and his dishonest approach with the entire issue. But of course, that would mean being objective in your thought processes rather than rabid. Me, I'm pretty much right of center, but even I can criticize objectively. Can you do the same?
-
ATTENTION: It's obvious that 'moore_and_harry' and 'ashok0' are the same right-wing nutjob posting inflammatory trolls under multiple accounts. You can tell by the way they make statements in support of the Iraqi invasion. Of course, a real 'patriot' would put his money where his mouth is and sign up for the army, but since he's posting on AICN he's obviously not in Baghdad driving over IEDs on the road. People who let others fight their wars are called chickenhawks -- cowards. I smell one here.
-
you could never complain about a pair of clothes you bought unless you were a tailor
-
unless you are from Michigan!!!
-
It's obvious that you "human2" or should I say "Osama Bin Laden" are nuts...
-
hmmm..I want to be for a woman's rights, but I'm not a woman..
-
but I'm not arrogant nor posess an adolescent grasp of reasoning. Well, I'll get you next time, Human2!!!
-
"Every President..." Stop equivicating and make a point. Are you suggesting that because President Adams used the Alien and Sedition Acts to stifle his opposition this President gets a free pass? Again, try actually saying something in your post on this topic. As for the spying scandal: 1) I could give a damn where you live; 2) "everyone agrees"? Are you stupid? The Chairman of the Sen. Judiciary Comm. is a Republican you idiot and he has publicly doubted the legality of the program. Want more names? How about Graham, Snowe, Lugar, McConnell, Wilson, Roberts, Collins, DeWine, Brownback, Craig, McCain, etc.. They have all expressed concern over the program. And guess what my dim-witted friend? They are all Republicans and i'm pretty sure they'd tell you what to do with yourself for calling them "DNC crackpots". As for the ports issue, i've already published articles lambasting the President for the deal. However, I don't disagree with the President because I'm a xenophobe like yourself. Objectivity? Please. Some of my best friends are Republicans. The difference is they consider themselves traditional Republicans (party of Lincoln) and they are not Party synchophants like yourself.
-
You Dumbass Kerry lost... Get over it... Question: Why are libs afraid of a little discourse about a ham handed movie made by a bunch of libs that is being promoted on this web site which is completely run by libs? Answer: Because times are a changin and movies are the last territory they still completely dominate.. Though not for much longer HaHaHaHaHaHaHa
-
Can't complain about a suit unless you were a tailor? Nah, that makes no sense, moron. Telling others to die for your political views isn't the same as complaining about a suit. Why don't you and your other accounts put your heads together and try to come up with something better than that? Rhetorical quesiton, of course: the answer is that you're a moron, besides being a right-wing nut. Wingnut!
-
my wife, who is a staunch democrat, would be quite surprised to find out I'm a right wing lunatic. I believe my fellow teachers here in Buffalo would be a bit surprised, too. But hey, go ahead and keep assuming--I'm sure you already know the motto. And to break it down for you about the "every other president" line, here's a few names: Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy. In my recent memory, those presidents zoned protesting. Do you not remember those days? And as far as the legitimacy of Bush's powers, I am just as able to cite names as you. And concerning the committee's somewhat dubious position, it is interesting that they only objected after Rockefeller's notes were leaked. Even according to the committee's records, no one objected at the time of notification. Rockefeller said he did, of course, but his objections were never on record. And now that the usual suspects in the press whipped it into a storm, the committee's members say they are against his power. And furthermore, if you are going to cite Specter and McCain as anything but moderate to left leaning republicans, you are going to be viewed as somewhat dishonest. Oh, and the next time you want to get into a proper debate in which you wish to persuade others, you might want to rethink the tenor of your posts. Washing that mouth out might help a bit, too;)
-
just in case you STILL dont understand, the references to the other presidents was an illustration of how nothing has changed under Bush concerning our 1st amendment. Restrictions have always been and will always be in place. If you have a problem with them, that is of course your perogative. But try to refrain from the bush=hittler/stalin sort of rhetoric--it only hurts your point. Me, I'm pretty fed up with Bush's performance on EVERY SINGLE DOMESTIC ISSUE outside of tax cuts. But you arent going to see me ranting, calling others morons, or generally acting in an uncouth manner. So nyah.
-
I wonder, is it xenophobia to have wanted a security check on DPW? Remember, my problem was with the way Bush handled the situation, not the ports deals themselves. Bush changed his story, what, two or three times? First, he was aware of the deal and assured the US of its security. Then, when HS said it had not even performed a background check, Bush said he was unaware of the deal until the last minute.
-
It's the other one that's apparently transgendered, now going by Laurenca(at least legally) according to Rolling Stone's recent piece on the whole situation. I'd love to see the Wachowskis adapt Michael Manning's "The Spider Garden" graphic novel series. -
Did McTiegue mention Germany and how Schroeder stayed in power by utilizing xenophobic, anti-capitalist, anti-American fears until it blew up in his face? Or how Chirac's heirs are now jockeying to see who can equate socialism and isolationism so they expolit the same momentum? No. He only mentions the stable, English countries - UK, US, and OZ. And all you can say is "party affiliation". Givemeafuckingbreak. I haven't found the interview yet, where *ONE PERSON* affiliated with this movie has referenced China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Venzuela. The best I've gotten is East Germany, U.S.S.R and Thatcher-England. All mentioned by reviewers, and all extinct. If you think his choices are arbitrary, you're a contrarian and apologist.
-
He needs to prove he can open a film. So he throws chum for leftie suckers in hopes they will go opening weekend, hand firmly down pants, waxing that dolphin while V saves us all from W. Think I'm wrong? Go re-read Harry's wetdream review of this film. That made Joel Silver giddy like a schoolgirl.
-
If you start to make any more sense, human is liable to call you a moron and a nutjob (right before he accuses you of being a mob of talkbackers).
-
What kinda question is that? Maybe I'm outta the loop. Dirty jokes are currently all the rage.
-
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2003/11/04/larry_wachowski_looks_womanly.php
-
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2005/12/questions-for-those-still-approving-of.html
-
Damn, now thats just all sorts of crazy. I wonder if that'll ever happen to me? c'mon, I'm reay for you all. But will you take the bait?
-
I was giving you the age-old joke: NSA stands for No Such Agency.
-
The level of ignorance is amazing. If the majority of people think like some of the people on here and they probably do, we deserve a dictatorship.
-
Once again, until you lexis some relevant facts concerning these President's behavior that is equivalent to Bush's (arresting, detaining, obstructing, requiring his audience to sign 'fealty' agreements) then you're simply blowing hot air. Yes, there are limits to free speech but these limits have been pretty well established since Brandeis' free speech formulation--which was an extention of Holmes'. This President is setting a new precedent. The point of my citing those Republican Congress members against Bush's NSA program totally escaped you. You referred to the scandal as a joke by everyone outside DNC crackpots. Remember that? Of course not. As for my 'tone', just keep in mind you resorted to demogoguery first. Of course, that's how you people operate. Demonize your opposition, then when they respond in kind cite that as a reason to delegitimize their position--especially when it's a position that people like you simply can't counter. You're an intellectual coward.
-
ahh, the classic, and in this case ironic, demogoguery phrase. At least you are predictable, faustous, if not original. Remember, you are the one who debased his arguments by resorting to name-calling and charges of prejudice. Then of course there is the "you people" position and so on. But hey, I'm the demagogue, remember? As for the DNC crackpots issue, I agree, its an exageration. Likewise, you would have to understand that you are using something of an exageration to link honest discourse with overzealous behavior, in effect demonizing my position. If i may be so bold, the reason the NSA "scandal" is not really a scandal is because no one can reach a consensus, outisde of web blogs, as to whether those powers are made illegal by FISA. Is he allowed to intercept international transmissions? Do these powers fall under the CALEA act signed by Clinton in 1994? And finally, if this issue is so scandalous, why were there relatively few debates when CALEA was passed? Why is Echelon deemed legal and Bush's procedures deemed tyrannical? And before you give me a knee-jerk awnser and descend into exageration, remember that those questions I cited you have yet to be awnsered by the senate or house (collectively). As yet, Judges have not even heard the arguments for and against. Now, I imagine you and I both have opposing opinions concerning this issue, but to say its a scandal is something of an exageration. When the Senate, House, and consequently the entire judicial branch of government, seem to be in disagreement over whether or not the wire tapping (another misleading term as the NSA doesnt tap specific lines)falls under the President's purview. That is my ultimate point as to how this is hardly a scandal and more of a legitimate debate concerning the president's powers. But hey, keep tossing around the scandal remarks, demagogue labels, prejudice charges, and in general misguided behavior if thats your pleasure.
-
That is why I used the term DNC crackpots. Because to everyone else, it was a legitimate and honest debate of Bush's powers. The term scandal was only applied and introduced by Howard Dean and certain mouthpieces. Call me intellectually dishonest all you want, but at least I am honest enough to admit exageration occurrs on both sides of the political fence. And if you'll note, that is what started this whole flame to begin with--my chiding of those who react as chicken little everytime there is a political debate and discourse. The right and left demonize each other and cloud the issue, much as you have done, it would seem. That has been, and will always be, my position. Personally, I find you to be a very intelligent person, faustius. However, I do feel you are rather undisciplined in your reactions and rhetoric. I am not going to pretend I know you and call you names or assume you are some teenager who needs to grow up. I am simply saying you, and others like you, need to reign in your passions and actually debate an issue, rather than debase and distract from said issue. Now, kiddies, on to V.
-
A) It was just an example B? Mikey Bay has no sense of narrative whatsoever and sacrifices a decent plot for cool images. We can agree on that. I dug the hell out of The Rock and the even the first Bad Boys, but the man should've stuck with music videos.
-
"I made a logical, closely reasoned, compact, powerful argument against a discriminating and iniquitous tax which was about to be imposed by the opposition. I may say I made a most thoughtful, symmetrical and admirable argument. But a Michigan newspaper editor answered it, refuted it, utterly demolished it by saying I was in the constant habit of horsewhipping my great-grandmother." and jesus, does this cut constantly both ways in our current political climate.
-
That is one of my most famous quotes of all time! I can't believe you knew that one. The other one from him that I dont think I ever shall forget is "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." Since I became a teacher, that one always stuck with me.
-
Then again, with my ego, that works, too.
-
Why have you hogged all the space on this board with your posts? What gives you the special right to do it? What evidence do you have that makes you think what you have to say is so important for everyone to read on aicn?
-
I'd tell you, but then I'd be taking up more space;)
-
not jumping out of my chair excited. I have a weird feeling this movie will not perform at all.
-
So does this mean you're signing up for the army and encouraging your friends and family to? Are you typing to me from the Green Zone in Baghdad? Or are you a chickenhawk? BA KAWWWWK!
-
and said the whole thing misconcieved from start to finish, the acting was awful he said the story dated etc(it was written as a reaction to thatcher government which gave it a bit of edge which no longer exists). he siad it would have been more intresting to call it V for Visectomy. Maybe Like alan moore we should all just avoid it and hope it goes away. Jonathan is big comic book fan although I dont think he really liked the graphic novel of V. He also said that Portman didnt really come up to the mark as heroine and that Hugo Weaving was miscast. He said the McTeigues direction was flat and the script was dismal.
WE shall what happens when it opens on Friday. Ross also it was moved from its November due to post production re-shoots. or something.
-
I respect the fact that people are able to express their opinions with coherent reasons to back them up. I cannot respect people like Moore_and_Harry and Ashok0, who rely on childish name-calling and their own paranoia to get their point across. You guys want to argue that the president is doing a great job in spite of the fact that Iraq is hurdling ever closer to civil war? Do it like sane people.
-
Conservatives who hate this say that this is liberal propaganda. Conservatives who like this say that it's anti-liberal.
Liberals who hate this say that it's Conservative propaganda.
Liberals who like this say that it's anti-conservative. I have to say, It's ridiculous how a movie can't just be a movie anymore. There always has to be ulterior motives, strings being pulled, secret agenda touting messages hiding within it. For fuck's sake people, 1) wait until you see the movie to start bitching about which agenda it's supporting, and 2) have a little fucking faith in humanity. Not everything is made to piss you off. -
Especially to a conservative when it doesn't apply to them for very obvious reasons. Please get another argument to fall back on, lefty Sheehanites. Or, perhaps I should write, "veterans" from the wars in Vietnam and Ukraine. -- Hats off to the fellah that wrote he'd like to support feminism but can't because he ain't a woman!
-
seriously, Ash. you're outrageous. and in-your-face and tell-it-like-it-is. seriously. you make so much sense. no, really. don't be modest. it's obvious that anyone who voted for Kerry hates America. no, really. I'm not being sarcastic at all. Half the country loves the terrorists and wants them to kill us all. really. and yeah, the mother of a killed soldier should probably be given a wedgie. (atomic, preferrably) i mean, where does she get the nerve? thank god we won't have to put up with the voice of opposition much longer. no, really. and to use a movie news website to get your message across? cutting edge. that's what you are. no, really. did i mention that i wasn't being sarcastic? good. because i wouldn't want you to think that. anonymity takes real courage. (forget that Mark Twain quote from above. I fell on the keyboard and it accidentally posted)
-
Thanks for proving my point, friend. When others might have used your space to explain their hatred for John Kerry and Cindy Sheehan, you chose to call him a "faggot" and a "french fairie". That's classy, man. Its loud,ignorant, obnoxious people like you that me question the state of the union. (And for the record, the problem is not that Bush wiretapped, its that he did it illegally. Something you should try to avoid if you're the President.)
-
My wife voted for Kerry while I voted for Bush. And I'll tell you, she is one of the bravest people I have ever known. People support others in office for different reasons. Likewise, people are against presidents for different reasons. Oh, and guess what, Ash, my wife is also patriotic and supports the troops--just like most people in this country. Only the most vitriolic human being, whether left or right, would want others hurt simply because of political discourse.
-
I trust his reviews, what he says usually reflects my experience of seeing a movie. He also said that while the mask works for the comic book you really lose something by not being able to see Hugo Weaving's face. He really didn't like it, I mean REALLY. He said the Wachowskis' script was pathetic. This doesn't surprise me considering the shit they churned out for Reloaded and Revolutions. And he said attempts at 'coolness' and flair were way off. Also, when will directors realise that Natalie Portman is a b-movie actress and nothing more? She's beautiful (well, she was around the time of Attack of the Clones...) but this seems to be blinding people of her seriously average abilities as an actor.
-
That woman is a liar. I doubt she even had a son who was in the Army. Liberals are all liars. Just like John Kerry lying about going to Vietnam. Enough with the chickenhawk argument already. Because I am conservative and support the war I now have to sign up for the Army? Don't believe what the far-left media tells you. The Army isn't undermanned and, if anything, is overmanned. We're winning the war in Iraq and President Bush is a hero. Hero - that's something none of you democraps would know anything about.
-
ARE synonyms. And about that Giles review: In the Matrix, the main characters were terrorists, too, to an extent. How many things did they blow up without regard for the safety of the citizens? The copter, the lobby, the building when the copter hit it... you telling me all these things were abandoned? Not likely. Granted, they weren't killing people to get their point across, but they were acting recklessly in order to achieve an end to an oppressive order, and many innocents probably died in the process, not that they cared really.
-
matrix people. Just more like reckless. But still I think that revolutionaries can be and often are terrorists in some form. What about the Boston Tea Party, where everyone dressed up and destroyed a ton of tea? Even if no one died, would it still be a terrorist attack? I don't see why not...
-
Really? All of them? Wow. It's that kind of open-mindedness that should be applauded in our society. Oh, and for the record, there's no war to be winning in Iraq. We're not fighting army's, we're fighting rag-tag groups of "extremists" who just pop up to blow up a few of us and then disappear again. Of course it'll seem like we're "winning" there's far more of us. And maybe we should talk about the fact that 87% of that "overstaffed" army we have over there think that we went to war in Iraq as a response to Saddam's involvement in 9/11. A army can be overstaffed tenfold, but if the soldiers don't know the real reason why they're fighting, what the hell's the point? And I'm not talking about oil or conspiracies. I'm just talking about how 9/11 is a bullshit excuse for this engagement. And the Liberals are the only liars around, huh?
-
Okay.Time to put my money where my mouth is. Hey Battlestone-debate these facts from the BBC News:
1.You say we are winning the war in Iraq. Guess what? Mounting violence between the Sunnis and the Shias are preventing any kind of real government from forming in Iraq and is pushing Iraq very close to Civil War. Who started this mess? We did. How is our hero President going to stop it? He's going to cut off funding to Iraq. Thats not going to help. He messed up, and the Iraqis are paying the price.(As are we who are gonna have to pay the $423 billion+ deficit- Its funny to think that the next generations are going to pay for our mistake.)
2. But its worth it if it wins Bush's war on terror right? Wrong. We are actually creating terrorists rather than stopping them. The insurgents in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.We INVADED Iraq. As with any invasion, there is a resistance. As we continue to attack insurgents, the ones that survive will harbor not only a deep resentment for the US, but also the skills to terrorize us. Bush is actually hurting his own cause.
These are the reasons why I believe that Bush is far from a hero, and why we are not winning the war in Iraq. Don't believe me? Search the BBC (http://tinyurl.com/gowpn)-its there.
Now where's the reasons to back YOUR claims, Battlestone?! I want an answer. -
You can choose to believe that left-wing crap that the media spoon feeds you every night. That fact is Saddam and the Iraqis were the ones who perpetrated 9/11. If a country attacks us I want to fight back.
-
Why would I believe a bunch of tree-huggers like the BBC? To me, the only place I can go to for a fair and balanced news on Iraq is Fox News. Occasionally they'll have someone pro-American on there but even they are a little too liberal at times. Who cares about the deficit? That is just some remote figure liberals use as an excuse to raise taxes. The American people are sick and tired of the liberal agenda. In November we'll get that supermajority in the Senate and House. That way you libs can stop trying to put liberal legislators on the judicial benches. Hopefully in '08 the Republican Party will stick to its conservative principles and nominate Senator Allen. I don't want that liberal McCain or that Yankee Giuliani.
-
duh! sorry, guys. i didn't know you were just goofing around. have fun! goodnight.
-
V For Vera Drake - a new mashup at http://www.vimeo.com/clip=53403
Also: A V Special at Lying In The Gutters - http://litg.comicbookresources.com -
And you're not the mouth breathing cretin you make yourself out to be. It would be scary to think that there are actually people who think they way you're posting.
-
God i want to see this movie
-
...I believe he's being serious. America has become a parody of itself and my only hope is that this country (and the rest of the world) can survive this administration. Yes, if you Bushites feel so strongly about fighting in Iraq to "kill 'em over there instead of here" then by all means, put up or shut up. Sign up and become that Goode Christian Soldier. But no, all they have is internet courage. ** Though I generally like Moore's novels, this movie doesn't appear to hold up to his quality. Hope I'm wrong and the proof is in the pudding, after all.
-
the world has gone fucking mad. wheeeeee.
-
I couldn't help but laugh at this quote from Quint: "That's another really interesting decision that I think really benefits the movie. Almost any other movie would have just decided to put a dude in the suit and just pay Hugo to come in and do the looping. To actually have him there it brings a little more to the character. You can feel Hugo's presence in the movie." Isn't there still dubbed James Purefoy footage in the movie?
-
Pissing. This site brings out the typos in me.
-
None of these stupid analogies hold any water because they don't require the deaths of others. If you support a war, you are supporting the deaths of other people for your political view. If you are not willing to fight in that war, you are a coward. You are a chickenhawk. Notice how ashoko calls it a 'far-left' position to say that people should themselves sacrifice their lives for their country if you believe in the Iraq war. He doesn't like that. He wants to sit at home, watch his Fox News, and tell kids that are 19 years old to die for his war. This is called cowardice, and no matter how often he tells himself he's right, he knows that telling others to do what he isn't willing to do himself is a coward's way out.
-
You know, if you were really for woman's rights, you'd get a sex change and step up. Anything less, and you are simply saying you are enjoying the benefits of being a male. You are such a hypocrite! Look, if money's an issue, I'll help pay for it. What do you say? Are you chicken?
-
I believe the point is that people feel free to gamble with OTHER people's money. you know, no abortion for anyone who is a victim of rape! (unless it's MY daughter...) kinda like that.
-
On a serious note, who are you to judge cowardice in others? In the early to mid 80's, I served in 3rd infantry division in Germany, among other places. It has been in my experience that men and women are brave when they decide to join a war they feel is just. It is also been in my experience when a man or woman decides not to join a fight because his/her family needs them at home. And that is just one set of possibilities for a person not to go to war. When you get older, human, you realize that blanket statements rarely apply to things. Or are you so arrogant as to believe that you can shoehorn all people everywhere in your little political boxes? Think what you want, human, but you should know that the only thing you are showing yourself to be is prejudiced and immature.
-
I meant to say that it has also been in my experience that when a man/woman chooses not to fight because their family needs them more, they are also being brave.
-
I think it could also be argued that failing to support a war is gambling with others' lives as well. Much like Neville Chamberlain, if you failed to support an intervention, you would in effect be assisting in another culture's destruction. It can be argued both ways, can it not?
-
I'm simply saying either objection or assertation can be construed as "playing with other people's money." Personally, I dont think its wrong to have an opinion either way. It has been in my experience that the "chickenhawk" argument (which is veeerrry old) has been used by both sides of any argument (whether warfare, material, or social). People said it in the sixties to protestors, telling them to pack up and get out. And that is just one example in a very long litany of attempts to shut out criticism.
-
the chickenhawk argument is a touch silly. However there is an on going recruitment crisis in the US army surely some of these pro war people, if they really believe in the war and that it's for the very survival of America, on seeing the crisis for troops would think to join up and help their felloe citizens fight for something they feel so strongly about.
-
I dont mean to be contrary, but there is no crisis. All branches of the military have had no problem meeting their requirements. Heck, during the past three years, recruitment in the Marines has never been higher (since the draft was discontinued). The only branch of service that is having difficulty is the National Guard. And I think we all understand the reasons for that
-
monthly numbers tend to fluctuate. And surprise, they always go down slightly during times of war. I dont see how thats anything surprising.
-
re-enlistment fell from 75% to 63% last year. And the yearly stats paint a far more interesting picture than merely allying worries over a crisis. Monthly recruiting has fallen consedrably since 2003 however more and more recruiment improprieties have been discovered and more and more people who were considered to be unsuitable to sign up are being allowed to join. Why has the army all of a sudden relaxed it's criteria? Why have waivers against criminal convictions for those who joined the army shot up alarmingly over the past 2 years? Because the average American isn't joining and the army is having to do ev everything it can to try and keep the numbers up. I'd call that a crisis.
-
My evidence was anecdotal; some friends of mine are involved in recruiting. My fault in not looking up 2005's recruiting numbers before arguing. I appologize.
-
September 30, 2005 -- Military Recruitment Exceeds Goals --- Air Force recruitment is at 104% of quota, the Air Force National Guard stands at 108%, the Air Force Reserve at 101%, Navy recruitment is at 103% and the combined Army and Marine Corps stand at 102% of goal.
-
..you must be hungry. Anyway, did you bother read why the recruiters are hitting targets? Or do you just like boosting your obviously fragile ego by trying to sound like you know what the hell you are talking about?
-
This was how it was explained to me from my friends at one of the offices for recruitment. He said, and im paraphrasing, that the past 10 year average for recruitment was a little over 74 thousand. the final numbers for 2005 was a bit over 73000. Basically, according to him, 80000 is the level they shoot for. but apparently, its a hit and miss most of the time. Again, this is purely anecdotal as I cannot remember every little shred of evidence. I'm gonna go look it up and see if i can find anything that corresponds to it. What do you think?
-
debate or no over my "evidence" (as I'm still fact checking), you are correct in that the military is lowering its standards. Not that people havent gone in before with "shady" backgrounds. I think it used to be, for the army, that nearly 70 percent of the army had to have criteria (presumably 30% were allowed to slide by). I have heard nowadays its more like 60%.
-
what you say about recruitment figures is correct.. as far as my figure checking goes, maybe you could tell that to Moore_And_Harry though? My point about a crisis was that, if they are struggling to achieve the 74k average even AFTER the standards being lowered I would consider that a crisis. Yeh people with shady pasts have joined up before before not to such an extent. The waivers being offered have increased a heck of a lot in 2 years. And the basic intelligent requirements are also slipping.
-
Oh, they were correct, then? I was having a hell of a time finding the info. every time i went looking i would get some blogger sight. Yes, i agree with you about the requirement slipping. But as I've heard from people before my time in Vietnam, and from people after my time in Desert Storm, that kinda thing happened a lot. During peace time, recruiting can afford to be picky. During war, every guy who can carry a gun, section 8 or no, is recruited. I'm not saying its necessarily ethical, but i will say that its hardly anything new. A rather equivocal statement, to be sure, but it does raise something of an interesting point: if it wasnt a crisis before, why is it now? I'm not going to awnser that question, and you dont have to, either. I think varying people, whether military or anti military, whip out the "its a crisis" routine every time they get numbers falling short of projected goals. Why would the military do it? Because we would get higher funding every time we complained about low numbers.
-
I take your point. However I would say that, isn't it better to have bright non criminals in the army as opposed to "every guy who can carry a gun, section 8 or no, "? I'll argue yes it's better to have smart law abiding people in your army. In that case why don't all these many people I see supporting the war and Bush realise that by NOT joining up they are forcing the army to go after less than capable people thereby hampering the war effort.
-
Oh, I understand the philosophical stance you are taking, Asriel. I myself subscribe to the same theory, in terms of who you want in the military, to a great extent. I also understand your frustration as to why the supporters arent fighting. Like you, I think its easy to support without having to back it up. The problem with that argument, and I have mulled it over for quite some time, is that its also equally easy to be against a war seeing as you dont have to fight. The label of cowardice can be bandied about by both sides--and often has. That is why i dont get into that sort of conjecture. My personal opinion is that our country, through virture of its success, is largely composed of fat, happy people. And that, in my opinion, is a good thing. Some people are legitimately frightened to go to combat, others want to stay with their loved ones, and some wish to perform a different public service. Most people feel they are free to persue their choice because they believe, and rightfully so, that we are relatively safe and secure (in comparison to past conflicts). Everyone has their reasons for what they do, and I'm not going to skoff or pull my hair out for their choices. However, I simply will not abide besmerchment of those who dont fight simply because i dont like their view. I think that is, in and of itself, prejudicial and a form of cowardice all in itself.
-
I just want to reiterate I'm not a fan of the chickenhawk argument. I'll just pick up on two points you mentioned...one is, that people feel free to persue their choice because they believe we are relatively safe. However I find a lot of the very pro Iraq war/Bush people to believe we are in imminent terrible danger and that we must make sacrifces to avert the threat. I don't call them cowards I'm just interested to find out how they rationalise talking about the terrible dangers we face and then not helping to defeat them by the way that they advocate, namely military force. Sorry if that seemed unclear I've been in the office since 5 this morning.
-
Yeah, I understand. I've been having the past few days off as a result of spring break. Teaching has its benefits, i suppose. I also understand your points. Again, I think people rationalize it in the way everyone else does: each to their own beliefs. Some, I'm sure, are hypocritical. Others are more for legitimate reasons, too. Just like the other side, I guess. Hypocritical or no, it doesnt negate the need for nation security, nor does it negate the need to be critical of our government. So in the end, byond a TB discussion, its never really bothered me, you know?
-
I want to compliment you for being very dignified during this little discussion. A breath of fresh air, as they say, in these parts. I mean it: thank you.
-
Firemen are not soldiers. It is only hypocritical to benefit from the service of police or firemen if you yourself advocate reckless crime or arson. You see, people like you supported this administration's rush to war, knowing full well that your fellow countrymen would die, yet you yourself are not willing to make the same sacrifice you call them to. This is cowardice. Getting mugged on the street and benefiting from the police's intervention is not cowardice. I myself would have no problem being a policeman or working as volunteer fireman. But you? You're not in the armed forces, chickenhawk.
-
Amchair war supporter:war is not the same relationship as a feminist:woman.
-
To who? His handlers? I was just enjoying the mostly harmless and sometimes idiotic postings on this TB, but I can't let this pass. Bush is absolutely NOT a hero in any sense of the word. I hope you are just jerking people around to fill some need to feel noticed and somehow important. If not, you are truly scary and you need to climb out of the gene pool this instant. Dubya has done more in two terms to damage America's standing in the world's eyes than every President before in any era. And to call for the death of Cindy Sheehan for exercising her right to speak up is just looney tunes to the extreme. We had an officer in Nam about as useless as you and we came very close to fragging his ass one weekend. In the end, we elected not to lower ourselves to take out the garbage because it in the end garbage rots on its own. Put the crack pipe down and open your eyes, ears, and mind. Bush will go down in history as the worst leader America ever had...unless Rove and company succeed in getting Jeb on the ballot.
-
I want to thank you guys for being able to debate in a civilized, rational manner. You guys are an example the rest of the talkbackers should follow. I only wish everyone could do this.
-
Ashok0 and Battlestone- your rebuttals are a joke. You mock the BBC,yet you fail to realize that it isn't liberal or conservative (Its not even based out of America!). It just states the facts. If you want to ignore those facts by hiding behind your conspiricies, that's your own stupid mistake. You should realize that by limiting yourself (through paranoid delusions regarding the media) to a single news source such as Fox News, you
-
you're welcome.
-
I have to agree with Canted Angle on this movie. The controversy stuff is just hype. Political messages shouldn't be so over the top if you ask me.
-
When Clinton was at his most hated, at the hight of the Monika Lewinski affair, his approval rating was still at least 10% higher than what Bush's rating has sunk to in these past few months. Try to get your facts straight. Bush will go down as the worst president ever far before Clinton does.
-
He got impeached, fine, but over something stupid that most of the american public didn't have a problem with. Extra-marital affairs are nothing new to the presidency, and CERTAINLY not something that a grand jury should be interrogating the president about. Seriously, his opponents were just grasping at straws, especially since most of them have their own little skeletons in the closet. I love how the Bush lovers like to dump all over Clinton when if the man ran today, I bet you he'd win. Many people liked him. Besides the fact that, I'd imagine Hoover was a worse president than either Bush or Clinton, since you insist on picking "the worst president ever".
-
I seem to recall, however, Clinton's numbers were a bit deceiving. Remember, he was the first president where pollsters had to sepparate job performance from private life. Until that point, the question had always been, "how do you rate the president's performance?" After his approval numbers had started sky diving from sixty percent or so to the mid thirties, the major papers started sepparating private life from public life. Once they did that, the president's job approval rating was mid forties while his ratings as a person were somewhere in the mid-teens. Course, they do the same thing with Bush today, and his numbers are still low. Just food for thought..
-
you or I would have gotten in serious trouble, as Clinton did, for his conduct in the Paula Jones case. Remember, his impeachment wasnt because of misconduct with monica lewinski. It was to determine the course of action for misconduct related to false testimony in a sexual harrasment suit. That's it. He was right to be impeached--there had to be a debate over whether or not to censure the president. They were also right not to kick him out, as his offense only pertained to a civil suit. However, the Bar association was justified in revoking his license for the period that they did.
-
investigating clinton and 15 mil investigating 9/11. Now that is what you call priorities out of whack.
-
Only that, when it comes down to it, his impeachment was on grounds that really doesn't matter. Civil suit - no one's excusing him, but really the sexual harassment suit had nothing to do with how he was running our country. The push to attack him over it was purely a case of party politics. Just like it's in fashion for republicans nowadays to moan about how terrible Clinton was for the country, with little evidence to back it up besides the fact that he was the last democrat leader had. Besides the fact that presidents have been alleged to have affairs and such in office before, but Clinton seems to be the first one where this came out during his term (not excusing the behavior, just noting). And for the record, I honestly don't think Bush is a bad guy, but I do think he and his administration has made some bad decisions. In the end, I try to judge his success as a leader based on that fact rather than on his political party. It's ridiculous how the country is so rabidly (and often times blindly) split these days down the party line.
-
Save for butchering intelligence gathering capabilities, I'd say his job performance was roughly average (in the context of other presidents). I think most republicans hated him because of the sheer number of scandals, and not because he was a democrat--though I'm sure that plays a part. Remember, although people reviled Carter's administration, you never heard that many republicans treat him as a bad person, just naive. Clinton, on the other hand, is viewed to be corrupt among republicans and generally the middle. Oh sure, you can argue Bush is corrupt via the usual corporate conspiracy rhetoric (some of which is true), I dont think anyone could honestly say Dubya is similar in character. That's just my take on it, anyway.
-
seems to be a republican version of Carter, more than anything else. Again, most people think he has good character, but they feel he is naive and innept.
-
It just feels like Bush isn't running the show sometimes. Like all this stuff where one minute Bush says he didn't know about the deal, the next saying he did, and just alot of mixed signals from his office lead me to believe that while he's in charge, he's a little bit of a pawn.
-
I dont think that he's a pawn. I think it comes down to managerial differences. Clinton was a micromanager--he was in control of literally every function. He was ALWAYS in front of the camera. I think a bit too much, in my opinion. Then again, Bush's face time is far too little (and we know why). Bush's approach is to employ people who will do their jobs, while he manages the supervisors. Some presidents fall in between these philosophies, but Clinton and Bush sort of personify them. They both have their flaws and their advantages, so I never really get into it. If you want my opinion, save for one president being stronger on defense than the other, both Clinton and Bush are almost equally efective in their jobs. In other words, both are about average--more or less. By the way, this is coming from a republican;)
-
I think the Clinton Hate was born during the '92 campaign, when Clinton's candidacy should have died not once but twice [when the Gennifer Flowers thing broke, and when he said "I did not inhale"]. The "rules" of politics up to that point in time said that an adulterer would lose, and that a pot smoker would lose. Then he didn't lose. I think at that point Clinton turned into Moby Dick for a portion of both the media and his political opposition - they HAD to get him, at any cost, to "set right" the fact that they hadn't been able to get him the first two times around. They felt entitled to his scalp and every time they didn't get it, it just made them angrier and more determined. Of course, now you fast-forward to 2006, when there is probably no act a candidate could commit that would in and of itself make it politically impossible for him to win, other than openly declaring atheism. [It's funny; an atheist would be considered too "morally suspect" to win, but you can cheat on your wife, dodge the draft, take drugs, drive drunk - or be an alcoholic, recovering or otherwise, cheat on your taxes, and lie to the American public 1000 times over, but still be "morally" just fine because you make a couple of photo op appearences in baptist churches somewhere. People are fucking retarded.]
-
i don't really think there's any way to say that either Clinton or Bush Jr. are stronger on defense. on offense? that's a different story... what i find so very sad is the media more than the politicians. can you imagine that in 2006 the vice president can shoot a man in the face and NOT speak to the press for 4 days? and THEN not hold a press conference, but a pre-recorded interview with a softball reporter on his party's megaphone FoxNews... ponderous, man.
-
I think of the presidents of the past. Lincoln, F.D.R., Kennedy, great men. Wise men. Strong, bold men. Then I think of Bush, the absent minded, c average, stuttering, insecure, cowboy hat wearing doofus. I think about him sitting in that classroom on the morning of September 11th. Informed that the country was under attack, did he rush from the room to organize the response in a calm, confident way? No. He sat there stunned. I know you all saw Farenheit 9/11. Say what you will about that film overall, but video doesnt lie. He sat there, while those people in the towers were making the choice between dying from smoke inhalation, burning alive, or jumping 50 stories to the pavement below. He sat there while the fireman ran inside. He sat there while the entire city of New York and the entire world watched as their friends, family members, co-workers and fellow humans were being crushed and cremated alive. He sat there. And sat there. And sat there. This is your hero? Picture him as a general on the battlefield. An aid runs up to him and informs him that the enemy has just wiped out an entire batallion of troops on the other side of the hill. Would a good leader spring into action instantly, or would he sit there for a few minutes, stunned, contemplating how this had happened? I think all of you 'hawks' know the answer. I will agree that 9/11 saved Bush's presidency. No argument there. It's just a shame that the first impression was'nt a little more... memorable. But hey, my opinion does'nt matter, I'm a liberal. I hate America. I hug trees. I wear hemp sandals and burn incense. I should put up or shut up. I should love it or leave it. I have no right to even be here. I should be in Bagdad toting a gun, dying so that my president looks like less of a innefectual limp-dicked blowhard. And as for the person/people here who took the opportunity to wish Cindy Sheehan dead, my hat is off to you. I did'nt think humanity could sink any lower. I want to ask you, have you ever had a child? I doubt you have. If you had created a life, watched the progression from an abstract image on a sonogram screen, to actually feeling it kick inside the mother, to finally watching the birth, you might know what I'm talking about. Spending hours rocking the baby, learning every detail of their face. Feeding them, bathing them, teaching them. Watching your daughter walk for the first time. Learning new words. Birthday after birthday, Christmas mornings, easter egg hunts. Taking them to their first movie in a real theatre. Having conversations. Watching them grow older and older. Seeing their mistakes, and taking pride in their accomplishments. All of this, only to have that child taken away from you. One day they are there, the next day they are gone. I'm only a father, I cant fathom what it must be like for a mother to lose their son. And I also cant imagine what it must be like for that same woman to stand up and tell the world about her loss. It must be made doubly difficult by people like yourself, who, without thinking, or feeling, cast dispersions on her charachter and her cause. Only a complete jackass would ever dare to do something like that. No matter what you thought of her politics.
-
Its just that I can't stand those people who say Bush is the greatest president ever and Clinton is the worst, and just leave it at that.
-
"It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare".
-Mark Twain -
This time he doesn't even bother to put his message in the comment box ladies and gentlemen!
Hey Genius you contradict yourself. The president in '89 was Bush Senior, who you simultaneously pick as one of the best presidents and one of the average ones. Very smooth. -
off a dead relative? Well, besides Ted Kennedy that is. Everyone on this planet has dealt with tragedy in this life and that gives every one the right to rip into Mrs Sheehan - her exhusband included. I don't want Mrs Sheehan dead - that f'ugly ranting harridan is far better to the Republican Party alive. What i want to see is a porno with her crying out "Fuck my dead kid back into me."
-
Any concrete results from her protests? Was that a no?
-
um, yeah. Cindy Sheehan inspires yawns.....uh....good one. touche(?)
-
Someone said it feels like bush isnt running the show sometimes and thats because he isnt. That is because Cheney is the real president. I know that sounds bizare. But Cheney is too old, to be president and there is his dickey ticker. So they got somebody who like the ordinary guy, someone you want to go the pub with and shoot the breeze with. But there is nothing ordinary about bush, his family have wealth, power and privelege. In the 1980s people assume it was Reagan who was running the show. But that is not the case it was Bush Snr and his group of friends, Cheney, Rumsfeld and powell and wolfiwitz, Perl and Bill Frith and in a limited way Rice was there to. Those people whose power now is dimishing with exception of Rice, didnt like bill Clinton and wanted to remove him from office. All that Whitewater thing and the women(jones, flowers and yes even Monica) it was all to get rid of Clinton, because he was a liberal. These Neoconeheads, who view the word through evangelistic eyes view liberals weak, amoral men and women who will compromise on the security of the US by making pacts with what the Neocons view as their enemy. Neocons view the Us as the worlds only power, economically, militarally and religiously. That is wnat this War on terror is about and of course there is the oil question. I went to see Syriana and I do believe that the Us govt will go to any length to protect that asset which it prizes above, liquid gold, Texas T. In other words OIL. Bush really doesnt matter because he isnt running the Show, when your the son of rich and powerful family , you can buy just about anything and that includes the presidency, with Bush it was only a question of Who you know and what. Finally, I have been Reading over some time Woodwards book and Bush came across as someone is impatient but asked questions and cut people off if they went on to long, he also seems to be the kind of person who pushs people alot and kind be quite a demanding person and is short tempered, so in an odd way he is like Ross Perot, but only a little bit.
-
Why didn't Kerry win? He has more money that Bush and he raised what, 300+ million trying to win the white house. So what gives? Either a rich man can buy whatever he wants or he can't.
I read Woodwards book in one sitting. What are you a mental midget? The book took me 7 hours to read cover to cover. get a clue pal and stop blaming the miserable life you live on others who have nothing to do with your life. You libs act like anything the government does really effects your lives except when they raise taxes. If anyone tells me they really care about the deficit I know they lie. Because everyone to some degree or other lives in deficit. Got a mortgage? Deficit. Got a car payment college or any kind of loan? Deficit. An dthe National debt, who cares no one even really understands it enough toeven know how it works. Everyone lives witha personal debt. Look back and see previous examples.
As for thisf lick, I predict it will make little and fall to the wayside once word of mouth kills it. -
In other words there were reviews about movies(which there very few), movie news(which is non-existent), thankfully we do get a staffer like harry or quint interviewing people like spielberg and cameron who hasnt made a movie in a decade. Now instead of film reviews all we seem to be getting attack, attack, attack. Attacks on movie, take for example the x-men three butchery that went, harry before he announced he was working with Penthouse, ragged on a film that hadnt been released. He Beat the film up on every opportunity and the director whom he doesnt know and for some reason doesnt like. Take the beating on this website that Crash got or Superman Returns or Aquaman the tv series.
Then there are the attacks or either singer or Ratner, I will admit that Cruise has it coming to him. When you make as much as he does you do tend to go round the twist but he aint the full schilling that is for sure.
This site over the past few months has become way too political and prejudiced and Homophobic. Cant anyone here just say whether they liked a film or not without it becoming debate on the left/right or gender politics. Trust me it is becoming boring to visit this site these days. either talk about films and just film or dont at all. -
First of all I was a lib untill recently. Then I got so bored of the left arguements and then I bored equally of the fuck up the Neoconeheads were making of the Middle eastern World. Notice the left keeps making the same arguments like a broken record. The biggest culprit of them all is Micheal Moore. He is an idiotic buffoon. I have a story. At the end of Farenheit 9/11. Moore used i wont get fooled again and them went on record about how he was friends with Pete Townsend. Townsend then said that moore was a fucking liar and then to make himself even more foolish, Moore was savaged by Trey and Matt, who said that they never did the animations for Bowling for colombine and got so angry with moore for making look like they did, they portrayed him as a hot dog chomping suicide bomber, which was hilarious. And i very little time for the whiner Sean Penn. My problems is that these people dont have any answers, its all yak, yak, yak, yak. I equally contend and very strongly too that the neoconeheads should all be fired out of cannon. like the clowns they are. Have you ever met a bunch of clueless people in your life. This war on Islam will come back to bite the republicans in the US Ass. They should not even consider going after Iran. I dont believe him when he says that he has no plan attack Iran. America is/was the greatest country. There was a time when america upon its arms to the world and said your welcome. Then 9/11 happened and the world rallied round. Then it became apparant of how uncaring this president was. did he listen to reason. No, he listened to cheney who told him to bomb the fuck out of aghanistan. Then something began to happen to me, Slowly after Iraq. I changed my opinion. Where before hand I wasnt for the war. I think that removing saddam was and is the right thing to do. Even though Ironically We gave him all the WMD, that we destroyed while pounding Iraq in the 90's There have been blunders all wars have them. Hindsight is a marvellous thing. They should however get out of iraq at some stage, just not now. They should hammer those insurgsnts into the ground. These Neocons dont care about anyhing at all and thier folly in the middle east will cost them dear. They should not make the same mistakes again but I believe they will and are. Which means they have learnt nothing, so they dont care. Fuck them.
-
They include Condi Rice as VP, Cheney back in the pentagon.
Rumsfeld is going to get the Sack sooner or later.
-
Liberals have no solutions, just hot air, is that right? Well here's one liberal's 'solution' to the problem with Iraq. Invent a time machine, go back three years, and here's the clincher, NOT INVADE IRAQ!!!!!!! That was OUR idea from the start, (at least, it was MY idea from the start.) Save the 2,000 plus American lives, the hundreds of thousands of casualties, the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, and NOT create a training ground for new terrorists, NOT smear shit on our reputation with scandals like Abu Ghraib, and NOT start a civil war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. They were better off under Saddam. What makes the Iraqis so damn special? Why do they merit so many American lives? Why should we blow so much money on that shithole excuse for a country? I know, the only argument the conservatives have left is that we are spreading democracy. The best part about America is that we fought for and won our OWN democracy. Even if Iraq becomes a democratic country, it will still be less of an achievement, because they didn't win it themselves. How proud can they be of themselves? Not that any of this will matter. Iraq is Arabic for Vietman, and we will be there for the next 15 years trying to keep a tenuous 'peace'.
-
Americans like Diebold, and Kathryn Harris. You know-- traitors and conspirators and selfish fuckheads who had been planning their coup d'etat for the past 20 years. They most certainly are Americans by name, if not Americans by action and intention.
-
that God damn idiot Bush and he will fall just like the rest of the tyrants of the world.
If he doesn't leave in 2008 we will march. The 34% of the population who support him had better stay home that day. -
Mar 22, 2006 2:58:40 PM CST
Technically, Reagan was still President in early 1989.
by excaliburffolkes
Inauguration isn't usually until late January. Perhaps that is what Ashok0 meant.
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