Cool News
Merrick Is Humbled By V FOR VENDETTA
A few weeks ago, the British House of Commons passed a law banning the “glorification” of terrorism. This proposal is viewed as frighteningly broad, as the word “glorification” could have many interpretations and definitions. Obviously, this lack of clarity brings with it the potential for tremendous abuse of authority.
The timing of this measure is grimly ironic given the impending release of V FOR VENDETTA, an incendiary film that passionately renounces such lawmaking, and constantly reminds us that the obliteration of freedom – both personal and broad – tends to start in simple, subtle, and apparently well-intended ways.
At its heart, V is not a terribly complicated story. It’s the journey of three characters. One towards vengeance, one towards awakening, as the third tries to understand the slipstream of destruction left in their wake – ultimately finding himself enlightened by the journeys of the other two. Save for a few twists and turns (which aren’t particularly twisty or turny), VENDETTA’s plot is so simple that it hardly merits regurgitation:
In a totalitarian Britain, where asking questions equals dissent & citizenry/press know that their government has over-consolidated its power, an “every person” (Natalie Portman’s Evey) chances into a firestorm of dissidence unleashed by a man called “V” (voiced and performed by Hugo Weaving, although he is never seen.) Evey’s eyes are slowly opened to the truth about, and the dangers of, power. How easily it can be attained, and how fully it can misused. More importantly, she learns that the most potent word that can ever be spoken by anyone, anywhere, is a simple word with only two letters: “No.”
The movie is almost ridiculous in its simplistic structure. But “structure” isn’t what V FOR VENDETTA is about. It’s about essence, and meaning. V is very much an allegory for human events: The Nazis of yesterday, the insidious dangers facing our world today, and what our failure to recognize such patterns means for the world of tomorrow. Notions like the United States’ Patriot Act, Britain’s increased video surveillance of motorized traffic, America’s pre-knowledge of (and possible inaction towards) 9/11, and the movement to dilute the legal sanctity of homosexual relationships are all pointedly evoked. More subtle, but equally dangerous, trends are also touched upon (“If you’re not for the war in Iraq, then you don’t love our country!”); their dangers are vividly (and viscerally) illustrated here.
This is a far from perfect film. The pacing in its final quarter feels decidedly less urgent than the material that came before it, and the movie leaves are about ten jillion questions unanswered – some of which are better left unanswered. Despite such quirky shortcomings, V FOR VENDETTA is a frequently potent, consistently stirring product whose greatest impact rises not from the story it’s actually telling, but in its relationship to the world we live in. In the reality the filmmakers urge us to create, their movie would probably never exist – because it would not need to exist. If only we were there, and if only that were so.
But in the here and now, V is a constantly chilling and sometimes humbling wake-up call. A rather brilliantly considered one at that: It’s certainly possible to argue the artistic merits of the film. But if one argues what the film is saying, then we effectively becoming one of the very people the film is warning us against…much like the dynamic forcibly created by V himself.
It’s challenging to accept that the ideas worth dying for are not always the ideas our governments tell us are worth dying for. It’s even more uncomfortable to swallow the notion that we, as a populous, are responsible for the actions of our government simply because we put The Powers That Be in office. “If you want to see who is responsible…” intones V, “Look no further than a mirror.”
After the movie, I looked in the mirror. I’m not sure I liked the person I saw – as a citizen, or as a father. This being said, my twelve year old understood this movie. He felt it. He got it.
Maybe I didn’t do such a bad job after all. Maybe there’s hope for us yet…
-
+ Expand All
-
can't wait
-
I can't wait.
-
will it get pulled from cinema's in the UK as soon as the Daily Mail sees it and proclaims it a call for violence, terrorism and revolution?! Best get to see it quick.
-
when you type V FOR VENDETTA?
Just wondering... -
Thanks, Merrick, for the review. Considering Harry already had this as a personal favorite, and a slew of critics are enamored with this, I'm glad there's finally something since the 2005 winter wrap-up that I'm looking forward to. And congratulations, Natalie, for getting top billing...from your old weed smoking buds at Harvard!
-
Man--they must have really dilluted the storytelling from the comic, then. I hope there is still a shred of Alan Moore's passionate anarchy left in it.
-
Say what you want about America but despite this current administrations best efforts, we still have freedom of speech. Mostly. And we don't have a Queen. Tee hee.
-
Nope. I just have a very mature kid. He watches GALACTICA with me, also. He's older and wiser than most adults I know.
-
Am I in the right talkback?
-
but there's no way I'm going to pay for more left wing spew. Reading it here for free is annoying enough.
-
It's prophecy that america and britain will be the last world powers to fall in the book of daniel followed by revelation. they will turn on Organized religion and cry out finally peace and security then the end will come. The goverment are just puppets of the devil!
-
Shouldn't individual freedom and personal responsibility be considered conservative, right-wing views? After all, this movie is about a domestic terrorist taking arms against an oppressive government. That sounds more like the Michigan Militia than SAG.
-
Mar 14, 2006 10:25:43 AM CST
would Harry's "Neo is like Bin Laden" pass muster in
by silver shamrock
the UK?
-
Okay, so even though I have the graphic novel I spent about thirty seconds soul-searching before clicking on the V FOR VENDETTA link, all because of the spoiler warning. Looks like I needn't have bothered. So what exactly counts as a spoiler? The fourth paragraph looks like the only thing that comes close, but if that's true, what ISN'T a spoiler? Not an earth-shattering question, I admit, but I'm interested in hearing y'all's opinions. (And no, KY Col., you're not in the right talkback. But aren't you curious to find out what happens when the Baltar in Caprica Six's head meets the Six in Baltar's?)
-
It looks like most people critical of this film spend a lot of time jawing about the 'infantile' politics of the story. There's no way this would have gotten a great consensus on Rotten Tomatoes, just by virtue of that fact, and the fact that it's got some action scenes. Certainly, not all critics feel that way, but I believe that's a big part of it.
I'm really looking forward to this one, guys. -
That religion was just a tool being used by the current administration? I blame the people who started AA and made people look towards "a higher power". This movie will rock and that law is a joke.
-
probably. I wonder how many folks will favorably compare this movie to something like the Patriot if the subject matter sounds so similiar. I'm not hip to the original Moore story, I'm going by the review... "the movement to dilute the legal sanctity of homosexual relationships" can't be spun as remotely conservative. That and the fact that the W Bros are far from conservative are enough to keep my money in my wallet.
-
You're right. I removed the Spoiler Warning tag. I'll put it back if someone complains.
-
thinks that their obnoxious whelps are of vast intellect or astonishing athletic prowess? I guess the 10 year olds who were in the theater at Hostel must have been either highly mature ... or the parents were simply irresponsible.
-
If taking your kid to a movie about passion, courage, and selflessness is "irresponsible", what does that say about parents who *wouldn't* expose their children to such ideas? Also, there's a big difference between HOSTEL and this. Equating the two is as irresponsible as you accuse some parents of being.
-
You placed quotes around that. I'll give you one million dollars if you can legitimately source anyone actually saying that. Grow up, man.
-
By the way, I thought that the "glorification of terrorism" law got shot down in the House of Lords and therefore was stymied from becoming law. Did I dream that?
-
Actually, if you've heard of the "Log-cabin Republicans", they're a grassroots republican gay and lesbian organization. While the current political power-grabbers in control of the Republican party have a bizarre need to tell other people how to live their lives, "conservative" thought is about a lack of government interference in private life. That's why libertarianism is about the only reasonable branch of conservativism these days.
-
It's not intended as an actual quote, but an encapsulation of an existing sentiment here in the U.S. (from your screen name, I'm gathering you're in U.K.?) Not too many opther ways to convey it.
A million dollars? I'm betting you don't have those funds available to you. Before telling somone to "grow up"...
-
From BBC: "The House of Lords voted last month to remove the measure from the Terrorism Bill, but the Commons has now voted by 315 to 277 to reinstate the plan."
-
the best movie of 2005. wait.....that was last year and this movie isn't being released for another week which, last time i checked, is March 2006. maybe AICN will also grant it the dubious award of best film of 2006 too. how ingenious. same film, best film for 2 years in a row.....
and why do these messages i leave keep getting deleted from talkback...which ironically is in regards to a film about totalitarianism...has talkback become totalitarian'ized?'
maybe the shit has finally hit the fan -
Are you tryinig to leave messages in *this* Talkback? Or, are you referring to other Talkbacks? I've noticed that some messages here are disappearing & reappearing on my end (including my own). We may have a Bermuda Traingle kinda thing going on. I've only deleted one message in this Talkback -- a subject line with no content. If you're having problems, lemme know & I'll advise the tech folks.
-
Please take this in the right spirit. You sound like a thoughtful person, yet you "encapsulate" the words of many people into one decidedly assinine statement you cannot actually attribute to any one of them. You assume I'm from England, then you assume I don't have one million dollars. Do you see a pattern?
-
I was kind of on the fence about this one as my only real exposure to V was the first trailer, which didn't do much for me. I'm a fan of the W brother's Matrix, Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman - but for some reason nothing really clicked about V for me (I'm personally blaming me thinking that the mask is a bit over the top). Then I read your article. I am concerned about what I see as the subtle (and not so subtle)erosion of our basic freedoms. Good intentions are behind it all I'm sure, but we all know what the road to Hell is paved with. I thought this was just another lone idealist against a bad government movie, but your article made me see that it's more a story of what could very well happen if we blindly continue down that road I mentioned above. So - if it's a good movie AND a sharp commentary on the world today - it's worth my $9.00 after all. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
-
I think Bush's "you're either with us or with the terrorists" is synonymous with what Merrick put in quotes.
-
the House approves Bills. they only become law when the Queen signs them. in other words, glorification ain't law yet. also, lumping in "Britain
-
i assume you don't have a million dollars..especially if you are in london... but then - i assume there is a possibility you could have a million pounds... and then i will assume that i have no business in this talkback cause even though V looks good - and i want to see it - all this left wing/right wing is better/worse whatever talk is really killing this canadian's buzz... and i bet you all a million dollars/pounds/euros/rubles/francs/andcigarettes that it's only a matter of time before somebody mentions giant lizard aliens trying to take over the planet...
-
If so you don't know ahat "synonymous" means.
-
If you read into the film an indictment of Bush fascism, you are as pathetic as Harry Knowles. Face facts: liberals are accused of being traitors because they refuse to call themselves patriots. Liberals despise the very concept of patriotism; they loathe America, and would loathe America even if the Iraq War had never occured. Opposing the invasion of Iraq doesn't make a liberal a traitor (and note that liberals cannot love America, almost by definition); opposing the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Bush is an evil fascist only out to enrich his oil buddies makes one a traitor. I repeat: opposing the Iraq war does not make you a traitor. Opposing the Iraq war on the grounds that the persons who made the decision to do so are evil and cruel makes you a traitor. *** I'll care about liberals whining about the "traitor" label when they willingly embrace the "patriot" label. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen; I know that liberals would rather die horribly than allow themselves to be accused of patriotism in any form. The truth is that liberals feel vastly more loyalty toward the UN and to Eurosocialism than to the US and its ideals. *** By the way, a liberal talking about freedom is like a prostitute talking about celibacy. Whatever else can be said about conservatives (I'm a libertarian), liberals are serial sodomizers of individual liberty. There is no freedom in socialism, either the left-wing version of socialism or the right-wing version of socialism. I almost have to laugh at liberals whining about the Patriot Act: if they were in power they'd produce even more anti-liberty legislation, legislation even worse than the Patriot Act.
-
Nice try. Your argument isn't solvent. The sentiment exists, all you have to do is look at bumper stickers driving down the road top see it. It's not asinine to encapsulate the sentiment, it's asinine to suggest that somehow an accurate encapsulation is flawed. It's an age old divergence for nations at war, there is nothing new happening now. If you were as enlightened as you purport to be, you would recognize this basic truth. Take all of this in the right spirit, of course. I mean it with utmost respect. Trickery, misdirection, and prodding won't change what is...true. V is about what happens when people are afraid of ideas. Don't be afraid of ideas.
-
Could the W brothers have seen their mistake and instead of not-so-subtle allegorical layer on top of 10 other not-so-subtle layers just decided 1 layer was enough?
-
"Vis a Vis" or "Erego" I am walking out.
-
different words with identical meanings is the dictionary definition. However in regards to a phrase a little more leeway is generally acceptable. I wasn't dead on accurate, fair enough. How about this: what Merrick put in quotes is alarmingly similar enough to what Bush said for it to be a valid statement.
-
I take it back. You do not seem like a thoughtful person.
-
I've had a couple of deleted messages from Quint's 'Vendetta' thread.The fact that they were deleted is not really that important. I'm more concerned with the issue of a what used to be bi-partisian movie review website giving a 2006 movie the Best Movie of 2005 award and come December we will no doubt see this there again. I agree that last year was horrible for movies in general, but that doesn't warrant whoring a movie from the next year. I read this site almost everyday.....since 1998....and over the last few years its become increasngly LESS bi-partisian and more favoritism. So, I guess the blunt quesiton is what type of kickbacks is AICN receiving. Maybe I'm wrong, but perception is reality. How about going back to comparing apples to apples.
-
You just illustrated my point.
-
It's a bad film but OMG IT IZ DA SHIT!! ALLEGORY, YO! While all the traditional reviewers flat out says the film is bunk. Conclusion? The film is a piece of shit that will only appeal to Matrix fanboys. It's all fluff, no substance.
-
Its a sad thing. And suggesting that comparing an exploitation horror movie to a anarchistic social satire is somehow worse than exposing a ten year old to graphic violence is pretty fucking stupid. I pity your child.
-
Thanks for all the fantastic feedback, whether you were in agreement, or dissenting. Great conversation. For anyone who's interested, here's a link to a BBC article about the laws banning glorification of terrorism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4714578.stm
-
My son(who is 12 by the way, not 10) is suddenly interested in the world in which he lives...why things work they way they do...why people are the way they are...and is wondering it what it takes to make a difference. If that's pitiable, then I beg for utter shame.
-
You mean traditional critics like Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, and Peter Travers, all of whom gave it pretty stellar reviews?
-
I'm looking forward to the movie - I mean, for a movie with explosions and special effects with an obvious social message, at least we know it can't be as bad as "Ultraviolet". The W brothers, well, they have their flaws, but they have their talents as well.
-
At the risk of turning this talk back into a political debate, here is the most recent example of the U.S. government equating dissent with not loving America. From CNN.com's article yesterday (3/13) on Russ Fiengold's resolution to censure the President on the whole wire-tapping thing:
"The White House and its allies in Congress hit back quickly, with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist calling for a snap vote on the resolution.
Frist, a Tennessee Republican, called the measure "a political stunt that is addressed at attacking the president of the United States of America when we're at war.""
He criticized Feingold for introducing the censure resolution "at the same time we have terrorists right now intending to attack Western civilization and the people of our homeland."
A political stunt? Maybe - but the latter part of Frist's comment seems to me to say that criticizing Presidental choices is an unpatriotic thing to do in a time of war. That is not a very far strech from Merrick's more paraphrasing "quote". -
Your first review -- or at least the first I've read from you -- and straight out of the blocks you've already out-lefted every other reviewer on the site. No minor feat.
-
You wouldn't want to be exposed to anything that might challenge you intellectually. Especially if it might involve teh homos! Everything about the premise of this film is everything that every NRA nut bleats on about when he talks about the 2nd Amendment but oh noes, someone mentioned something about teh gheys in a review on the web so I can't support that. Sigh.
-
if this movie turned out to suck? I know the film is getting good reviews, and the Everyone on AICN (as well as everyone from BNAT) loved it, but what if it turns out to be just a horribly edited mish-mash of ideas with some interesting ideas? Either way, I'll be there opening night, but I just think that it'd be funny if the movie is crap since this website has been plugging it since last year.
-
However the homosexual part is a joke! The only thing the religious are fighting for in this arena is to not fuck up the definition of marriage. Homosexuals already have all the rights entitled to heteros... this redefinition thing is just some poor attempt to achieve some cognitive dissonance that everyone in opposition to the lifestyle is suddenly okay with it... M'eh whatever, Scandanavia or someplace has already 'sanctified' polygamy, and organizations like NAMBLA are at it as usual... The Bible predicts that it's likely we'll lose this round anyway, so knock yourselves out! Oh and I will stll see this movie... Hugo Weaving is my kinda man! Tee hee
-
of "liberal" or "patriot". And apparently not "traitor" either.
-
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I've read the book several times. It's starting to sound to me like the movie (at the hands of the Wachiowskiiskikeawaoud Brothers - I don't know how to spell their names and I'm too lazy to look it up) have dumbed down Moore's book and upped the action side of it. I just hope the movie is decent, Christ I'm tired of crappy comic book movies. ********Also, conservatives, liberals, green parties, libertarians, librarians, whigs, torries, scientologists....You're all full of shit. Why don't you try accomplishing something rather than sitting back and pointing fingers at one another. Also, you can be a liberal and a patriot, disagreeing with one's government is the foundation of patriotisim. Don't get so caught up in labels. Believe what you believe and leave it at that.
-
Fireball, anyone reading that line would understand that he is paraphrasing a sentiment, not that he is purporting to directly quote someone.
If you want to engage in a debate about whether that sentiment actually exists, fine. People can respectfully disagree about that point. But its silly to argue that "no one actually said the words you put in quotes!" (Hey, no one actually said the words I just put into quotes either!).
I personally feel the sentiment DID exist, especially in the first year or so of the war, though thankfully it has faded somewhat. There were very many anti-war protestors who were accused of being unpatriotic or not supporting the troops merely because they didn't support our government's actions. Do you really deny that? -
a terrorist does it for his own selfishness, for the glory of their religion or power or to spread hate. screw the people. we know what's best for you. V on the other hand is doing it for the freedom of the people. fighting an extreme government that doesn't even let you take a piss unless they say so. V's actions are warranted, but fanatical terrorist shouldn't be.
-
aren't laws yet. they're still before Parliament. in fact, the House of Commons is debating the Lords amendments on Thursday. so why not write your local MP?
-
Actually, since 'conservatism' is about preserving things that are good and resisting change where it is not needed, then the effort to stop the public recognition (i.e. societal endorsement)of gay unions is indeed conservative. Maybe some will dispute that, but there is no denying that it is conservative to fight against the preferred method by which the Left seeks to gain this public recogntion -- judicial imposition -- because that goes to an even deeper issue of how judges should apply the Constitution, and a rejection of the left's 'living Constitution' nonsense should unite conservatives, regardless of what they think policy on such things as abortion and gay marriage should be. And this whole thing about 'telling people how to live their lives' is just like the whole bit about conservatives wanting to get involved 'in people's bedrooms.' They are wrong, and both miss the point. The choice of society to not put homosexual relationships on an equal legal footing with traditional marriage does not constitute govt interference in private life. Homosexuals are free to live as they choose; that those choices won't be granted public validation and endorsement is not oppression or a violation of genuine rights.
-
Taking a 12 year old to see a movie like V without having seen it beforehand is poor parenting. Just because he can sit there and watch it without crying or falling asleep, doesn't mean he's mature enough to digest the information properly. He doesn't have the life experience needed to really understand that kind of thing. If he's truly interested in the world around him, let him read the newspaper or watch the news with you. Don't let one of his introdcutions to world politics and philosophy be a stupid sci-fi movie based on a graphic novel by a raving lunatic.
-
1: Let's say our president did do something wrong, incompetent, or even unlawful. Should we ignore this because we're "at war"? 2: Exactly what are the conditions for victory in our current war? I mean, when can we have the right to question our leaders back?
-
2005? if a year that includes such releases as sin city, serenity
episode 3, wedding crashers, goblet of fire, munich, good night and good luck, syriana, batman begins, and the constant gardener to name but a few, then i'm hoping for more horrible years like that one. -
A review on BBC's Film 2006 rubbished V for Vendetta. Bad dialogue. Bad fx. Bad acting.
-
You go on to list several things you apparently believe point to a slide towards tyranny and oppression, but they just don't hold up. The recent renewal of the Patriot Act included reforms meant to push the pendulum back towards the 'civil liberties' side, such as clarification about the famous library provisions. True, some critics contend these reforms are weak, but its is a move towards their side, and additional efforts to continue that move were promised even as the act was renewed. And while it may come as a shock to some, efforts to increase govt power in times of war did not begin with Bush. Such beloved figures as Lincoln and FDR did the same, and those measures pretty much ended when the threat ended. Now that is not to say that the acts then, or now, are good or justified, but there is not much reason to expect some large or lasting curtailment of civil liberties in the United States.
I won't comment on Britain, other than to wonder if people sounding alarm bells are also troubled by the PC speech codes that have become more prevalent there. No comment on the pre-knowledge of 9-11 thing either, but the part about homosexual relationships is just absurd. Homosexuals enjoy a greater level of freedom and tolerance in the West today (including the US) than in any other time or place (please don't cite ancient Greece or Rome, because its apples to oranges, as they had no concept of the modern idea of homosexual lifestyles, and the acceptance of homosexual sex was not as widespread or clear-cut as is often claimed when activists try to claim, for example, Alexander or Hadrian as one of their own). There is no sign that they are in danger of losing anything that they already have, or have ever had. And one thing they have never had is the public recognition and sanctioning of thier relationships in a manner akin to traditional marriage. Efforts by the people to preserve traditional marriage is not an attack on homosexuals. It is an effort to maintain a status quo that is not in need of changing. It is an effort to preserve self-government. It is a retaliation against judicial activism. It is an attempt to preclude similar acts from other courts in the future. The 20 or so (with more on the way) popular and overwhelming statewide rejections of gay marriage do not signal a coming persecution of homosexuals. In fact, public attitudes towards homosexuals (and to a lesser extent towards homosexuality) have moved significantly towards the left, and its not unreasonable to assume that it will move that way more in light of the pro-gay messages of opinion-shaping entities like Hollywood, the mainstream media, and k-university education. And again, these leftward moving attitudes have occured at the same time people have voted by 56-84% margins to ban gay marriage (and civil unions in some cases). So clearly people see no conflict between being tolerant, and even accepting of homosexuals and in not opening up to them something that was never intended for them -- marriage. And some states have even voluntarily (i.e. w/o judicial coercion) enacted laws that basically grant gay marriage in all but name, such as Connecticut and California, and its likely that most states in the Northeast, some in the midwest, and all on the West Coast will do the same. If the rest of the states refuse to do the same, then simple solution for those upset by it is to not live in those states.
-
Didn't your mother ever teach you that its not nice to pick on the mentally challenged? :)
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/03/14/film_2006_v_2006_article.shtml
-
Considering who wrote the script, I think people should go in expecting bad, pretentious dialogue. Portman should have been well prepared for it after reciting Lucas' lines for 3 films, though with Lucas the bad dialogue comes more from it being unnatural and bizarre.
-
if i had kids - i'd probably much rather have them watcha movie like V as opposed to reading the newspaper or watching the news... there's so much crap and violence and sex and "forced" opionions in the news being sold off as the truth - at least with a movie - you know it's from a certain point of view - and as a viewer - or as a parent - you can discuss that point of view - agree with it or not - at least the movie is not being sold as the gospel truth...but - also - if i had kids i'd probably be in the news myself because modern day miracles are so few and far between these days...
-
1: Conservativism theoretically is based around the traditional constitutional idea of a limited federal government. Those are the real "traditional values" of the country--the ones penned in the Constitution by the founders. 2: Conservatives bitched like hell when anti-sodomy laws were ruled uncostitutional a couple of years ago, so yes, many conservatives DO care what people do in their own bedrooms. 3: Barring gays from marrying does, in fact, interfere with their private lives, because it prevents thing slike hspital visitation, power of attorney, inheritence rights, life insurance, etc. 4: The "living constitution" knowledge is exactly what the framers of the constitution intended. The constitution is an inherently vague document, and that is why it dictates that there should be a Supreme Court EQUAL TO THE LEGISLATURE to interpet it. And if you're worried about "activist" judges, let me remind you that of the current Supreme Court justices, it is the conservative justices that more often vote to contradict the legislature and declare laws unconstitutional. If you're worried about judges who legislate from the bench, look no further than Thomas and Scalia.
-
... I could scarcely have found it a less enjoyable experience". ouch. i ain't seen it but i sure hope he's wrong.
-
gay marriage harms no-one, why should it be illegal? Also do you know why liberals use judicial imposition? Because laws are ALWAYS required to protect the weak and the minority from the strong majority. By the by that by virtue of being Gay you are being denied the right to marry is oppressive. Are you really suggesting that people who live in a state where gay marriage is not going to be allowed should move? And do you then suggest that, that isn't oppression? Riiight then, how very skewed.
-
Merrick, if you're trying to show your kid how to make a difference, you might do better taking him to a soup kitchen or on a habitat for humanity build.
-
Not trying to get involved in the political discussion. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't speak to its politics. However, you comment on the opinion which some people cling to that "if you don't support the war in Iraq, you don't love the country" while at the same time saying of V "But if one argues what the film is saying, then we effectively becoming one of the very people the film is warning us against
-
You know what? I don't disagree with you on the bulk of your argument or your assessment of Fiengold's real intent. There are too many important things to do for government to waste time on unimportant grandstanding (should I bring up Bill Frist's new call yesterday for an anti-flag burning amendment to divert attention from real issues?). Where we disagree is that I think the fact that we can openly debate what our elected leaders do and that even the President can be held accountable for stepping outside of the law is a big commercial for real democracy. The U.S. can openly question it's government and even replace it's leaders without violence or material change in the day-to-day lives or rights of it's citizens. I think that is much more inspiring to someone looking at democracy for the first time than urging a show of solidarity by keeping quiet. My post was to point out a real life example of the current administration
-
http://i-newswire.com/pr58954.html Actor Will Ferrell accidentally died in a freak para-gliding accident yesterday in Torey Pines, Southern California. The accident apparently happened somewhere near the famed paragliding site after a freak wind gush basically blew Ferrell and his companion towards a wooded area where they lost control before crashing into the dense foilage.
-
you think a leading hollywood comic actor dies and the only news wire to report it was some flakey press release site?
-
Recent Oscar winner George Clooney posted a short bit on The Huffington Post that was interesting and about as inflammatory as Merrick's review, apparently! Basically, he's a liberal and proud of it. Cool; so am I. Does this mean I loathe and despise conservative folks? Or those somewhere in the middle? Or at the extremes of either? Absolutely not. I'm way old and grew up believing the whole concept of America was ot allow people to be free. Free to live, work, worship, and say whatever they wished, within reason and not harmful to anyone but themselves. If I'm for or against your particular point of view, it doesn't make me a hero or a demon, just possessed of my own opinion and/or belief. And for the time being, I still have that right. For instance, my now 21 y/o old son has seen countless movies with me, some with *GASP* R ratings before he was 17. I don't KNOW if Merrick is a bad parent or not, but I do know he is the best judge of his son's maturity and capabilities for understanding the movie...not me, nor any of you. The quote about Iraq may or may not be an exact quote, but from living in the Bible Belt I can tell you I've heard the paraphrase of it more than once. On a personal note, my dear sister is a staunch Republican. I am currently registered as Democrat and have been an Independent in the past. Do we agree on much regarding politics? No. Do I love her any less or regard her beliefs or opinions as wrong or unimportant? BIG no. She's entitled to whatever floats her boat. As am I. And all of you. I guess this is a Rodney King "can't we all just get along" speech, but that's not a terrible thing, you know. Lastly, I will see the movie...probably at a matinee...because I like the actors and the story and want to see what they did with the material. It may be utter trash or something far better. I'll have an opinion when the credits roll. Mine, not Merrick's, Harry's, Ebert's, etc. Just mine. ;-)
-
1. States deciding for themselves what does and does not constitute a marriage in no way conflicts with a limited federal govt. 2. One of the problems with the overturning of sodomy laws is that they were ruled constitutional not even 20 years earlier! Its just another fault in the 'living Constitution' babble, because it holds the meaning of the Constitution hostage to a completely subjective and unrestrained interpretive model. There had been sodomy laws of some sort going back to the 19th century, so why are they now suddenly unconstitutional? You shoudn't confuse something that is constitutionally permissable with it being necessarily right. As Thomas pointed out, the Texas law in question was a bad one, and should have been overturned...by the Texas state legislature. 3. Pretty much all of those things can be attained outside of marriage. Society's decision to promote traditional mariage by granting to it certain benefits and status does not mean they must extend those things to any grouping who wants it. 4. It was not intended by the Founders that judiciary would exercise such power over so many areas. They were not intended to behave as they have over the last 50 yrs or so. The Federalists did not counter Anti-Federalist warnings about the Sup Court by arguing for judicial supremacy, but rather by saying that such warnings were unfounded. They certainly didn't argue that the Sup Court had the power to go around applying the Constitution in ways never envisioned by the society that crafted it. Yes, the Constitution is vague on many things, and it was intended that the states and the Congress would fill in the blanks So long as genuine, Constitutional rights were not infringed, then the Courts should not involve themselves. Hamilton wanted the Sup Court to protect these geunine rights, not to go around inventing new ones that have no basis in law or tradition. And again, homosexuals have never had marriage rights before. So how are the traditional understanding and legal recognition accorded to marriage now suddenly unconstitutional? Not one provision of the Constitution was written and contemplated by its framers, nor given consent to by the people, with the understanding that it in any way requires public recognition of homosexual relationships. As Scalia has said with regards to abortion, you don't need a Constitution, all you need is a willing legislature and populace. Its the same with gay marriage. That the Left has so much trouble getting those things does not justify baseless constitutional arguments that twist provisions of the Constitution into meaning something that was never intended, and to something far beyond the traditions of the nation. Activism is not when judges vote to strike down laws passed by Congress, it is when they render decisions outside the bounds of the Constitution. With regards to Scalia and Thomas, the laws they vote to strike down typically regard expansions of the federal govt, so you should applaud that if you believe in the defintion of conservatism you put forth. But lets be honest here, the hot-button, contentious social/cultural issues are what really inflames passions on both sides. And on these, the Scalia/Thomas approach is decidedly and properly neutral in terms of outcomes. They would leave the matters of abortion, gay marriage, public religious displays, etc to where they belong for resolution -- the states, and to the Congress for federal purposes.
-
Whether or not it harms anyone shouldn't matter with regards to the question of who gets to decide the matter. You should make that argument to the people and to the various legislatures. At the same time your opponents can argue that it does harm. The idea that the Constitution now, after two centuries of being silent on the issue, suddenly requires that govt and society grant to homosexual relationships the same status as traditional marriage is just absurd. It is contrary to the understanding of all parts of the Constituion as they gained the approval of the nation upon which self-governance depends. And your ridiculously expansive use of the word 'oppressive' is another unfortunate tactic of the Left these days. Whether its 'racism' or 'xenophobia' or 'homophobia' or 'civil rights' or now, 'oppressive', the Left renders these words almost meaningless with the cavalier and inappropriate manner in which they use them. That the Left uses them as indictments of what are in fact mainstream, non-bigoted and non-hateful views of Americans is an insult, and in many cases a deliberate attempt to poison debate by impugning the motives of opponents. Laws that preserve traditional marriage are not oppressing homosexuals. If you want to find true oppression and persecution of homosexuals, then you should look at how they are treated by nations that adhere to the Religion of Peace. So its kind of funny how Islam apparently joins homosexuals as one of the implausibly persecuted victims of the evil Christain regime in V. Finally; no I did not say that people who live in states where gay marriage is not recognized should move. What I am saying is if it truly bothers them so much, and if it violates all that they believe in, and if they can't change the law through the proper democratic channels, then yes, they should either move, or deal with. Similarly, those on the opposite side should do the same if they live in a state that does move to recongize gay marriage/civil unions. That would very much keep with the original idea of this nation, as a union of states who retain the power to set policy for themselves in most areas. Whatever the case, the courts should stay out of it. Then the proper democratic process will settle things -- as intended by the Founders -- and the beauty of that is that even the losers will have the satisfaction of having had their say, of having had a chance, and of knowing that they can always come back and try again tomorrow.
-
The questionable news story sounds like it's referring to the Torrey Pines gliderport. The article misspells Torrey and makes it sound like it's not part of La Jolla, but it is (and it's a few miles away from me). http://www.flytorrey.com/
-
while the American critics love it. Alan Moore hates it, too, by the way. I'm veeeeery curious now to see who I side with.
-
lame
-
You don't know what you're talking about. The first line in the article to which you have a link is "The House of Commons on Wednesday backed a bill that would make "glorification" of terrorism a criminal offense, a measure that Prime Minister Tony Blair called crucial to Britain's battle against religious extremists."
BACKED a bill, not PASSED a bill. The Lords will kick it back to parliament, and the public are very wary of Labour's plans.
For all those smuggos here laughing at the Brits, I can assure you that the USA feels like a police state compared to the UK. However, Tony Blair wants to make it more like the States, i.e. crack down on civil liberties and create a climate in which the press does not feel free to speak its mind. -
Lets put this simply. Because it's 2 men who wish to enjoy all the same priveliges as a a man and women they are prevented by law from doing so. Passivity is equally as unjust as action in this case. The oppression is a sin of omission. What argument is there to be made against gay marriage if it doesn't harm people?______ "The idea that the Constitution now, after two centuries of being silent on the issue, suddenly requires that govt and society grant to homosexual relationships the same status as traditional marriage is just absurd." You are incorrect, the constitution was silent because the people were silent on the matter, now they are not. The beauty of the constitution is that it sets up ideas and rules to follow for when various parts of it become outmoded. Some people are still horribly prejudiced against gays. Why give them ANY legitimacy by refuting gay peoples ability to be seen in the eyes of the law, as the same as everyone else?
-
"despite this current administrations best efforts, we still have freedom of speech. Mostly. And we don't have a Queen. Tee hee."
No, but Americans do have a President who's far closer to an old-style "divine rights" king than anything the Brits have. -
1: States deciding for themselves is not what many conservatives are calling for, they're calling for a constitutional amendment. How many times has the spectre of the "activist" judges in Massachusetts been invoked? The fact is, the MA legislature had their chance to amend the law, and they turned it down. That doesn't seem to be good enough for some people. And aren't superfluous ammendmnets to the constitution, to define marriage or ban flag-burning, rather more damaging to the constitution than a judicial intepretation? 2: The fact is, the constitution is a written document, and not a highly explicit one. How can we claim to know the "intent" of founders 200 years dead? And how can we apply their political intents to a world 200 years beyond them? These people never intended to let women have the vote, after all. We have to take their writings and ideas and apply them to our society, not try to make our society match theirs'. And, in terms of the sodomy laws, the fact that a previous court *incorrectly* ruled on a law's constitutionality doesn't mean that said law *is* constitutional. 3: Actually, gender-equality laws DO demand that we extend the benefits of marriage to anyone who wishes to have them. If a man can marry a woman, then a woman should also be able to marry a woman. Otherwise we are discriminating on the basis of sex, which is illegal. 4: The judiciary is meant to interpret the law; if the legislature doesn't like that interpretation, they have the power to re-write the law. That is what we call a system of checks and balances. The judiciary and the elgislature are equal forces, and if the judiciary ammends the law to more clearly frame their intent, there is nothing the judiciary can do to stop them. The fact is, the judiciary must justify their interpretations of law. If their interpretations aren't supported by society, they will fail. Take Roe v. Wade, the ultimate in "legislating from the bench"--the fact is, that is an immensely popular ruling. Polling shows that some two-thirds of the US support it, while only a quarter oppose. If the people didn't support the judicial decision, the constitution would be ammended. But that is not the case. You keep talking about the "traditions" of the nation, but the fact is, what many people think are "traditions" are new concepts. This nation was founded on rational deist principles, yet people continually talk about the "Christian tradition" of the U.S. The fact is, one of the very first laws signed by the US government was a treaty that stated in no uncertain terms that the US was in no way founded on Christian principles. It was unanimously signed by congress, and both Washington and Adams approved of it. Yet most conservatives would have us beleif that the seperation of church and state is a modern myth attempting to "secularize" the US; as if we weren't founded on secularist principles. The fact is, most conservatives talk out of one side of thier mouth about "what the founders intended" while trying to twist the intent of the founders to their own purposes. The founders, great though they were, have been dead for centuries, and their "intent" can never be fully known. We have to take the principles they outlined in the constitution and interpret them in a modern context. If what we want to know is intent, then we look at principles, not letters.
-
when it comes to allowing people who are not heterosexual the same rights and abilities as everyone else we are one country and not seperate states. How do I know this? Because someones skin colour does not mean that they maybe subjected to racism in some states and not others; NOT becuase the states were happy about it originally but because the miniority was afforded the same rights as everyone else, that's constitutional. Sexuality shouldn't be treated any differently than race.
-
Brox you said it A LOT better then I can put it right now. You should run for president of the galaxy, pan-galatic gargleblasters are on me if you win ;
-
I appreciate it, and good to see you also arguing the point here ;) I gotta say, I have yet to see an even remotely convincing argument against gay marriage. I'm generally pretty good at seeing the other side of a political argument, but there just isn't a rational position for opponents to take here. It's entirely knee-jerk. "You can't do that, 'cause... 'cause... it freaks me out." I'm amazed how prevalent it is.
-
"And when we are at war, when the enemy is privy to our bickering and the divided state of our country, THAT is the wrong time to try and score political points. It makes us more vulnerable by portraying our policies as flawed, ineffective, even unlawful, which in turn makes us lose standing that is necessary in order to accomplish the goals we have set out to accomplish regarding not only the war on terror, but anything else we as a nation want to accomplish." ******** Yes, we're at war. Of course we're at war! The president says so! And we fired a lot of missiles and sent tanks, right? Who could dispute the fact we're at war? In fact, if martial law was declared right now it would be completely legitimate. Iraq is our enemy. Iraq has *always* been our enemy...
-
" I have yet to see an even remotely convincing argument against gay marriage" ***** What? Are you nuts? It's real simple: gays are all smelly and yucky and touch each other's butts. We can't possibly let these people marry each other! Also, if we do, they'll turn all our children gay.
-
Come on, conservatives. You can't possibly hate this book/movie unless you are a pure Nazi. This isn't a story about conservatism, this is a story about FASCISM. There's a difference. The hero of the book fights against a government that committed genocide on everyone who wasn't white and straight. They burned everything culturally related, books, movies, music. This isn't a screed against the Bush admin. It was written 24 years ago for Christ's sake. People who haven't seen the movie, haven't read the book, yet are still saying stupid shit like "I'm not going to see this because it's liberal crap" are morons who don't think.
-
I'll never understand why self-proclaimed liberals will embrace a movie like this and embrace its references mostly to America and Britain when we STILL have COMMUNIST countries and less-violent, but still restrictive SOCIALIST countries where more freedoms are trampled on than most of the people on this site can think of. It's a two way street, folks -- it's extremism, on either side of the political platform. EXTREME RIGHT-WINGERS aren't the ONLY evil people out there. I've heard liberals simultaneously laud France and Canada, one which has a government-run media (that nobody here mentions) and the other where you can't even choose your own healthcare in most instances. This picking on what is loosely called "Fascism" in America and Britain is UNDEDUCATED and stupid, and if that's what the movie does, then the same goes for it, too.
-
What are we conservatives supposed to THINK about -- whatever you liberals tell us to?????
-
Jorson2, you don't know what you are talking about. There aren't references to America in the book because it's GONE.
This book isn't about Extreme right-wingers, it's about Nazi's. It's hard to imagine that there are people out there who will attack literature where Nazi's are the villains. Do that many people out there really sympathize with fascism/Nazi'ism? I think not. I think they are simply misinformed and ignorant. At least I hope so. -
You can think about whatever you want. Go see the movie, don't see the movie, I don't really give a fuck. But if you are going to bring an argument against this movie/book, then I wonder why you would. Unless you love Nazi's.
-
"You wouldn't want to be exposed to anything that might challenge you intellectually. Especially if it might involve teh homos!" I'm exposed to it daily, and I'm tired of it. No way I'll pay money to support more liberal BS. We vote with our asses in the seats. And I'll be one less ass.
-
"The gays are trying to get married." (First the soapbox, then the movie critique!) I'll give the opponents of gay marriage cleverness points for their reasons why it shouldn't be legal, their tactics of getting people all stirred up over the "attack" on traditional family values and structure. It plays upon fear and misconception without devolving too far into hate and bigotry. But at the core of the opposition to gay marriage is the the driving force of human civilization, the bottom line as it were...$$$$. Gay men and women enjoying the social benefits of marriage would affect property rights, taxes, inerhitance, and guardianship. A gay couple can set up a domestic partnership, but a "simple" marriage would remove all the red tape and have one legal, binding contract to replace several complicated agreements. Remember, marriage is not about love! It's a contract two people enter into. The love, the kiddies, and all the rest merely stem from it. Whew! As for V for Vendetta as a theatrical experience...um, I dunno! I got all worked up about the gay marriage thing I forgot. D'oh!
-
That pisses me off is most conservatives won't read this, won't see it, but will still argue like they did. What it really comes down to is someone told them that this is a movie against republicans, and they stupidly believed them instead of actually reading it and making up their own damn minds. That's the only thing that explains some of the retarded things I'm seeing here.
Believe what you want, but if you can't argue a position from personal experience with cogent, logical points, then I'm going to tear it apart. -
I didn't understand his review of V at all. The film is not perfect by a long shot, but to have nothing good to say about it, is pure Ross- he's such an atrocious reviewer.
To say that he's a massive fan of the book, and yet seem to imply that they made a mistake keeping V masked is absurd. I think Weaving gave a wonderful peformance and it's for that very reason that V is so fascinating and cryptic. The production design and look is not cheap at all, in fact the Shadow Room is a marvel, and yes Portman's accent is shaky at times, but fuck me, the internment scenes are powerful stuff.
I'd hate to think shit reviews like this would have any effect on whether people went to see V. -
Empire seemed to think it was keen. http://www.empireonline.com/incinemas/ReviewComplete.asp?FID=10585
-
You're tired of being challenged intellectually? Nice. Y'know, just because someone online tells you it's a liberal movie doesn't mean it is. As someone has said, the villain in the movies is essentially Hitler, not Bush, Blaire, or anyone in a modern context. How are personal responsibility and limited government power liberal ideas?
-
I was reading your post earlier, and I thought I'd chime in. 1st: superfluous amendments do not hurt the constitution. The clear majority required to pass an amendment and the amount of political red tape required to do so AFFIRMS the constitutional process. There is no such thing as a "superfluous" amendment. If I use that logic, the first amendment effectively hurt the constitution. As a history teacher, I can assure you the amendment process is the very heart of our document's legitimacy and longevity. 2nd: the reason so many conservatives were up in arms over the sodomy case was not because it was turned over. Believe me, there is not a single human being, outside of nutcases, who want the government to tell a guy he cant have oral sex (which was in the law). The problem was that Justice Kennedy cited FOREIGN LAW as his reason for his ruling. In other words, he didnt follow the procedure of constitutional precident, which is the very foundation of all Judical rulings. In effect, Kennedy admitted, and many other judges with him, that he made it up. Now, if that doesnt bother you at all, I hope you have no intentions of becoming a judge.
-
I like you. Review more. You're less ego-driven than some of the other people on this site.
-
One thing I hope people take from the film is a fantastic score. Should sell well even if the film doesn't. Check out 'Evey Reborn'. Great, stirring music.
-
1: You're telling me that 18th ammendment doesn't make the constitution look silly? The constitution serves as the basis for all law in this country, the ideals and principles set in the bill of rights define our nation in a way nothing else does. When we take minor political bickerings of the moment and try to engrain them in the founding principles of our government (*especially*, as in the case of flag-burning and gay-marriage bans, when they actually contradict other ammendments) it cheapens the constiutions role as a statement of principle. Meanwhile, if an "activist" judge interprets in an unpopular or even unreasonable way, there are checks and balances, and always the possibility of a counter-ruling later down the line. That's an affirmation of the principles of our nation: that no one person or group should have absolute power over the people. 2: If that is the case, there are an awful lot of nutcases making noise out there. If you take a look at news reports about it, they all feature outraged members of Focus on the Family and such. Beyond that, what Kennedy has supported is using foreign laws to help interpret the US constitution. He's not citing them as legal precedent, but he's using them to inform his opinion on how laws should be interpreted. In a way, how can he not? Any experiences we have, including study of foreign law, will affect our interpretation of law. As long as his reasoning is clear and relies on the letter of US law, how is it illegal or even incorrect?
-
Remember, ZB, the bill of rights were AMENDMENTS. And again, by citing the eighteenth, you prove my point. Why? Because it was AMENDED later--the 21st. And again, until the 21st amendment was passed, the 18th was legal. Following your views, the 13th amendment would never pass. Oh sure, if I had followed the practices of Kennedy, I could have acted faster and ruled slavery as unconstituional. However, what would stop another judge from making up a completely different position. When you amend the constitution, you prevent another judge from acting OUTSIDE the constitution. See, thats the beauty of our system, ZB. You wish to fight it through arbitrary judicial rulings. When you do that, however, you remove something from the law: the people. In its place, you inject tyranny and thus destroy the foundations of this nation's very foundation: the constitution.
-
...based on your conservative views, fucking GREAT! Awesome! Keep your money in your wallet so you can send Fred Phelps checks. Don't waste your time seeing this so you can spend time with the cops you ratted out your neighbor to for possible terrorist activities like saying "You know, our President is really a fucking tool....". If a movie with such "leftist" views scares you so much that you can't even bring yourself to betray your beloved Dick Cheney by watching it then please stay the fuck home. I don't see how letting gay people marry, seeing people who aren't white as actualy people, letting a woman get an abortion if she's been raped, or protesting our leader because your son died in a war that we shouldn't have even been involved in will lead to a dystopian future. However, I DO see regulating the private activities of a section of the population, censoring dissent, lying to the people frequently, LETTING natural disasters ravage cities primarily occupied by minorities, and generating hatred throughout the world for our country by making it known that we can invade anyone we want and take thier resources because of Manifest Destiny leading to the exact kind of dystopia V is presenting to us. So you fucking fucks, don't go see this. Just stay home and listen to Rush on one TV and Bill O'Reilly on another shaking your head up and down in agreement like a hate filled bobble doll. Stay home and rent Bedtime for Bonzo and The Last Action Hero. Flame me all you want,it'll just prove me right. If you weren't threatened by this movie you wouldn't even be here telling us you won't see it. If you weren't threatened by what I just said then you wouldn't even waste the energy to respond.
-
you destroy the foundations of this nation's heart: its constituion. You cant take away legal precedent from judicial rulings. Nor can you suddenly deny the legislative branch, and vicariously the people that elect them, from passing law, ie constitution.
-
Seems the article was taken down, was a mistake, false alarm, my bad everyone...
-
Judicial rulings are not "arbitrary". They must be backed up by legal reasoning. If that reasoning is unconvincing, the legislature has the opportunity to revise the law. *That* is the beauty of the system, that no one group has absolute power. Again, I cite as a perfect example the MA ruling on gay marriage. The judiciary decided that the law did not allow for the barring of gay marriage, it contradicts the equality guaranteed our citizens. That is a fundamental constitutional principle. If that reasoning was unconvincing to the people or the legislature, they had the opportuntiy to revise the law to comply: They did not do so. The legal basis for the ruling was sound. This isn't "legislating from the bench", it is doing the job of deciding how potentially conflicting laws relate. That is the whole purpose of the judiciary. What would you have the courts do, pat the legislature on the back and say "all right, you can write any law you want, constitution be damned."?
-
Bitch about your own parenting not his!
-
"you can't take legal precedent from judicial rulings"--That's a tough trick. How does one then rule before there is a precedent? And exactly what's the purpose of the judiciary even looking at new cases if precedent is established?
-
The legislature passes law. That is its purpose. Now, it can regulate itself in determinating posibile constituionality (seeking legal advice and so forth). And the fact is, there have been many laws which have been viewed as unconstituional, and so had to be amended. And as you know from Marbury v. Madison, the Judicial system determines the constitutionality of a law. In effect, ZB, they will review that law anyway, so dont act as though there is no check placed upon the legislative and executive branch. Now, the question of the law, in this case the anti sodomy law, was did it violate the constitution? Well, if you follow constitutional precident, then it did not. If, however, you suddenly say there is a constitutional right to privacy, as Kennedy claims he can find in the first amendment, then you come to the conclusion that it did in fact violate the 1st amendment. However, Kennedy couldnt even prove it violated right of privacy. Why? Because you cant violate state law just because you are privately doing so. What if I were to bake up crystal meth in my house? I'm not selling it, and its in the privacy of my own home. That was why I, and many others, had problem with the ruling. The ruling was not that anti sodomy is inconstitutional. The ruling was that you couldnt make a law restricting someone's privacy. And again, there is a whole slew of problems with that. There was no precedent, privacy doesnt mean legal haven, etc. It was a bad ruling. And again, remember, the problem with kennedy's ruling was that it was akin to the Dredd V. Scott case. Remember, if you follow the constituional process, you'll come out all right in the end. But if you violate precedent, as happened in Dredd V. Scott, then you have an entire litany of problems. By the way, the point of judiciary review is to see whether precident has been followed. If it has not, then the case is thrown out.
-
The awnser is, of course, you don't. Its not in the judge's power to set a legal precedent. That power is strictly related to the legislative branch.
-
did you want to continue this discussion on yahoo messenger or something? This is a good topic to talk about and I have a hunch we will soak through a lot of harry's bandwidth.
-
You write: "1. States deciding for themselves what does and does not constitute a marriage in no way conflicts with a limited federal govt." That is exactly right, and that is why the conservative position SHOULD be to let states decide for themselves on the issue of gay marriage. However, conservatives these days are interjecting the federal government into the marriage debate, and NOT allowing the states to decide for themselves. You seem to think that the democrats are the ones nationalizing the issue - you have it backwards.
-
You also write: "The idea that the Constitution now, after two centuries of being silent on the issue, suddenly requires that govt and society grant to homosexual relationships the same status as traditional marriage is just absurd." But segregation was ruled unconstitutional over 100 years after the 14th amendment was enacted - was this an "absurd" result?
(By the way, I don't believe that the federal constitution requires gay marriage to be legalized, but I just wanted to point out what I saw as a flaw in your reasoning). -
You are absolutely right, sir. That is the entire point of states rights: to pass their own laws that do not violate the fed. constitution. Its a continual source of disturbance that both sides pretty much love the fed. intervening on sympathetic issues.
-
The Patriot was the biggest pile of utterly farcical crap. And the film suggesting it's Gibson with his flag waving shennanigans that essentially won the war is a load of old cock. As is the sanctimonious garbage of Donal Logue's character's acceptance of his coloured friend. It's as transparant as water.
-
it's anarchy vs. fascism. all of you liberals and conservatives just stop. it's the same 3 arguments every time something even remotely political comes up, and none of them are on-topic. i don't care if you love or hate bush or bush-haters. i don't care if you think gay marriage is morally or ethically wrong or morally or ethically imperative. i don't care what you think everyone else thinks about you and/or the people who agree or disagree with you. this pointless bickering is exactly what keeps humans trapped in the bounds of structure, and exactly why guy fawkes and his conspirators wanted to send parliament to fiery ruin. anyone remember guy fawkes? the rememberance of his conspiracy in britain brought guy fawkes day and V's mask want ispired by many similar to it in those annual demonstrations. the problem is that if you remove our system of bickering, you end up with totalitarianism - one official opinion for all. so we're either accomplishing almost nothing, or accomplishing exactly what one person or group says we should want to accomplish. democracy is as much of a pipe dream as socialism, and neither exist in their true senses. every nation in the world is a republic with different systems of how to manage the populace. the rest is just packaging and advertising, like any other product. we are sold our lives for protection and municipal services and we are thankful for it, no much we may be moved to complain about the particulars. hell, TBers would bitch about whether ol' yeller's ass itched because of a mite or a tick. people LOVE to complain and to be self-righteous in their complaining. the truth is, the only thing scarier than a government you hate is what life would be like without it. that's the fundamental fallacy of anarchy. most people are scared shitless of it, and they should be. that the question V for Vendetta asks, IMO, not do you agree that the government depicted is evil or realsitic, but would you have the conviction to act if you did? would you stand on your own and call others to you, or would you hide and hope it would all go away?
-
it's basically luke vs darth vader. good vs evil. the government is so evil and extreme in this movie that anyone would revolt against that. in real life we're hardly there yet, haha. comparing it to the bush administration is utterly ridiculous. liberals would sell their children to get rid of bush at this point
-
Err, according to my understanding of the word "precedent" (and the American Heritage Dictionary's), a legal precedent is "A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases". So, y'know, a *judicial* decision would kinda have to be amde by the *judiciary*, right? :) A law is not a precedent, because a law is not self-enforcing. The legislature may write the laws, but decisions on how that law is applies are left to the Judiciary, that is their purpose. The legislative creates law, the judiciary interprets law, and the executive enforces law. Complaining about how the judiciary interprets the law is one thing, but if that is the case the law must be clarified by the legislature. The legislature can't just say "hey, that's not what we meant!"
-
How about e-mail? If you want to e-mail me, just take my SN here, remove the period, and send it to AOL. ;)
-
Yes, ZB, you are correct. The judgement may in itself be used as a precedent. Much as with current Roe v Wade predents, you have a precedent built upon precedent. However, the initial precedent, the first time a precedent is set, is the law itself. If there is no prior legislative or judicial precedent, a judge can not simply make one up (in the US system, anyway). However, once the initial precedent has been recognized, via a law, judicial precedents can be ADDED. In effect, a series of rullings create a layer of concrete. That is why no one today could ever overturn Roe V. Wade--there are too many judicial precedents that are BASED on that decision. Therefore, you would have to go back decision by decision, until you reached Roe itself. I'm not saying that a judge cant make decisions. I'm saying a judge has to have prior decisions, or laws if none available to them, to make a decision.
-
... leaders and liberalism vs conservatism - im all for more movies that cast coservatives and conservative thinking in the bad light they so richly deserve - bush is the worst president america has ever had - but at least we dont have a queen - everything the conservative right feared clinton or gore or any democrat/liberal leader would do to america bush has already done and is doing more - but its for our own good (the finger) - it funny to me that any conservatives or conservative thinkers would bother posting on this site - what are they 'conseving' anyway - i can imagine this place would seem a bit 'lefty' or subversive to the 'righties' - heres an idea for a sci fi movie - imagine a future where human embryos are frozen and stockpiled for the sole purpose of impregnating women that would otherwise not be able to bear children - one day a researcher at one of these embryo warehouses accidentally discovers that cells from one of these embryos can help advance a possible cure for genetic disorders and paralysis - so he/she secretly removes some cells from the facility to experiment in secret - but he/she is found out and hunted down by religious zealots that think what this researcher is attempting is an abomination and a sin in the eyes of their god - while trying to evade capture and death at the hands of the pursuers the researcher uncovers a dark secret that the embryo warehouse has been hiding - it regularly incinerates hundreds of thousands of the embryos like so much medical waste - now finding and killing the fugitive is even more important - joel silver will produce michael bay will direct
-
fuck you! haha
-
This is the generation of, we don't give a fuck. too lazy to care, heck look at my grammar. I don't even care.
-
Of course a judge cna only rule on the law--but he can interpret the law as he understands it. For instance, as it stands, there is no law that states it is illegal to make it illegal to burn US Flags--however, judges historically consider that a form of speech, and speech is protected by the constitution. If the legislature believes this interpretation is incorrect, they can clarify the law by amending the constitution (however foolishly). Which they have tried to do several times. However, they can't gain the support, and so the power of a minor majority is effectively checked. Such is the case in any ruling of a judge--if the ruling contradicts what the legislature believes to be the purpose of the law, they can ammend the law to clarify. However, if they don't have the support, clearly not enough of the legislature is in agreement, so the ruling can stand. Judges are not meant to always agree with the legislature about the purpose of a law. In large part the purpose of the courts is the same as the purpose of the bill of rights: to protect the rights of individuals from the transient whims of a small majority.
-
Again, you are correct. The only point where you and I differ is in the method of constitutional interpretation. Can you arbitrarily interpret the law in any manner you choose? Or, do you have to have a precedent? Obviously, in our court of law, you are supposed to have a precedent. Sadly, however, since the Warren court and their rather dubious assertations to the reverse, you have had a slew of judges, including Kennedy and Seuter (bad sp, too lazy to look it up)who say that your interpretations can be based on anything that occurs in your life: foreign law, others points of view, and others religion (believe me, I was present when he stated as such here at the campus--I cant tell you how many other people started choking when he said that). He feels its all a context for your decision making process. He has said as much on numerous occasions. Now, if this were a philosophy proposition, I would agree with him. However, the court does not recognize philosophy; it recognizes ordered process (specifically, the US process of litigation and legislation).
-
The problem there is that the purpse of the judiciary is to sort out apparant conflicts between laws, and not all such conflicts are old hat. More than that, times do change. Should we view constitutional precedent in the same manner even after society's interpretation of the words themselves have changed? Should the right to arms extend to nuclear weapons? Is what's cruel and unusal today the same as what was cruel and unusual in 1800, even though we have a markedly more comfortable, less hardship-filled life? Some things do change over time, and sometimes precedent must be overturned to reflect changes in society.
-
You are a douche.
-
"Most Americans (and I imagine most people in Europe, as well) are too lazy and ignorant to stand up for themselves against the government. If the opposite were true, then our taxes would be at a manageable level!" ********* If you think that your life would be much better without taxes, you have a lot to learn about economics, market failures and collective action problems. The average American spends far more on healthcare than the average Canadian, for example (around 60% more), because the US system leads to market failure and woefully inefficient use of money. (Canadian healthcare isn't quite as good, but it is estimated that it would be of equivalent quality with only a 5-10% increase in funding.)
-
"I have yet to see an even remotely convincing argument against gay marriage." Fair enough. Here's my stab. Consider the words of our esteemed new AICN reviewer, Merrick: "such lawmaking...tends to start in simple, subtle, and apparently well-intended ways." Indeed it does. It all starts in 'subtle' ways. The judicial decision was doled from my home state's SJC Margaret Marshall, who is a lesbian herself. Odd, no? Bear in mind that hers was a tiebreaking decision in the bluest of states. Odd, yes? In fact, long before the hearing she made it known that it was a winnable case only here in MA simply because the language of law did not explicitly state that marriage was between one man and one woman, like the other 49 states. In case you didn't already know, MA Provincetown makes CA San Fransisco look like the Houston 620. Be all this as it may, what about "By the people, for the people"? Why have me and my fellow MA residents been denied a referendum that has already been voted on by 10+ other states long after the MA SJC decision on this issue was reached? Maybe we might get it in 2008, *IF* our legislature grants us the luxury. By the way, I am a language hound. Words mean something, at least to me. The left tends to hijack words regularly and often. They have already secured the word 'gay' so it is no surprise to me that they intend to win over the word 'marriage'. And which regimes from world history have been known to coerce groupthink by way of language? Only Bush's America, of course (eyeroll). Call it what you want, but call just about anything 'marriage' and then nothing will be 'marriage'. You liberals claim our liberties are eroding, yet you don't back Feingold when he says Dubya has broken the law, don't back Kerry to fillibuster Alito, don't back Murtha when he calls for troop deployment, don't back Rangle when he calls for reinstation of the draft. Make up your minds and rally yourselves. Maybe then you might accomplish the impossible and steer a libertarian to your side. Until then, you're simply a party of the same rules plus even more rules.
-
Hmmm, yeah, this whole 'I vote with my ass' argument really isn't winning many people over. Saying you won't see the movie because it'll bust your political bubble is childish. V (aka Robin Hood with Bombs) fights Hitler with Natalie Portman along for the ride. Yes, please.
-
Wouldn't the average Canadian need to be granted the luxury of opportunity to spend money on healthcare in order to be compared to the average American for the same? Face facts -- American healthcare is nothing worth comparing anything to, yet Canadian healthcare is nothing to compare American healthcare to.
-
Americans spend 14% of the GDP on healthcare. Canadians spend 9% of their GDP. Americans still have 44 million out of the loop. Canadians cover nearly everyone. Seems like less of a 'luxury' and more of 'burden' for Americans.
-
a terrorist does it for his own selfishness, for the glory of their religion. If someone does something for there relegion that's not selfish, thats actually selfless. You can't change the terms just because someone is crazy, although calling them selfless doesn't really sound right huh. And as a conservative I'm going to say I've never heard a convincing argument for trying to create and institutionalize gay marriage. And also don't think it's wrong to sometimes question the president, but I think people need to realize that in a times of war it has not been uncommon for the government to temporarly restrict certain freedoms IE: the patriot act. The patriot Act only really becomes atrocious if your engaging in unsavory behavious or if it becomes a mainstay in a time of peace.
-
Wow, my post kinda went everywhere. Sorry for being so incoherrent.
-
That didn't actually constitute an argument, you realize that? Saying it's "the will of the people" doesn't say WHY it should be the will of the people. As for why we should oppose it here in MA; the courts decided it was legal, and the legislature has decided not to change that. That same legislature was re-elected almost universally in November. Clearly the people aren't that fussed. As for hijacking the word marriage--that's like acuisng people of hijacking the word "citizen" when blacks were given the rightt to vote. If you're looking for people who hijack words, look no further than the "Patriot" act.
-
likewise, the neo-con movement is not a conservative movement AT ALL; its a neo-fascist movement. this is the danger. luckily, the worm has finally turned; the backlash is in full swing and gaining momentum. their time is running out. "remember, remember, the midterm elections in November." buh bye.
-
There are a select few that turn white (IE: Michael Jackson). Last I checked no one ever chose to be black just as no one chose to be white (except maybe MJ). As far as that goes race is completly different from sexuality. They are not the same. No one has ever proven that people are born gay, althogh many have tried. They've bnever found a gay gene. Scientifically speaking the entire point of sex, even, is to produce offspring. Gay couples can't produce their own offspring try as they might. Skin pigmentation actually has purpose. It helps in correlation to where people leave and their sun intake. Furthermore, it is possible to repress sexual urges if need be, where as it is impossible to repress coloryour born that way (Ok I know black babies first come out white for a few moments, but I think we'll let that slide). If you want to use the race argument though, I guess wigars (yes I know I'm stereotyping, forgive me) were born that way to and should also be considered African-American or whatever political term you choose. Heck, sign me up too then.
-
Two things: 1: Actually, scientists have found that gay men have brain activity different from that of straight men and similar to that of women when exposed to certain chemical compounds produced by other men. That indicates a definite biological basis for sexuality. 2: How does one choose to find a certain person or type of person attractive? Could you choose to find men attractive if you suddenly decided to? I know *I* couldn't. And, given the prejudice that gays suffer in our society, why WOULD anyone "choose" to be gay, given the option? How can you possibly think there's no natural tendency to eb straight or gay?
-
Dont you guys remember your basic Psychology 101 question? When its a question of Nature v. Nurture, what is the awnser you should ALWAYS give? BOTH!! Can't believe you guys are actually arguing about whether someone is predisposed to something or has a choice. The awnser, as always, is BOTH. I think some people need to go to college. I'm not including you, ZB--I know you were pointing out the flaw in Meremoth's argument.
-
2 consenting adults is fuckall business of the gov't. you can alter your behavior to suit others, but why? i suppose i could write with my left hand for the rest of my life if i were pressured to do so, but that doesn't make me left-handed.
-
To this day, I have no idea why states put a ban on anal and oral sex. I mean, i know the thinking behind it, but talk about impracticality. Like most everyone else in those days, my wife and I would have quietly rebelled against that little law ;)
-
I've heard the why WOULD anyone "choose" to be gay Argument I've heard before and it almost convinces me, almost. I've heard the brain pattern one before to, but most psychopaths and murderers also have different brain patterns, so even if that is the case brain pattern doesn't justify behaviour. Besides, a marriage is more of a religious term, whereas citizen is government term. You don't get citzenship in church. If you want my personal opinion, which you propably don't, I don't think the government should even adminster marriage at all. I think they should adminster civil unions to couples and let marriage be adminstered by people's churches or mosques or whatever.I know that would tick alot of people off, but I think society would be better off. Anyway, my initial point is that a person can not hide being a certain race. Sexuality is something that a person matures into, you don't mature into a race. Sexuality is something that can be supressed if need be. Being a certain race can't be.
-
Actually, I absolutley agree with you on marriage. It's a quasi-religious term that confuses the issue when applied to government. Churches should be able to turn away whoever they want, but the county clerk shouldn't. As for "sexuality cna be repressed if need be", two things: 1, the BEHAVIOR can be repressed, but the person's desires and nature can't be. 2, what possible justification can there be for trying to make someone repress their sexuality? You say if "need be", but who needs gay men to stop acting all gay and stuff?
-
I am in college, thank you very much. You can't fence straddle and then try to take shots at me too. It doesn't work that way. And besides this general philosphy of conservatism always being wrong, and that were a bunch of idiots that just need more education to gain a greater understanding of how the world works is really unnerving me. As well as the argument that liberals are all out to destroy America bugs me too, unless your referring to the ACLU (In which case, yes I think they would destroy America if given the chance).
Anyway, so how about that V for Vendetta movie. Anyone else see Natalie's gansta rap? -
Umm... insecure old white men. I think my point initial point has gotten construed somehow. My initial post on this subject was to distuinguish the difference between race and sexuality which some people are trying to blur. Whether or not a person is gay is their buisness. Yes I agree that society as whole should reevaluate the way we see gay people, but I do not agree that Race and sexuality can use the same arguments. The plight of the black man who could not hide his race and thus be openly discriminated against is fairly different from the Gay man or woman who, in the event that he/ she was born that way, can initially hide it. Whether they should or shouldn't is another topic entirely in which I'd rather not imbroil myself in.
-
I'm hardly straddling a fence, meremoth. You are wrong to say that genetics has nothing to do with sexuality. However, if it is in fact your position that genetics only plays a small part in sexuality, and I'd be inclined to believe that, then you need to be more clear in your post. Cause guess what? Up intil your last post, you seemed to be of the position that it was all nature and no nurture. That is when I piped in; i felt the need to point out that its both. Nnow, if you are in college, and I assume you are telling the truth, then you would have known you are making an argument that has not, nor ever will, be settled; its all just conjecture.
-
If your point is that it's easier to hide your sexuality than your race, so be it, that's hard to deny. However, I take issue with the idea, which you seemed to imply, that we should be somehow less sensetive to or cocnerned about sexuality than race.
-
Gad it's like the idiots that infested that Aquafag thread. Back and forth, back and forth starting off as enemies now sucking each others dicks. Gadzooks golick each others scrotums somewhere else!
-
That would be stupid.
-
I can understand why he, and a lot of others, are less sensitive towards sexuality. I've seen political rallies of all kinds, myself. But have yet to see anything the equal of a gay pride parade. I'll just leave it at that...
-
I don't care anymore. My inital post was to state that sexuality and race are different. I apologize that I didn't label it clearly. However moondoggy2u, in the event that the zionists, christians or Muslims are right then it will be settled when the end comes. And I could honestly care less about how that correlates to psychology or college for that matter. College can only go so far. Many great thinkers and philosophers never went to college.
-
Believe it or not, we continued the argument over email. And no, we still havent come to an agreement as yet. Oh, and sorry to disappoint you. I guess we should have just spent the entire time talking about a hack-job of a movie that is stirring up contraversy so as to disguise its thinnest and most cliched of plots. Happy now?
-
Wow, you're right. holy shit, I've just had a personal revelation. I've been wasting my time debating different views of constitutional law! From now on I'm going to dedicate myself to cursing out people on the internet instead! That'll be way better.
-
But getting a good education prevents you from waging arguments that have never been, nor ever be settled. I'll spell it out for you: you are arguing about psychology. When you are debating behavior versus genetics, just what do you think you are talking about? Now, in psychology, this basic question is awnsered for all students on the very first day they take psych 101. That is why I brought that up, meremoth. I appologize for being snooty, but it just seems like you are postulating about theories that are easily disproven. Normally I wouldnt care, but its been a late night and its an elementary discussion.
-
Article 40 of the Federalist papers. I dont think the convention was allowed to assist in framing the constitution when they did. What do you think?? lol
-
What the fudge packer is this about???!! "the movement to dilute the legal sanctity of homosexual relationships"
-
Just accept it now and it won't hurt so much later....
http://myweb.cableone.net/dfaltus/Govenor%20James%20Richard%20Perry.htm -
Thats barely gonna show up on the radar at the box office and will vanish by its second week of release.
-
I'm just glad I was able to interupt that inane chatter between you two. God man, we get it States laws shouldn't trump Federal and vice versa, cool ,now git, go on. Oh and this flick will tank. After the Subway and double Decker Bombings I just don't see anyone wanting to relive that terrorism and glorify any character who is basically a terrorist.
For the political types here do we all remember what was going on Before 9-11? Pretty much the same thing as now, Bickering in government warnings from the terrorists are being made fun of or ignored, pretty soon we'll all be watching the slew of Shark bite stories and wildfire stories and get caught, yet again with our pants around our ankles as the terrorists attack here or on our allies lands. -
I don't know why GLBT groups keep pushing for legalizing gay marriage so fervently. Why try to conform to an old-fashioned, silly idea that only insecure people really need in their lives? Fuck organized religion, screw conservatism, and forget about marriage. There are far bigger problems out there. Like a seemingly never-ending, rapidly escalating war and a President that doesn't "believe" in Ozone layer depletion...
-
The same rights as any married couple. It's gotta be real hard when someone you care for is sick, injured or whatever in a hospital and you haven't the right to visit unless a blood relative says you can, to not have any say in treatment insurance and a whole slew of other legal issues.
That alone has got to make you fell like less than human. I just wish gays would have focused this more on the legal issues instead of trying to force themselves into a religious ceremony. This just riled up the RReligious nuts and now we have a war brewing. Forget Iraq, this civil war is much more deadly. -
the only thing that scares right-wingers more than non whites is homosexuals - especially non white homosexuals - theyre the scariest - and - anyone that can look into a mirror without an overwhelming sense of guilt knows that nobody chooses their sexual preference - if youre a straight guy ask yourself - did you 'choose' to prefer women sexually - i didnt - i know i prefer women based on the porn i like to spank it to - thats the true test - you know what you are based on what you like to imagine or look at when you wack off - its that simple - me for example - i like chicks with big asses - it wasnt a conscious choice - they arouse me sexually - no straight guy decides one day "hey - i think ill give gay porn a try and see if i like it" - and the ones that do were never completely staright to begin with - remember - being gay is not a crime - and its definately not a choice - you either are or you are not - to all those conservative or neo-conservatives or republicans or whatever the popular label is now that think being gay is a choice - ask yourself this - do some priests 'choose' to find kids sexually arousing - and if you think they do - why would they make 'that' choice - im not defending child molesters - im just illustrating that when it comes to what gets you off no one has a choice - the fingerprints of your brain - we are all representative of what gets us off when no ones looking - buy it - youll sleep better - and im really looking forward to this movie
-
its amusing how so many posters at this site equate a movies quality with box office receipts/grosses - this place is a magnet for some very deep cinephiles
-
I have been waiting for this movie since they first announced it... From every clip ive seen, to every review Ive read, I dont have a doubt that it will be good. Finally a decent movie out this year. We all need to support this type of movie. The thinking, edgy, non formulatic, adult actioner.... I will be there on Friday....
-
Which is to say the ones with collapsing birthrates and thus headed for demographic oblivion (yes, Virginia, there may be a connection) - a possibility welcomed no doubt by the more misanthropic Malthusians among us, but it's not exactly a recipe for societal success. Yet the failure to grant normative status in society to more ambitious claims of the GLBT community is a far cry from Nazi or Communist concentration camp roundups (as likewise the imperfect and at times troubling Patriot Act is a far cry from Reinhard Heydrich or Laventri Beria), and I fear McTeague and the W's may have bitten off more than they can chew if they're really playing up this homosexual angle in what is already a challenging tale about the (very real) dangers of totalitarian dystopia, which can happen anywhere. Which leads to a larger point, which I can't help but try to make: If Britain is in danger of becoming a fascist theocracy - as opposed to Blair's growing secular "soft" bureaucratic despotism ("Is that a cigarette? Off to jail with you, laddie!") - it's far more likely to be of the sort that prays toward Mecca than reads the Gospel of John. Thanks in no small part not only to those aforementioned demographics, but also to the practical death of living Christianity in Old Blighty. But for all that - I still want to like this movie.
-
Everyone should know the mental ramifications molestation has on a child. It's one thig to argue for gay rights, but child molestors? Their not even close to the same camp. Come on man. This whole I can't help it it's in my genes is just a weak excuse. What if rasicim is gentic? Can I get a free pass at commiting hate crimes? No one is predestined to do anything, we all choose our actions, regardless of what is imprinted on your genes. If you can't fathom that you have a weak will and mind and I truly pity you.
-
THE GRAPHIC NOVEL WAS WRITTEN ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS NO INFLUENCE ON THE FILM...amen Jimmy Joe RedSky... and i'm an ass man too...giggity
-
they may choose to give into their urges, but trust me, just like you cant force me to be gay, and u cant force a gay person straight, and i cant force you to not like dressing up like a chicken and getting spanked with a plunger by someone in a zipper mask named BERTHA, you're not gonna make a child molester not have his urges. Their fetish is having power over someone weaker and innocent.
-
I have nothing witty to say. I hate him and his cronies and I can't wait for him to be out of office. Ever seen those pics of him next to chimpanzees, where both he and the monkey make the same faces? Well, I'd rather have the chimp in office than him. He's an elitist homophobic warmonger C student drunken driver. 'Nuff said.
-
hey - joe college - i wasnt defending their choice to go through with it - thats a sick crime - i was saying they cant help being attracted to kids - call it a preference or a disorder - its not their choice to find kids sexually arousing - it is their choice to actually molest kids - two different things --- racism is a whole different ball of wax - racism is taught - its not genetic - its a way of thinking - or not thinking - thats passed down from one generation to another - racists are made - products of their enviornment - be it the immediate family or the immediate community - small towns - how many times have you heard a racist defend their beliefs by proudly saying "i cant help it - i was raised that way" - thats the racists favorite cop out - "i know its wrong but i cant help it - it must be okay because i was raised that way - all the people i care about are that way" - bullshit - one could argue that some homosexuals are 'made' under similar circumstances - through forced sexual encounters - incest - priests - weird uncle - if these victims grow up to be gay then they are the ONLY homosexuals that DID NOT have a CHOICE in the matter - their sexual preference was shaped by trauma and molestation - hey college boy - youre pretty smart - explain racist homosexuals - where do they come from - i wonder if theres some sunburned neo nazi hillbilly youth minister in some small town somewhere driving across a bridge to get some tranny hooker action - sounds like a gus van sant movie - and i dont like our current president either - someone should fire his ass - shit even his dad thinks hes a fuck up - i didnt care for bush senior either but at least that guy was a real president - our current president is a joke - his position and exsistence in public life shames us all - clinton was reviled for getting a blowjob who really gave a shit - at least he was getting some work done - shit - he was so busy he had to get blown in the oval office - he couldnt even leave his desk - bush on the other hand is fucking this whole country in the ass and pimping it out to the highest bidder - fuck him and his doughy evangelical sound-bite spouting constituency - god bless america - so - what else has anyone heard about this V movie - padme is even hot with her head shaved - aint she
-
I think we're lucky to finally get a big studio give us some Sci Fi with balls and brains in it.
-
Jonathon Ross wants to sort out whether he's a tedious panel show tit or a film reviewer. Haven't seen V, but the objection to him wearing a mask means he's dismissing the very idea of a physical performance on film not needing a face. Who says?
-
HA HA HA HA! *deep breath* HAAHAHA HAHAHAH! That's hi-larious! Your rapier wit has won this day. *sigh* For the record, you don't have to be a democrat or a liberal to think this administration is the worst thing that's happened to this country in a long time. Unless you think 70% of the country are liberals. But good news for those who feel this movie is going to be too scary intellectually. Your God, Larry the Cable Guy has a new movie coming out too.
-
I'm all for debate about the political themes in this film but, at the end of the day, I would very much like to know about the film itself! What's the acting like? Is it well directed? Will I enjoy it? Is it worth my money? It's like looking at a review for King Kong and seeing an article about how gorillas are treated in zoos.
-
The funiest bit was when he spelled Waco wrong.
-
Seriously, I've read better primers on the separation of powers off of the backs of cereal boxes. I've read more original thought on foreign policy off of a Denny's placemat. When you get booted off of Free Republic for not making any sense, you've hit rock bottom, and don't bring it here.
-
I think there is a subtle difference that a lot of people in their comments might miss. I have no allegiance to this film whatsoever. I think that the idea of the British law is a good one, but they may be going about it the wrong way. I do not think that terrorism should be glorified. "Glorified" is not the problematic word here, it is terrorism. A lot of reviewers of this film are confusing terrorism with freedom fighting. Terrorism is killing and destruction to cause fear or to achieve some kind of selfish gain. Freedom fighting is violence as a means to a mre just cause. The American Revolution was not terrorism and I do not believe the war in Iraq is terrorism. The leftists here and in Hollywood can cry about Freedom of Speech all they want, but sooner or later you have to take a stand. You cannot keep walking that fence and say that glorifying terrorism on film is okay because people have a right to express their opinions. If we make that decision then what about a person's right to be racist? sexist? If I wrote a movie glorifying racism, I'd be hung. You can't have it both ways. You have to stand for something.
-
Explain why a movie that champions your political views is an intellectual film, yet one that has only entertainment in mind is for morons? It's thinking like this that has destroyed Hollywood filmmaking. Movies aren't entertainment anymore, but morality messages. That's why their profits are the lowest in its history. The majority of moviegoers go to escape and be entertained, not to be given a morality lesson.
-
will you review the film and not the current political climate, you monkey-brained buffoon? What a load of turgid nonsense! And I say that as a bit of a leftie.
-
They would have talked the scourge of the planet that is Islam-facists. Then again, if some body makes a film critical of Bush, they don't fear for their lives, they just get fatter.
Make a film critical in the least about Islam (or a cartoon for that matter) and you'll get stabbed, shot, and beaten. Just ask Theo Van G. or the prime minister of denmark -
I don't think you have anything to worry about. 99% of Hollywood films are still mindless trash. It just so happens that movies that actually had something to say were over-represented at the Oscars this year. Your mindless entertainment isn't threatened. Even though it's hard for you to believe that some people like movies that have something to say, I think you should be tolerant of the five or so out of a hundred that do.
-
"Then again, if some body makes a film critical of Bush, they don't fear for their lives, they just get fatter."
THIS MOVIE ISN'T ABOUT BUSH!
God you people are retards. This movie is Nazis versus freedom. It's totalitarianism versus freedom. If you are a Republican and you are offended by this movie, you are either paranoid, delusional, guilty, or all three. -
Yeah, despite substantiated facts, believeing that the good old boy President invaded Iraq on the grounds that he is an evil fascist only out to enrich his oil buddies makes one a traitor.
Absolutely Right.
America Prevails. -
Are you off your head? If you made a movie glorifying racism or sexism you may not get a lot of play, you may suffer a lot of protests, you may even get death threats, but there would be no LEGAL repercussions at all. That's the whole point of freedom of speech in this country. And no, I will not give that up just because you're scared of the goddamn terrorists. Change my values and my way of life because some people abuse it? That's flat out cowardice.
-
According to their reps, they are going to do a world wide release on christmas. They are citing delays in copyrighting. However, its interesting that now no one will be able to evaluate the machine until the time of purchase.
-
In the review, it mentions the parallels of the U.S. government's "pre-knowledge" of 9/11. Are we not talking about the review?
How about the "pre-knowledge" within Islamic Theocracies in the middle east?
If you want to speak about against Fascism, as this film claims to, you need to start with militant brand of Islam that is infecting the world.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/13/britain.hamza/index.html -
now that women work, there is no need for them to be legally protected. the formality of a marriage in this day and age is at best extraneous.
-
CHAMPAIGN, Illinois (AP) -- An editor who chose to publish caricatures of Prophet Mohammed in the University of Illinois' student-run newspaper last month has been fired, the paper's publisher announced Tuesday.
Acton H. Gorton was suspended, with pay, from The Daily Illini days after the Feb. 9 publication of the cartoons, which sparked Muslim protests around the world after they first appeared in a Danish newspape -
We don't need to make movies about Wahhabism. Those people blow us up and live in dictatorships and oligarchies. Almost everyone can agree that militant, xenophobic Islamic extremists are bad. But if the purpose of art is to make you see things in a way you haven't seen them before, then it is deadly important that people realize how our government--any government--can fall prey to extremism in our own ranks. That's one of the reasons Hitler and the Nazis are still such potent symbols, because they took over an enlightened, culturally advanced, industrialized civilization not far different from our own. That's why a message like the one in this movie is important.
-
So, in your opinion, "real fascism" from "nazis" is when someone is suspended with pay? As opposed to when someone is put on a no-fly list, effectively barring them from air travel without any need for evidence or judicial review, or when someone is wiretapped, again without judicial review, or when someone is indefinitely imprisoned without charges being pressed, and may, in fact, be whisked off to a secret international prison? Oooooookaaaaaaay. Look, whether you think these things are "justified" based on the "war on terror" or not... They are happening, and they are uncomfortable compromises of our valued freedoms. And mvoies like this encourage us to look at those things and take responsibility for the direction our country is headed in. How is that a bad thing?
-
How did I flame you? I just pointed out something was funny. Hell, I typoed "funiest" in the same sentence, that's pretty funny, given what I was saying. I only responded to that only because your mindless "demoncraps" insults convinced me you weren't capable of rationally debating the issue, so why bother? If I was wrong, please, feel free to explain to me how the ACLU is a "hate group". We can start there.
-
I think most people are painfully ignorant when it comes to how much hatred towards the west is preached and teached in the Middle East.
This isn't coming from a small cult huddle in secret in an abandoned warehouse. It is coming from and sanctioned by their own governments.
Better to blame the jews and the west for the fact your economy sucks, never mind the fact women can't hold jobs, and most education (or than Islamic studies) is shunned.
All the libs bitch about how their civil rights are gone, an how dissent is shouted down. If the people on this board were in Iran and making comments like this about their own government, they would be a brutal jail pretty damn quick -
Yo. Listen, I see what you're saying, and I agree that people need to be more aware of the institutionalized extremism in some of the governments in the Middle East. However, are you seriously saying "whatever happens here is okay, because it's worse in Iran?" We shouldn't be worried, or vigilant, about our freedoms until we're on the level of a religious dictatorship? Come on, man.
-
But it's okay to support them because Boss Hogg was in effect a fascist leader of a corrupt police state. Thus the destruction of government property in the form of pulling jail bars out of the wall with a pick-up truck and the poisoning of state officials with moonshine are justifiable acts of rebellion. **** I was hoping the stupid law would be passed so this film could be its first target. Glorifying terrorists is bad, mkay? http://politics.guardian.co.uk/northernirelandassembly/story/0,,1728597,00.html
-
...when you worry about institutionalized Islamic extremism, what nations come to mind? Because for me, one of the big ones, maybe even the biggest, is Saudi Arabia. And it certainly isn't the left whose been reluctant to ease our ties with that particular bag of snakes...
-
the nation that first comes to mind is Iran. But hey, I'm just paying attention to the nation that sponsors terrorism, is intent on building nuclear weapons, and who has expressed their desire for genocide. That's just me. You can think of a hodgepodge nation ruled by a dictator who is sympathetic to the US, and you would be right, but I find it to be less dangerous than Iran.
-
Institutionalized Islamic extremism biggest support now is Iran.
What is the state of your emotional maturity when you sponsors a "holocaust cartoon contest" and you have government run conference to look at "scientific evidence" to see if the holocaust really happened?
The president of Iran stated he was protected by the golden light of Allah when given speech at the U.N. Great, no he think he will be safe is starts lobbying nukes at the jews.
-
Thought not.
-
Iran is obvious, Saudi Arabia is worse. Let me explain: Saudi Arabia is home of the Wahhabist movement which is at the heart of anti-Western Muslim extremism. It is also a devastatingly wealthy nation, in terms of its upper class and ruling body, with a significant intellectual movement. Iran is, by comparison, a pack of thugs. They're dangerous, no doubt, but Saudi Arabia has us virtually at ransom. They own a huge amount of this nation, and control a large share of the oil that our economy relies on. At risk of oversimpifying, let me oversimplify: If Iran decided to declare war on us tomorrow, we could bomb that bejesus out of them. If Saudi Arabia decided to declare war on us tomorrow, we could bomb the bejesus out of them, then start starving as energy prices sky-rocket. Besides, if we're so worried about Iran (and we should be) the worst thing we could have done was invade Iraq. Far from being a staging ground, it now has our military bogged down. Iraq has virtually tied our hands in regard to taking military action against Iran. We're going to have to rely on Israel to be the "bad guy" (again) and take their own unilateral military action, or else try to move through the UN with Russia and China's vetoes hanging over the head of progress.
-
The ACLU hates heterosexual white males like, say, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, both of whom have accepted help from the ACLU in defense of their legal rights before? Come on, man, don't just make ranting claims about them, back yourself up. Give me an example of how the ACLU hates straight, white males, don't just call them names, give me facts.
-
"I mean, he's Our President and Ours is The Greatest Nation On The VH1 List Of 100 Greatest Nations" LOLF'inL, that's classic.
-
I completely agree with you about the misstep that is Iraq. Again, Bush had the right motives, but the wrong target ;).
Concerning Iran, again, it is rich, and does fund terrorism. The problem is that this is not the government's official stance, nor is it a facist state. I agree, if the Saudis were to declare war, energy costs would rise--temporarily. You forget that we have vast oil wells in both Texas and Alaska that have remained untapped. And while I agree there is an environmental reason for doing so, during a crisis, such as a supposed war with saudi arabia, those wells would be pumping day and night--the president has the power to open them up following a declaration of emergency. Anywho, Saudi is a problem, there is no doubt--their King cannot seem to fully control his country. However, he is sympathetic to the US, and his entire economy rests upon keeping us, the customers, happy. Now if he could just keep the hardliners in his country in line... -
But Saudi Arabia is never going to start a large scale war with the Jews. The love having the money flow in so they can live like rock start. A big conflict would screw that arrange up.The Mullahs in Iran have no concern for that, and think that if they launch nukes, they will be protected by Allah. Plus, having army assests right next to Iran is helpful to monitor them. And maybe if the foreign Muslims stop blowing up the Iraq people, and they stop fighting each other, the could have a government that the youth in Iran might want. That way they would have to hide in caves to listen to Eagles CDs.
-
in the hypothetical sense - how many of you (in what Moviemack lovingly refers to as "Generation Dumbass") are actually involved politically? I'm talking from the local community elections on up to the tippy-top. OK. Now, how many of you would actually dissolve the political bands and start a revolution as the DOI, Bill of Rights, & Constitution declare as your civil duty?
-
I'm sorry, but the ANWAR stuff in alaska is nto a "vast reserve"--the fact is, the oil lobby doesn't even work that hard to get it opened. They don't think there's much there, Bush pushes the issue primarily because he wants to prove to environmentalists that he can. And the stategic petroleum reserves only hold about enough oil to last us a month. If we had a real problem with the Saudis, we would be in serious trouble. But I think we can both agree that Iran and Saudi Arabia are both serious problems. The question is, the reason I brought this up to kamalia above, do we really need art to tell us Iran's a problem? Heck no. They're open about it. Our dependence on the Saudi's, however, is far more subtle than Iran's nuclear ambition. People don't need their eyes opened to obvious evil, they need their eyes opened to the problems of encroaching fascism in free countries. Which is my problem with comments like "All the libs bitch about how their civil rights are gone, an how dissent is shouted down. If the people on this board were in Iran and making comments like this about their own government, they would be a brutal jail pretty damn quick". And while the conversation has forked, slightly, that's still really my point. Are we supposed to stay silent when we have problems because we're still better off than Iran?
-
see, he DID back himself up. by giving you homework. why don't you go read all the literature he's too lazy to capsulate for you, asshole? if it's on a website, lord knows it's true. or at the very least, forcefully stated opinion. which some people find just as valid.
-
"they hate all white males. Unless you are a Black man, woman, Jew, lesbian, gay, transexual, they have no interest in helping you, and God forbid if you're a black conservative"
Actually, they stood beside Rush Limbaugh's right to medical records privacy during his drug abuse ordeal. How does it feel to be wrong?
The ACLU stands beside every human's personal freedoms, regardless of who you are are. Thank god they exist. -
So the ACLU hates white males and loves the Jews (funny, I didn't realize that Jews weren't white)? I guess that's why they defended the rights of white supremacists to march in a town populated by Jewish holocaust survivors. Yes, your arguments make perfect sense.
Now, go find another response on worldnet.daily, since all you can do is regurgitate other people's insipid comments. -
zb.brox I have found the place were left wing and right wings Americans can agree. We need to get away from oil, for environmental and security reasons.
And it can be done. Check out: http://www.setamericafree.org//
Then what will the mullahs in the middle east do for money, export sand to beach parties?
-
I'm talking about the book, not the review. What the review does or doesn't say is out of the scope of my argument. I'm merely debating the myth that this work is a bash on Bush. Truly, there are awful governments in the Middle East. But I fail to see what that has to do with what I am talking about, it's neither here nor there. I'm simply making the point that this work is not about Republicans versus Democrats, Conservative versus Liberal, as some weak minded people have argued.
-
Yes, the ACLU stands behind EVERY HUMAN BEING and their freedoms. Pantera won't ever know that though, because he only believes things that fit his own skewed view of the world.
-
"That didn't actually constitute an argument, you realize that?" Subjective misinterpretation. You simply chose not to see an arguement. Funny, considering all you replied with. The judiciary is responsible for interpreting the law, not making the law. And they made the law. As for those reponsible for making law, this is a lefty issue which is why the lefty MA legislature has been dragging their heels. Again, the people should be granted the luxury of a referendum. This is the way it is supposed to work. A runaway government is something that the movie V is addressing, isn't it? But, no, you're fine with the rules being broken as long as it supports your causes. There is equal danger in that. "That same legislature was re-elected almost universally in November." Perhaps MA voters don't hinge all their ballot decisions on only one issue. Ever consider that? "As for hijacking the word marriage--that's like acuisng people of hijacking the word "citizen" when blacks were given the rightt to vote." That is an apples and oranges scenario and you know it. By your example, women were also not considered citizens until several years later. You forget that I have no problem with homosexual unions as long as they are categorized as such and go about making it into law the way it is supposed to be done. As for "gay marriage" I'd been led to believe that all marrigaes to date have been gay, except possibly most of the betrothals.
-
One more thing, the ACLU isn't anti-American, it's the living embodiment of the American spirit. America is built upon personal freedom and liberty, which is what the ACLU champions. If you don't like the ACLU, then you don't like the founding principals of America.
-
I know it the book was written way before Bush, but it doesn't change the fact that the review and people on the board are now using the book as some type of "Prophetic Message" about the world we live in today.
-
I thought it was built on guns, bullets and bullying anyone who doesn't agree with them.
-
The book is a simple myth regarding authority versus liberty. If people view it as a metaphor for today's politics in America, that's a stretch. Bush isn't killing all the minorities in the country with iron bars and nerve gas. Within the scope of the novel, terrorism is the ONLY choice. Certainly, that doesn't apply to today's America. Anyone who reads this as a message for today's America needs to seperate fiction and reality. The book is simply a warning (and as Moore admits in the forward to the graphic novel reprint, a very naive warning) about authority going too far, like 1984 or Fahrenheit 451. But it's not just people on this board that are taking this movie too seriously, it's conservatives too. I've read many a ridiculous conservative review of this movie that insist this movie was written word for word as an attack on Bush.
-
No selectiv emisinterpretation about it, you didn't give a single reason why people should oppose gay marriage, all you said was that people DO oppose it. Not the same thing. As for referendums being "the way things are supposed to work", actually the way things are supposed to work is that we elect people to create law, and we elect or appoint a judiciary to interpret that law. The law clearly states equal rights must be applied to everyone; therefore if I, a male, have the right to marry a woman, then so should anyone else, male or female. If churches want to turn gay couples away, that's their business, but the government can't. The way ballot initiatives work in MA, citizens must gather signatures. If there's a hold up in that front, it's because those good, honest Christian groups gathering signatures are now being investigated for fraud because some of them told people they were gathering signatures to ban Greyhound racing. The MA judiciary did not CREATE any law, they decided that the law guaranteeing equality was apramount in this situation. That is an interpretation, not creation.
-
America was built on the guns and bullets lobbed at the bully it no longer agreed with. I mean as long as we're being flip, let's get the initial chronology right.
-
The right and left may agree, but that doesn't stop the right from continually supporting our current president, who, despite the occasional promise to the contrary, has done nothing to back conservation, the absolute minimum to encourage development of new technologies, and worse than nothing to combat global warming. I'm glad many people on both sides are beginning to recognize these problems, but one side is still having trouble changing track, y'know?
-
Republicans generally have one problem and one problem alone with bush: concerning domestic issues, he's no different than Clinton. That's it. The only difference between bush and Clinton, domestically, is taxes. Aside from that, they both spend like mad for medicare, education, etc. Concerning the issues of environmentalism, I agree with you concerning conservation. However, technologies are not developed simply because a government says it should. Technologies develop as a result of financial need/desire. If it pays, people will seek it, if it doesnt, people won't. Its a fact of invention. Concerning Global warming, I'm sorry, but believe it or not, there are just as many climatologists opposed to global warming. And in my opinion, you dont set public policy simply because of the fear of a hotly contested, and highly debatable, theory. Obviously you feel differently, but surely you can understand the motive?
-
Come on, dude, that is not the only problem Republicans have with Bush. The Iraq war has never been less popular, and people are beginning to seriously question his ability to combat terrorism. (Recent polling puts Republicans at the lowest margin yet, about 3%, over Dems on the issue). The fact is, Bush is NOT exactly the same as Clinton domestically. He has irresponsibly cut taxes while increasing spending. I'm sorry, but pick one, to do both is far worse than to do either. Clinton worked with Republicans to bring fiscal discipline to the government, which Bush has trashed. And then there's his failed attempts to reform social security: attempts he flatly admitted would do *nothing* to resolve funds shortages, and would have involved two *trillion* in borrowing on top of it. He's *far* more inept than Clinton ever was, domestically. More than that, the government has *plenty* of power to spur new technology. There are always people looking for money to advance energy technology, and so far the government refuses to seriously aid them, while we give tax breaks to small businesses the buy SUVs. The government is a huge source of potential income for energy suppliers--income that currently goes largley to traditional energy sources, and could be redirected to new energy without costing tax-payers a dollar. As for global warming, I don't know how this persistent myth that there are "just as many scientists who don't believe in it" occurred, but that simply isn't true. Who, outside of the Cato institute and other rightwing think tanks, seriously debates the issue? Even a panel of scientists Bush recruited to study the issue for him told him what he didn't want to hear. The National Academy of Sciences is well aware of the problem, but Bush isn't listening to his own government's reports. Climate change is happening, that is certain. It seems to coincide with the industrial revolution, that is also certain. Greenhouse gasses are being released at horrendous rates, also certain. The fact that politically motivated think-tank scientists debate the correlation between those three startling facts does not mean we should sit back on our laurels until the ice shelves slide off of Antarctica. (Which, by the way, they've already begun to do...)
-
I'm going to use them to sue all of you someday. Just Kidding, have a good one.
-
You have a small mind, believing everything you are handfed by Fox news and the like. I love how you point out "heterosexuals" like homosexual is a bad word. And then you wonder why people hate your kind... You just backed up everything I sad. By the way, Hannity has been caught in more lies than anyone this side of Clinton and your boy Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict, even if he says drug abusers should be killed. What a fucking hypocrite. You are lame. Can't you see what an idiot you are for backing up Bush? Even the conservatives are turning on him. (See last week's vote on the ports.) I find it humorous that you talk about people being liars but then you don't point out that Bush lied and snuggled up to the religious right and then, after the election, was caught on tape mocking them. Funny how no one ever points that out. Why? I guess it's not convenient. By the way, Pantera sucks. They sucked fifteen years ago and they suck now. Boy, you've made it your life's work to get behind (no pun intended homophobe) losers, haven't you? There's a reason why we're hated all around the world, boy-o, and let me tell you, it's not because of our freedoms like your boy keeps saying. It's because we bomb the shit out of everyone. It's because we act offended when other countries dont live up to the United Nations rules, but then we break them ourselves and say fuck the United Nations. It's because despite our being extremely wealthy, fat, and spoiled, we have so many lazy uneducated morons like you who take every opportunity they can to prove it by spouting jingoistic bullshit. Screw you, your arrogant president, Pat Roberts, Gunner Cheney, Condoleeza, the entire staff of Fox News, and Toby Motherfucking Keith. I'm out.
-
well, here we go again;)
I am not saying that scientists dont think the temperature is rising. However, i wasnt specific, so let me extrapolate. Many scientists question the effect by man. The earth's temperatures have spiked higher than what is currently the temperature during the past 5000 years. The question is, our we effectign the temperature, or is this natural? If we are affecting the temperature, to what degree? Now, please dont attempt to answer that question as it has not been answered with anything approaching consensus. Again, forgive me, and quite a few others, who are cautiously sceptical concerning "end of the world" theories. Through my forty-four year trek through life, I've heard many scientific conclusions. And guess what? Many at one time or another are either debunked, reinforced, or modified. That may sound like a backwoods answer, but experience has tought me to do so, I'm afraid. -
Scientists may question the effect by man as a cause of current climate change--after all, global temperature is not 100% consistent--but I have never heard *any* scientist claim greenhouse gases we produce don't actually affect temperature. Let me put it this way, let's say the earth *is* just going through a natural period of change--do we want to increase that change with our actions? I'm not saying global warming is the end of the world, but it is a very serious issue, as anyone who lives in the southwest can tell you given the drought and subsequent forst fires that have become endemic in the area.
-
With nerve gas? If you listen to Louis "the minister of hate" Farhacook and Air America, you would be leave this to be true.
Any how, maybe its time we start looking at what we have in common and can agree on.
That is why i have that whole "Hyphenate-American" movement. Just be a friggin American, and leave your ethnic background off your profile.
-
Somewhat annecdotal considering this occurred in the thirties. The temperature isnt 100% consistant? Consistant with what, ZB? The climate models? I think you need to go back and look at the historical temperature records for the past 5000 years. It fluctuates by as much as much as 2 degrees every few hundred degrees. And that is only a blink of an eye concerning the planet: need I remind you we've had a few ice ages, and significant "heat waves" (to say the least)during the past few hundred thousand years? When calculated against "natural cfc's," cfc's released by man constitutes 3%. Logically, its reasonable to assume the earth's temperature has risen a grand total of .03 degrees (F). In other words, the real reason our temperature has risen 1 degree is because of nature. Now, lets talk about our cl imate models: they are innacurate. There is no debate to their innacuracy: they dont predict volcanic eruption, cloud coverage, etc. So any prediction has to be thrown out the window. Finally, you wish to say that because the consensus of scientists have reached a theory, t his theory is automatically valid. No sir--that is faulty logic. Just 20 years ago, in the field of paleontology, scientists KNEW that dinosaurs were cold blodded. An unrelated field, to be sure, but it proves my point about consensus--majority does not mean fact, just a particular school of thought.
-
I think the general movie-going public will be turned of by how...well...gay the hero of the film looks. Not gay as in homosexual, gay as in Adam West's Batman. I've never read the comics and therefore have no attachement to the character. I think it may require someone to be detached from the character to recognize that a guy running around dressed like a Pilgrim wearing a ceramic mime mask with pretty flowing hair looks like just about the gayest thing you can put on film. Most people simply don't like watching 'dandies' on film. Notice the stunning lack of victorian wigs, thin moustaches and big victorian hats with buckles on them in modern culture. Mustketeer movies alway in theatres for a reason, the same reason why no one has tried to make a Scarlet Pimpernell summer blockbuster. And to the casual observer, that's what this movie looks like. A muskateer saving Britain from a hamfisted, subtle as a sledgehammer dystopia.
-
You misunderstand me when I say temperature isn't consistent--I was agreeing with your point that global temperature shifts regardless of our action. However, you are wrong on severla other points. 1: the drought in the southwest did not "happen in the 30s"--Arizona is currently going through its driest period on record, and this is not expected to change any time soon. We are talking about several years of consecutive low rainfall. Does this have anything to do with our actions? Well, that brings me to point 2: Human CFCs comprise 3% of natural CFCs? Okay. That does NOT mean that we are only responsible for 3% of the change. We are talking about CHANGE, not total. In the last hundred-fifty years or so, we've added 3% of the CFCs to nature--what percent has nature added in that time? 10%? 5%? 0%? How much of that other 97% predates the changes we're seeing? And, finally, 3: the ecto-or-endothermy of the dinosaurs is not a matter which affects public policy. If we limit climate change, in the processs cutting our dependence on fossil fuels and making our air cleaner, and it turns out to have beena wasted effort, we have still accomplished significant goals. It may cost money, but it will cost far less than the price of betting and losing--continuing our care-free existence until the flood water rise on the East Coast. Either way, we're gambling with our future. We can gamble a few dollars with scientific consensus, or we can gamble far more than that with our optimism.
-
that is 3% total for the entire existence of industry. You are displaying some faulty math, there. See, you cant add three percent every year for 150 years and NOT add 97%. And again, you are illustrating my very point. You are advocating that the "seriousness of the charge" (in this case the world is gonna fry) outweighs the need for caution while gathering evidence. By the way, this was my similar complaint with you concerning judiciary precedent (that the seriousness of the judge's interpretation should outweigh legislative jurisdiction). Again, there is a reason you dont simply act out on whatever notion possesses you, or a society. I understand your passions concerning what you deem vitally important. But again, as with all things, a society must adher to caution and reason, otherwise you put yourself at risk to be ruled by emotion and fear mongering.
-
Gadzooks boys take your pecker measuring contest elsewhere. This is about Movies not Geopolitical and phony climate theories.
-
youre a whiny moron - you think the aclu is a hate group - based on your reasoning so is the gop and the conservative christian right - based on your reasoning those 2 groups hate and do nothing for non christian conservatives and low to middle income families of all ethnicities - you dumbshit heavy metal pseudo intellectual white male - you think the aclu does nothing for white males - first - boo hoo -second - youre wrong - if you get shafted by the fast food franchise or walmart that you work for the aclu is one of the first places you should got to - provided you have a case and you werent let go for sexually harrassing your co workers - for arguements sake lets say youre right - historically in this country when did white males ever need a 'leg up' program - theyve been running shit forever - theyre the reason the aclu was created
-
You were complaining earlier about How Bush made public policy on the advent of fear. And you were right, in my opinion. So really, you of all people should understand the need for clear-cut evidence.
-
I've always said, that the biggest threat to this country is ourselves. Our big fat assed, dumbed down, materialistic selves. And unfort. I'm looking in the mirror too.
-
Global warming has been alarming scientists since the 70s. Exactly when do we say "good enough"? The vast majority of scientists seem to think that point came in the 90s, according to reports by the National Academy fo Sciences and NASA....
-
again, you make it sound like global warming is something new. Its not. And again, global warming is not in doubt: man's effect on the climate is, however. Oh, and it hasnt been alarming scientists since the seventies. Up until the early eighties, it was global cooling. Most scientists were convinced back then, too. Heck, in the 90's, everyone was predicting the need for sunscreen and straw hats by this time. And everyone KNEW that it was going to happen. And no, just because people are alarmed, doesnt mean its evidence. Again, I cite you evidence as to why there is no reliable conclusion as to man's effect. You respond by saying that in effect, that doesnt matter, why take the chance? Let me ask you this? If I accuse you of being a mass murderer without evidence, do I not have the right to incarcerate you until I find evidence? After all, why take the chance?
-
Actually, I haven't provided any evidence because you told me not to bother. If you've chnaged your mind, I'll compile some. In any case, climate change is not "innocent until proven guilty". If you think there is a good chance someone could trip and fall on your stairs, you don't wait for it to happen, you put up a handrail. We're not talking about a pre-emptive strike against a nation, we're talking about a pre-emptive strike against a certain type of chemical. And, as I said, cutting back on these emissions accomplishes other vital policy goals simultaenously. Sepping back a moment, my math on the 97/3 ratio isn't faulty at all. A hundred fifty years ago, global temperature was about a degree less than today, and CFC levels were X. Today, there has been that one degree increase and there is a CFC level of Y. We know we are responsible for 3% of Y. The question is what is Y/X. Is it a difference of 3%? If so, then we are responsible for all of it. Is it a difference of 10%? If so, then we are responsible for about a third of it. Unless, hwoever, global CFCs have *doubled* in the past 150 years, however, there is no way we are onyl responsible for 3% of it, and so no way you can claim we are responsible for only 3% of that 1 degree change (the .03 of a degree you mentioned). See what I'm sayin?
-
...at this. From the government. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3
-
first puppet president. He won't go to see V, hell he didn't even see Brokeback. Come to think of it, what was the last movie Bush saw?
-
And he didn't understand any of it.
-
I'm sorry, but if you choose to deny that we are only responsible for 3% of greenhouse gas emissions, then you will have to take that up with IPCC. Before you do, however, you should know that the IPCC is the panel that supplied the consensus that global warming existed in the first place. So good luck in disproving your own argument. And again, your math is EXTREMELY faulty. Your x/y ratio is ludicrous because it interprets x as a baseline. Furthermore, you are than attempting, and i dont know how you can justify it mathematically, that 3% means we are responsible for 100%. Again, if you look at data BEFORE industrialization, green house gas emissions have fluctuated: do to animal population, volcanic activity, etc. And it rises and falls. No one knows exactly why--there are theories, but none proven. The reason why i told you not to cite evidence is because, ZB, there is no CONSENSUS concerning the effect of man. NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN. Check your research. Oh, i'm sure you can supply theories--but thats all they are--totally contested, unproven theories. The IPCC has already stated this. I'm sorry, but it is starting to seem as though you are ducking the necessity to find evidence in order to act out on your suspicions.
-
I Dunno: I will never begrudge your taste in films. I believe there is a place for everything, but did you not put down Larry the Cable Guy as entertainment for morons? Is that not the same thing you accused me of? I, personally, would not go near Larry the Cable Guy; however there are a lot of movies that I find entertaining that people like you and critics hate. I see them trashed for being escapist instead of a morality play. Why can't they be judged for what they are instead of what they are not or what the critics want them to be? Yes, the Oscars were overstocked this year, but that is a trend that started a few years ago. Hollywood seems to be trying to change the types of films they want to make and making trash entertainment for those who like escapist entertainment.
ZB. Brox: I am not afraid of terrorists. All I am saying is that you have to take a stand. You can't run a country where every right is respected. If that were true there would be anarchy and no laws. I choose to take a stand against terrorism not because I want to stifle people's rights, but because I believe in it. You allow terrorism and how long beofre it is murder int he streets, rape, etc.? -
Okay, let me try and explain this again, clearly: If we are responsible for 3% of the total CFCs in the atmosphere, then that does not mean we are only responsible for 3% of the CHANGE because there was some pre-existing level of CFCs before the change. If you are correlating CFC levels directly to temperature (which isn't an accurate comparison anyway), as you *must* if you are to make the ludicrous assertion that we are responsible for only a .03 change in the temperature, then it is the change in CFC levels that will correspond to the change in temperature, NOT total CFC levels. Again: If temeprature has changed over the last 150 years due to CFCs, then it is the CHANGE in CFCs that is responsible, not total CFCs. As for their being no consensus--I've done my research. Nasa, the NAS, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, and the world meteorilogical organization, among many others, claim there *is* consensus. You've yet to give me the name of a prominent isntitution that backs up your claim there isn't.
-
No one is advocating allowing TERRORISM, the question is what you can SAY about terrorism. According to legal precedent, you can say anything you want which does not create a clear and present danger. Which is to say, you cannot *incite* terrorism, but you can certainly praise it. Is that a good thing to do? Of course not. But "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If we don't allow people to 'glorify" terrorism, we set a precedent for laws banning praise for anything we presently find unpopular.
-
There's only 1 letter difference betweem patriot and traitor.
-
hmm, so you are going to go against the consensus that CFC's are responsible for global warming--interesting. And again, the only change in CFC's, ZB, is that they have been INCREASED by 3%. And again, Im not sure you are understanding: THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ACCORDING TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (which is composed of multiple nations' findings--including the US), take it up with them. Im not going to argue about it with you further. You cite that global warming is a fact because scientists have reached a consensus. I cite to you their findings from that concensus (which was reached at the IPCC hearings) and you wish to ignore it support your argument. I cite you their reasoning for global warming, and you deny it. I cite to you the fact that global prediction is faulty, and you say it doesnt matter. It looks like you arent for scientific research as much as you are for politicizing science. Follow the scientific process, ZB--its there for a reason.
-
are you one of these guys that seriously thinks the planet is warming itself at an alarming rate naturally and on its own - thats almost like blaming a rape victim for getting raped - i guess if the earth wasnt so gosh dern sexy we as a species wouldnt be violently fucking it against its will - i live in the midwest - im 40 - and remeber when winter felt like winter and summer didnt always feel like we were on the surface of venus - we had a record warm winter here and the result has been a record number of tornadoes - and each year gets worse - why is it each hurricane season gets more and more devastating - is it the planets fault - the planet is settling like an old house - we have nothing to do with it - bullshit - bush in his infinite wisdom still thinks the jury is still out on whether global warming is even real - in the meantime hes given all major us industries the power to regulate themselves - meaning their emission levels are as high and as dangerous as they were in the 70s - but dont worry - the planet can take care of its self - every good evangelical christian knows that science is the tool of the devil - and as long as we have a great leader like bush looking out for us we have nothing to worry about - (fart noise)
-
--hmm, so you are going to go against the consensus that CFC's are responsible for global warming--interesting-- No, I'm saying they are not the ONLY things that cause climate change. that is well known. --And again, the only change in CFC's, ZB, is that they have been INCREASED by 3%-- My point exactly. If CFCs have increased only 3%, how can you possibly say that only 3% of climate change is affected by that 3%? Are you trying to say that if the level of CFCs today was the same as the level of CFCs 150 years ago, it would be the same temperature? Because that is nonsensical.--And that's funny, because hte IPCC is one of the sources I just listed. And accoridng to them: "The Earht's climate system has demonstably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, WITH SOME OF THESE CHANGES ATTRIBUTABLE TO HUMAN ACTIVITES." (Emphasis mine). You can read the full rpeort at http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html--I'm not denying science at all, I was denying your accusation that there was "no consensus", when the very organization you cite claims there is.
-
... was 'the passion' - before that 'charlies angels: full throttle'
-
1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?
-
DId you not read my earlier posts? I told you temp. fluctuated, as much as 2 degrees from natural CFC's. Considering that those CFC's make up the bulk of total cfc's in today's atomosphere, then what does that tell you? The bulk of the temperature change has occurred because of nature. Its not a difficult concept to understand, ZB. And again, the concensus has not been reached as to the extent of man's effect on nature. Yes, we know man effects it: but we dont know how much. I can only reprint what I'm saying so many times, ZB.
-
You have asked questions that demand observation of fact rather than talking points. This could potentially lead a person to admit they are incorrect about something, which could possibly tear open the fabric of space that would subequently consume the universe and end reality as we know it. You will now be led away to a cold, dark cell...
-
does global warming have to do with a guy dressed like a pilgrim throwing stilettos at people, anyway?
-
But you have no evidence on HOW MUCH CHANGE in natural CFCs translates to HOW MUCH CHANGE in temperature. Those 2 degree changes you mention--is that from CFCS changing 10%? 50%? 200%? Without that information you have *no* basis for your claim that man's affect on natural CFCs only affect the temperature .03 degrees. And if you admit than man has an effect and the only question is "how much of an effect", then your earlier comparison to calling me a murderer bears no comparison. It doesn't matter if I murder one person or a hundred, you'll still lock me up. And it doesn't matter whether we're going to add a tenth of a degree to global temperature or five degrees, either way we need to limit it. Already the report I linked you to be the organization you so trumpet has indicated a *consensus* among scientists that global warming has contirbuted to the increase el nino actiivity we've seen in recent years and potentially to other severe weather effects. If we are contributing to that in a significant way, as the report indicates, we should take care of that issue.
-
its most definately awful. Not that I'm incapable of judging for myself or anything-but ross has always been spot on for me with his reviews.....
-
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/mp3/060313-v_for_vendetta-early.mp3
-
Title pretty much says it all. His BBC show specials are fun at least, if not all a little too filled with praise all over the place.
-
Only Ghengis Khan was further to the right than this madman.
-
No kidding. It's called constructive discourse. That constitues an argument. And I welcome to the conversation you were so readily willing to diffuse! Let's get busy... "all you said was that people DO oppose it. Not the same thing" Every time the referendum was posed to a constituency, it was decided against homosexual unions (or, 'gay marriage' if you opt to rape language). "actually the way things are supposed to work is that we elect people to create law, and we elect or appoint a judiciary to interpret that law" Thanks for retyping what I already wrote! "he way ballot initiatives work in MA" Thank you for underscoring my point. A weakness in MA was exploited by the left via wordsmithing. V is intended to expose the 'horrors' of unchecked governmemnt. Do those 'horrors' extend to both parties or only those that one party has deemed unsatisfactory? Only you and Howard the Doc know the answer.
-
Mar 15, 2006 8:43:59 PM CST
ab.rox, "you didn't give a single reason why people sho
by immortal_fish
On my planet, the referendum has failed in every state it was presented.
-
Dude, come on, at least make an effort here. Again, I said I had yet to hear a good reason for people to oppose gay marriage--and all you say over and over is that people do oppose it. I *know* people oppose it. Duh. It's hard to miss. But I'm looking for a rational WHY. If you can't provide one, say so. As for the MA thing being "unchecked government"--the people will get their ballot initiative as soon as it's worked out if the few people who *wanted* one lied to get it. If you have a problem with the way the systme works--i.e. electing people to lead rather than leaving every issue to popular vote--feel free to get on that, but it's not the way our country works.
-
Dude, what do you not understand? "On my planet, the referendum has failed in every state it was presented." That is NOT a reason WHY anyone should oppose it. Just because people DO does not mean they have a good reason. I want a REASON, not a RESULT, I KNOW the result!
-
Of course. Just like RvW didn't "create" any law. All that recent grandstanding you see about partial birth abortion is nonsense. Make-believe! It simply does not exist. Bottome line -- The Supreme Court, federal or state, makes *NO* law. Why? Because AICN user zb.brox wills it so. And we are all enlightened for it. BEHOLD!!
-
And because you say so they did make law, hmm? Despite your lack of reasoning, facts, or sources? The fact is, the SJC *can't* make law. It's not possible. Anything they say is an interpretation, nothing more. They can't codify it, they can only set precedent. If the legislature doens't like it, they can change their law to prevent the interpretation. As for "enlightening" everyone, as far as I can tell it's only you who are in the dark.
-
The person in the minority always asks this question. Doesn't matter whether or not they are right. Doesn't matter whether or not the Supreme Court is right for the same reason. Why pose a question in the first place, if you didn't intend to challenge the norm? -- Amazing how I am protecting the interests of V from you, when all is said and done.
-
On my planet, homosexual couples are being wed in Massachussetts.
-
Immortal Fish, I said I had never heard a rational argument against gay marriage. You claimed you could provide one. If you don't have one, say so, deal with it, move on. I didn't ask for a run down of the current polling, I know it. I'm saying what is the REASON, the DEBATE. And yes, homosexual couples are being wed in MA, because the equality laws were interpreted as forcing that. That isn't writing a law, the laws for sexual equality exist already.
-
So when the SJC breaks the law, the legislature can change the law to bring precedent back into line with the law. Do you realize that which you have typed?
-
So you do not, in fact, have the argument you promised. And now you're saying the SJC has broken the law by interpreting it. Tell me, what law did they break? Is there jail time involved?
-
Because it hasn't passed in any other state a referendum was offered. You back activist justices when they back 'justice' you act upon. Again, WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS V MOVIE PONTIFICATE AGAINST?! Grant MA voters the luxury of referendum on homosexual unions.
-
So, in fact, you have no argument on the issue, you just want to pontificate on the injustice of justices interpreting the law in a way you don't like and the legislature the people elected refusing to change it for you. As I said, the referendum will happen IF "the people" managed to get enough legitimate votes amongst the fraudulent ones. Until then, maybe you should sit back and reflect on how you can be so sure you're right when you don't even have an argument to present.
-
Know that I am as guilty as your favored Wachowski brother 'and sister'. As if your goal here was nothing other than to pontificate on anything else in the first place. Once again, this movie explores the extent of government juristiction. By the way, my ponsification is real. And the things I pontificate align with the practices of law. At least on my planet, which doesn't appear to be the same place you or the MA SJC hail from. Which is my whole problem from the start. Welcome to the conversation! Lookit -- people elect legislature, legislature makes law, judiciary interprets it. Not so here. Judiciary made law, Legislature backs it up, people don't get a voice. And it is odd how more than several other states who had a referendum voted down the decision. Is this not also a part of that which the movie V aims to enter into the global debate? Why is this simple logic so far beyond your comprehension?
-
How is it "making law" to state that if A: we have a law guaranteeing equality and B: we have a law allowing people to marry that C: all people should be able to marry equally? In what way was law MADE there? The answer is it WASN'T, and so the judiciary did nothing that constitutes abuse of government power. And why is it so far beyond your capacity to admit that you have no REASON? I asked for one, you told me you had one, let's hear it, or you're full of hot air.
-
Is backed by the voices of 14 other states.
-
You're pissing on someone that supports you. Gay men and women love each other. That should be encouraged on the federal level. However, the way it has been approached is ILLEGAL. If you back it, then you are logically party to that which this V movie speaks against. Have a nice day.
-
You still have not given *any* reason it is illegal. 14 other states passed different laws than MA, and had different people interpreting those laws. The justices interpreted existing law, if you don't agree with their interpretation, tell me WHY. But you seem clinically unable to come up with an argument, a simple logical statement. "If A and B, then C". What about the SJC's ruling was not based on existing law? You have yet to tell me. I'm not pissing on you, but you're sitting here smarmily accusing me of coming from a different planet when *you're* the one who can't come up with a simple legal reference from his home state to back up his opinion.
-
I commend you for trying to argue with this guy. I spent all day yesterday and most of this afternoon doing so, as well. By now you have undoubtedly noticed that ZB has a talent for retyping nearly everything you state, rewording it, and then acting as though this is his defence against your argument. Furthermore, no matter how logical you write your argument, no matter how basic and fundamental your argument is, he will overlook the reasoning, and simply cherry pick the facts that fit his notion. Believe me, I tried this with yesterday's topic of judicial review, and today with greenhouse gas. The fact is, he doesnt believe in the idea of precedental interpretation. That alone tells you his entire position. He has said to me in email that waiting for the legislature to pass a law takes too long, therefore a judge should be free to interpret the law as he sees fit. That is his entire position. Trust me, immortal, just leave him be. You know youre right. I know youre right.
-
This thread's IQ just dropped. Just like cops, everyone hates the aclu until they need them.
-
"The fact is, he doesnt believe in the idea of precedental interpretation. That alone tells you his entire position. He has said to me in email that waiting for the legislature to pass a law takes too long, therefore a judge should be free to interpret the law as he sees fit." Wow, from someone who claims I "reword everything you state" that's a, shall I say *liberal* interpretation of what I told you. Go find that e-mail and let me know what exactly made you think I said anything like that.
-
Please understand, it is nothing personal. Its just I think everyone, you, me, immortal, and perhaps a few others, have been arguing back and forth for two days over something that is relatively simple: passion v. caution. Judicial prudence v. judicial activism. caution v. radicalism. due process v. arbitration. Its obviously no one is going anywhere in these arguments, and I think maybe we all just need to shake hands and call it a day or so. Congratulations everybody for being relatively civil. I think you both have done shown everybody else how to debate. Other than a few heated comments, nobody has called anybody names or anything. So lets just quit while we're ahead.
-
"However, precedent isn't always correct. It took the courts 40 years after Scopes to rule that bans on teaching Evolution violated the establishment clause." Now, as I said earlier, I was paraphrasing. Did I or did i not interpret your phrase exactly?
-
you see, ZB, you do not in fact subscribe to the theory of judicial precedent. At best, you feel its a rule of thumb. Dont try to call me a liar, ZB, when I have your words in front of my face on your email.
-
You did not. My point was that Scopes was decided one way (by a judge and jury), and stood as precedent for 40 years. However, the same laws that applied there were called unconstitutional later. Which says nothing about "legislation not moving fast enough", but simply says that precedent can be overturned and sometimes should be.
-
-am I to understand that you feel once an issue is ruled upon a certain way, that precedent is binding in anything more than a traditional sense? Because I know of no law that states a judge must follow precedent. They generlaly do, because precedent gives laws their strength, but if that's the case then evolution can still be illegalized and schools can still be segregated, because both of those rulings were ruled the wrong way before being ruled the right way.
-
I didn't call you a liar, and I amw ella ware you have the e-mail--I told you to go get it for pete's sake. I assumed you misread or mis-rememebred something, whcih seems to be the case, as you have produced no words to back up your claim I said "that waiting for the legislature to pass a law takes too long". I didn't accuse you of lying, only interpreting in a very general manner.
-
Show the man the logical implication of his very own words, and he still fails to see it. ZB, I'm not going to argue any further. You have already proven that you will not listen to reason. Its officialy moved from a debate, to one of arguing. Its pointless for you, me, and just about everybody else. Have a good night, ZB.
-
...you claim to have shown me "the logical implications of my own words', when all you've done is misinterpret me, then dodge questions about your own beliefs. I agree, though, that the argument has become pointless. Night then.
-
Well, damnit. Anyway, bitch about this movie sucking all you want... Rottentomatoes.com has this at 25 good to 9 bad reviews for a hearty 74% good. That's above average, in case you were wondering.
-
O never thought you were advocating terrorism. I understand your belief in being able to express whatever your views may be. However, as I originally meant when I first posted, I can also understand British lawmakers wanting to curb that kind of talk. When you really think about it, we don't have complete freedom of speech here in the U.S. There are anti-discriminatory laws which, in a sense, tell you that you can't use race, color or gender to decide not to hire an person. Where is my right to not want to hire someone? My whole thing is that II can understand why some countries may want to draw a line with freedom of speech. That is not saying that this is what I want to do because I honestly do not know.Complete freedom has risks and so does censorship.
-
Well that's good to hear, puts you in a much more reasonable light than I thought initially. Generally whenw e curb a right it is to protect someone else's rights--but with speech, there's always the right not to listen. Freedom of speech stops at harassment, creating a public disturbance, etc., but I don't think it should ever stop at *content*, or an opinion. Once we've determined what opinions you can have, we really are moving to fascism.
-
if you're still here, I have to point out that after arguing furiously back and forth about a human-caused 3% increase in CFCs and whether or not humans are causing any significant portion of the global warming we're currently going through, you were arguing completely in vain: Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons (CFCs) are not greenhouse gases at all, but are the pollutants considered to be the main cause of the hole in the ozone layer, not global warming. A much more pertinent thing to consider is (greenhouse gas and by-product of fossil fuel burning) carbon dioxide. "Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm)." (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87) That statement indicates a 35.7% increase in CO2. ---- On another note, while your comments about how global temperature fluctuates regardless of man's influence are true moondoggy, as I understand it the concern about the current period of global warming (that leads people to think it's caused by the greenhouse effect of human industry) is the sheer speed of the warming, although I've got to get back to work so I don't have time to find anything to back that up at the moment.
-
To do with muslims or september 11th. Neither does the posters. People are always going to see what they want to see, so why bother coddling and reassuring them. If you disagree with whatever political message you THINK the movie MIGHT be putting forth, then don't go. No one will miss you.
-
Y'know, I *did* know that, and meant to point it out (specifically in refeence to CO2), but my point was mostly about how he pulled his .03 degree number out of his ass in the first place, which he didn't seem to get.
-
that killed the dinos 65 mill years ago. The earth is getting hotter and so is the sun. Do we have anyting to do about it - perhaps, but one blast from a volcano puts out much more junk in the air in a day than we do in a year...
-
surroundings or what? If you are not familiar with Hugo, do you still recognize him because of the voice when he tortures Padme?
-
"if you don't agree with their interpretation, tell me WHY." Already have. I'm going against moondoggy's better judgement and will try this one more time, in plainspeak. Margaret Marshall is a lesbian. She lobbied to try the case in MA because it is the only state that does not explicitly define marriage as between a man and a woman. She used that loophole to create new law. Creating laws is not the job of the judiciary. Creating laws is the job of the legislature. The legislature in MA are all leftys. Homosexual unions is a lefty issue. The legislature won't grant MA voters luxury of a referendum question because they know how it turned out in 14 other states. Also, because they are leftys and this is a lefty issue. And finally, the MA legislature was voted back in because not everyone hinges their votes on a single issue. If any of this appears familiar, IT IS, because I ALREADY typed it above. Face it, zb. You're only fine with this because you're a lefty and this is a lefty issue. And it is one real-life example of the fictitious runaway goverment explored in VENDETTA. If the constitution is a "living document" that means anything, ergo it also means nothing and we should throw it away.
-
...this one more time. I am not asking you "why do you think they're wrong." I am asking you "why, based on existing MA law, was their interpretation incorrect." I don't want just another claim that they "created" law--if they created a law, tell me what law they created. They claim the right of gays to marry is inherent in the state's constitution. Article CVI of the MA constitution clearly states "Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin." Denying the right of a man to marry a man seems to be inequality based on sex, because a woman can, in fact, marry a man. Thus, the constitution can be reasonably interpreted as protecting the marriage rights of gays with NO NEW LAW. There is no law "created" to give gays the right to marry, because the law that gives them that right is in the Cosntitution, passed by the legislature. If you do not agree with that interpretation, tell me what is wrong with the logic, but don't jsut claim a law was created by a judge, because all the SJC did was interpret (as is their duty) the existing law.
-
To you, it could also mean applesauce. There is no point in continuing this any further.
-
I did, in fact, mean sex as gender. The fact is, the only reason a man cannot marry a man in, say, New York is BECAUSE HE IS A MAN. His *gender* is what makes him unable to marry the person of his choice. Therefore his gender is the basis of discrimination, and therefore that discrimination is FLATLY illegal in MA. If there's no point in continuing this further, it's because you're incapable of forming a coherent argument, or, apparantly, even understanding a perfectly straightforward one when it is presented.
-
You arrive at the conclusion that I'm, not worth continuing this with only once I... decide this is not worth continuing with you. A moot point since I'm writing this and you will, no doubt, reply yourself if for nothing else than to have the last word. Lookit. Lemme try your own argument against you. Why did fourteen states "interpret" differently than one? Just because I step across an invisible line in the dirt, all the rules change. Ever think of it that way? If you see the absurdity in that, then you're beginning to glimpse what I've been flapping about. Also, it will be interesting to see whether you align yourself with or against *precedent* if Roe v Wade is ever challenged. You are clearly a partisan, so I already know which way you'll float. That is to say, you'll adopt the opposing mindset once the subject is changed. Liberals are guilty of many things. Consistency is not one of them.
-
So, in other words, you have no argument? you can't give me a reason the SJC interpreted wrongly, you cna only sya "well they MUST be wrong, 'cause 14 other states disagree!" These states all have their own constitutions and their own laws. As for precedent on Roe--what, exactly, does judicial precedent have to do with this issue? There was no precedent on gays marrying in MA, this was the first time such a case had gone to the SJC. Your point is irrelevant and meant onyl to distract from the fact that you have been *unable* to present your promised argument against gay marriage and now *unable* to present an argument against the court's reading of the law. Perhaps it's because you don't know the law, you just know what your opinion is, and if the facts disagree, you're clealry willing to ignore them. The fact is, MA's constitution forbids sexual discrimination. How can you forbid a man to marry another man, then allow a woman to marry a man, without discriminating based on sex?
-
I didn't say the argument wasn't worth having, you did. I said *if* that was the case, the fault was yours, not mine. The fact is, you've refused to answer direct questions and have failed to provide arguments based on anything other than prevailing opinion--you've cited neither logic, nor reason, only "14 states" this and "most people" that. As for 'stepping across an invisible line in the dirt"--are you now insinuating that different states should not have different laws? What about different countries? Those invisible lines mean an awful lot, in a legal sense.
-
I truly wish I was capable of such Clintonian verbal yoga as you. "There was no precedent on gays marrying in MA, this was the first time such a case had gone to the SJC." You really, truly, really, truly don't see the utter absurdity in that, do you?
-
The conversation was about judicial precedent, was it not? So where is the judicial opinion on gay marriage in MA prior to the disputed opinion? Is your interpretation of a judge's job to hold up mere TRADITION that has never survived a legal challenge? Judges are not there to pat the status quo on the back, they are there to settle disputes of the law. If every dispute was resolved simply by asking 'have we done this before?" then they would serve no purpose.
-
On a job application under the field for "Sex" you cross out options "M/F" and write "homosexual" or "heterosexual" over them. Your logic is completely flawed. If you were consistent, you would extend the premise of your "unchallenged precedent" to abortion, since Roe v Wade has never been challenged since it had been decided. And yet, there was lots of talk about precedent during the Alito hearings. According to your logic, such precedent does not exist. Again, if the constitution can mean anything, then it also means nothing and we should throw it away. Meow, moo-moo, dogface in the banana patch. I'm sure you can come up with a meaning for that.
-
Are you completely incapable of following a simple line of logic? Roe was decided by a court, by judges, hence JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. No judge had EVER said the gays could not marry in MA, hence no judicial precedent. More than that, roe HAS been challenged AND upheld since then, so there are multiple precedents. How can you criticize my position on judicial precedent when you obviously don't even know what it is? And what in the name of God are you talking about with your inept job application comparison? I am not suggesting SEXUALITY is the basis for bias in marriage, simple SEX is. Let's take a man, call him John. If a WOMAN can marry John, but a MAN can't, then the law is appying to the MAN and the WOMAN differently. That is clearly illegal. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that.
-
In both getting speakerphone, Mark just feeble cluck spaghetti. Pardon vitamin speakers! With gristful corrugated plastic, all switch in humble pastures. Toot-toot!
-
Well, now I know exactly what you're capable of. Thanks!
-
You failed to recognize your own argument what the context of 'sex' meant in the constitution. And how many times as RvW been presented before the supreme court anyways? A rhetorical question, since I know your answer will only be, "Strained vanilla from Jello bottles because of tobasco banana sauce."
-
I would agree with you. Of course!
-
Oh. My. God. The context of "sex" in the constitution means that the law must apply the same way to males and females. If males and females must marry different people, there is discirmination based on sex. You have NO response to this argument not because it makes no sense, but because you are either incapable of understanding it or incapable of admitting you're wrong. As for RvW, it is a CASE, a CASE will only go up to the SCOTUS once, but a CASE is not what a precedent refers to, it refers to a ruling, in this case the ruling which declared that states cannot outlaw abortion, and that interpretation of the law has been upheld in several instances, meanign there is now strong JUDICIAL PRECEDENT supporting it. The same interpretation of the law was used to decide multiple cases, hence strong precedent. In MA, there was NEVER a judicial ruling which opposed the right of gays to marry, therefore there was NO judicial precedent opposing it. Now there has been ONE case to the SJC on the issue, in which they decided FOR gay marriage based on their ITERPRETATION of existing law. They said the current MA law says gays can get married, even though they hadn't yet been allowed to do so by the executive. Now there IS judicial preceent SUPPORTING gay marriage, and it is based entirely on EXISTING law, not NEW law somehow created by the court. Your continued argument over the subject without actually creating any kind of logical reasoning to support your position reveals that either you are incredibly stubborn and incapable of admitting your errors, or you genuinely have NO idea what you're talking about and have been simply spouting of some talking points you heard but didn't understand. In fact, I'm beginning to think it's both. Your childish "I can't hear you, blah blah blah" retorts are particularly ironic because you seem to think the fact that you don't understand a word I'm saying is somehow my fault. Hate to break it to you, but you being too slow to follow an argument ain't my problem.
-
About as much as you're a 'tolerant' liberal. You cite situations where the constitution could never possibly work. To you, everything is subject to any possible interpretation at any time by anyone. Unless they disagree with you. Of course!
-
...of which I am intolerant. One is willful ignorance, the other is the intent to do harm. You seem to be expert in both. You are willfully ignorant of the subject you are attempting to debate ("everything is subject to interpretation..." Yes. That's why we *have* judges.) As for people disagreeing with me, I'm extremely tolerant of that as a generality. When people disagree with me I often learn new things or see things in a different way. I'm an agnostic liberal, and some of my best friends are deeply religious conservatives. The difference between them and you is simply that they are capable of following a simple argument and responding with a well-reasoned case of their own. Unfortunately for both of us, you are "really, truly, really, truly" incapable of having this debate. You've demonstrated several times that you don't actually know anything about the issue. You don't understand the ruling that was made, or you'd be able to argue with it. Instead of arguing facts or reasoning, you are arguing based on the idea that laws was "created" by the judges. I presume you picked up this lie from the same partisan source that told you the Roe v. Wade created the right to privacy--the beginnings of that precedent date to 1923, and were solidified in 1965, years before Roe. More than that, you seem to have trouble with the very simple idea that in MA the law must apply identically to men and women. Is this a situation where the MA constitution could "never possibly work"? And if so, how does that invalidate the judges' ruling? Just because you don't think it's a good law doesn't mean it's not the law--and it certainly doens't mean the judges failed somehow by upholding it. You seem to be the one incapable of respecting someone's right to disagree. I haven't been spending my time bitching about judicial rulings I don't like, that's you. The fact is, you don't have a single reason the ruling here is invalid, you just don't like it and will make up any nonsense to try and discredit the judges who disagreed. But it is becoming increasingly clear why they, and not you, were in the position to decide the issue. Your ignorance of the judicial process, the function of the judiciary, and even the MA law you trumpet is an embarassment to any informed, rational person who shares your opinion. Which is a shame, because I sure wish they were here.
-
I wish I knew how to quit you!
-
I wish you did, too!
-
Your subject line is applicable to yourself for the reasons moondoggy already explained, way up there. You fear me as an ignorant intending to harm others. Meanwhile, you find me guilty for not understanding your words as opposed to finding yourself guilty of being incapable to convince someone such as myself of said words. Of course! The ad hominem of a liberal is always thus, "It's someone else's fault... unless yours is a cause we wish to champion!" And I find you guilty of that, zb. Sure, maybe you don't feel that way about homosexual rights for reasons you already mentioned (reasons which could be legally remedied via other methods in foresight due to the lack of "rights," as you call them, to homosexual unions). However, liberals are championing causes that are stripping away liberties by multiples when compared to true conservatives (read: Bush and McCain are NOT liberals). The smoking ban in private business, speech policies on campus, reduction of acceptance criteria for fire and police to make it gender friendly, the McCain Fiengold Act. Hell, you likely support illegal aliens, regardless of their lack of innoculation that exposes our general populace to foreign health risk. Chances are also you lionize Cindy Sheehan. Yet it I in my ignorance that is a threat to our society. Pass the hooka!
-
...of changing the subject? Dodging points and questions like they burn? Making vast assumptions about my political positions based on my disagreement with you on one topic? Does it help you compensate for your inability to understand or form an argument to pigeonhole me and simplify my positions? Listen, bud, I don't claim you're incapable of understanding my arguments because you don't agree with them. That's fine, I'm used to that. But you respond in ways that MAKE NO SENSE based on the arguments I presented, and obviously stem from a mis-reading. If you wish to prove me wrong about this, then ARGUE THE DAMN POINT! Your blathering about Cindy Sheehan (who I pay no attention to, personally), hookahs (I don't smoke), and all kinds of other things which are predicated on unfounded assumptions do NOTHING to address the points in contention. Let me review for you. You claimed you had a logical reason to oppose gay marriage. You did not provide one. What you apparantly meant was that you had a logical reason to specifically oppose the ruling of the SJC in Massachusetts. Fine, not what I asked for, but if you've got a logical reason, great. However, then your only arguments were, A: 14 other states disagree (as if MA law should change based on other states), and B: the SJC exceeded their authority by creating a law instead of merely interpreting one. You seemed unable or unwilling to further defend point A, so let's focus on point B. I pointed out that the court based their opinion on existing law, and that the MA constitution (a law) seems to support gay marriage. This is where we come to the problem: Instead of explaining why you thought the legal basis for the SJCs decision was flawed (hence rendering their interpretation invalid and potentially moving into the "Created law" spectrum) you decided to accuse me of sophistry and start babbling about what a crazy liberal I am. If you would PLEASE just explain your REASONS for disagreeing with me, we could have a discussion. But instead you evasively dodge the point and babble in nonsense and sit there making little quips only you think are funny. I have provided the legal grounding for my opinion on the matter, but you have not provided yours. If you think I'm wrong, tell me HOW, don't just sit there and say "you're wrong because of Clinton, err, Cindy Sheehan, err, banana-bread snorkels withstanding a bamboo lion-tamer!" For God's sake, address the point, otherwise you're just verbally masturbating in public.
-
"...disagreement" You do realize I'm a liberatrian that believes in homosexual equality, yes?
-
"gay marriage. You did not provide one." I already wrote how all marriages are gay except for a few betrothals.
-
Yes you did. You stated that I was "ignorant". That means I don't know. Were judicial prudence exercised, it may be determined in the court of zb.rox that I CAN'T know. To which I say -- Where's the welfare line?
-
Mar 21, 2006 9:39:19 PM CST
"You seemed unable or unwilling to further defend point
by immortal_fish
Those states didn't?
-
Otherwise known as, "MA constitution (a law) seems to support gay marriage" No, it doesn't. It is the only state constitution that does not define marriage as between one man and one woman. Ergo the loophole the very lesbian Margaret Marshall exploited enroute to her securing her goal to try this case in MA! I do not understand why this appears to be news to you. Only one of us hasn't been playing human weather vane.
-
Many judiciaries have willfully removed themselves from court decision during conflict of interest. One of the final hearings from Rhenquist was abstained, for example. Marshall, A LESBIAN, cast the tie-breaker on this issue, in the bluest of states. But please do go on wid your bad self!
-
1: Libertarian? Good for you. I never accused you of being a Republican, nor of homophobia. 2: Again, meaningless quip. Unless, of course, you oppose happy weddings. 3: Way to completely change the meaning of my sentence by only quoting part of it! 4: Those states didn't have judicial opinions, they created new laws based on referendum. There was no argument, just a vote, therefore no reasoning that could be applied to the MA case. 5: A few things: First, you continue to ignore the sex equality guaranteed by the MA constitution. Please, tell me how we can avoid discriminating based on sex whilst still forcing different sexes to marry different people. Second, Margaret Marshall is Chief Justice of MA's supreme court, where ELSE would she try this case? Third, the fact the law doesn't say what you want it to doesn't invalidate their interpretation. Why do you get to decide what's a "loophole"? And if it *is* a loophole, how would you reconcile this with the gender-equality guarantee? Fourth, does this "loophole" argument mean that you recognize that existing law was used as the basis for the ruling? Does this mean you've given up on the phony claim that law was "created"? If not, explain to me how, please. 6: Just because a law happens to affect a judge's life does not mean they have to recluse themselves from ruling. If so, justice Thomas would have to recuse himself from affirmative action cases, and any Judeo-Christian judge would be wrong to rule on the 10 commandments in a public place. A "conflict of interests" almost always refers to a monetary benefit or a close friend or familial relationship with a party. More than that, what evidence do you have she is a lesbian, anyway? She's been married, to men, twice. I'm not saying you're wrong, though it would seem she's bisexual at worst then, but I'd like to know where you get this from.
-
You seem to have difficulty managing the more longish posts where I wax on, so I'll stick with a more CNN newscroll format in order to help keep things civil.
-
Mar 23, 2006 7:24:47 PM CST
"I never accused you of being a Republican, nor of homo
by immortal_fish
No, you only accused me of being an ignorant that is willing to cause harm to others. Gosh. I wish you had only accused me of being a Republican.
-
No, meaningful quip. Words mean something to me. And words should mean something to you. Else, why use them? In fact, they really mean something to liberals. This is why they engineer catch-phrases in order to control thought. Consider the liberal catchphrase "undocumented resident" as opposed to "illegal alien." Because that is what they are. Don't rosey it up unless you intend to alter (or even establish) groupthink. Quick, what is the name of track 5 on the Genesis album? Blasphemy according to Howard "The Doc" Dean.
-
I appreciate joining you in your endeavor to willfully manipulate words to mean something other than the clear intent they were intended.
-
Damn, am I embarrassed for writing that!
-
Great! If that's all it takes, then grant MA voters the luxury of a referendum. I'd *LOVE* to eat crow on this. Likely won't, cojnsidering all the reasons I already expounded upon above. You'd have to scroll up to read them. Sorry!
-
No I don't. I continue to ignore the sex PERSUASION you introduce that is NOT guaranteed by the MA constitution.
-
What do you think of the fellah fighting for the "male" version of RvW? Talk about discrimmination based upon sex (as in the real sex, i.e. gender -- not persuasion)?
-
Precisely. She's a MA SOJ. Of course she would be well educated in MA law and all their loopholes. Again, you make my point.
-
I decide nothing. They tried the case here for reasons already mentioned. I'm sorry you can't enjoy getting what you want thanks to a law that isn't written as well as it was for the other 49 states.
-
No more than you recognize that it is a loophole that was exploited. Can I please have my referendum? Please? I swear it would make me shut up.
-
Talk about a pointed question. Are you David Gregory? Look, I've already demonstrated how words that mean nothing can mean anything. Or, coagulated silicon must converse in Chinese to fluctuate an orgasm. To me, that means I kinda dig Nicole Kidman. However, you may interpret this to mean that I want to plant "undocumented" eggs in your mom. Get this -- when 'something new' happens, it was 'created'.
-
Then why is it that conservative judges have demonstrated time and again to remove themselves from ruling during "conflict of interest" vs. liberal judges? If reducing age of sexual consent was ever considered, you know Ruth would be the first to cast her decision.
-
http://www.google.com/
-
1: It seemed to me that you were willfully ignorant of the MA constitution, as well as the concept of judicial precedent, and seem to be willing to cause harm to gays who wish to be married because of that willful disregard for the facts. As you're now attempting to conduct a discussion more fact-and-reason based, I'm reconsidering my opinion. 2: The word "gay" as slang originally referred to heterosexual behavior that was irresponsible. The evolution of the term isn't newspeak, it's simply an idiom that's become accepted, like "black" as a racial term. As for "undocumented immigrants", that's nothing comapred to the right's use of the phrase "terrorist surveillance program" to rosey up the illegal wiretapping Bush has done (and just so you know the full extent of the ruse, the FBI admitted that "virtually all" of the wiretaps lead to innocent Americans, not terrorists.) Both sides spin terms, it's aggavating, but it's also beside the point in this discussion. 3: I've never mnisquoted you or put words into your mouth. If you think what I'm saying is wrong somehow, tell me why, don't just accuse me of something "Clintonian". 4: I wouldn't mind seeing a referendum, and the state seems intent on permitting one once the fraud issues are settled. But, just so you know, polling indicates that voters in MA and NJ, among other states, are pro-gay-marriage. If the measure passes in MA, it will likely be because of the illegal politicla activities the Catholic church is becoming entrenched with. You know that as a tax-exempt organization, it's illegal for them to encourage their followers to vote one way or the other, right? Shame. However, a referendum would *not* resolve whether or not the SJC acted inappropriately, as you have alleged. What is your legal reasoning for that allegation? The fact that voters turned out in 14 states to oppose gay marriage has no effect on MA law, so it's not a basis for a disagreement with a judicial decision. 5: I am in no way suggesting that sexual persuasion is protected b the MA constitution. One could make that argument, but I am not doing so. Once again, banning gay marriage actually enforces a kind of "seperate but equal" law on the sexes. Look, if MEN cna only marry women, and WOMEN can only marry men, then the law applies differently to men and women. Hence inequality based on SEX, not SEXUAL ORIENTATION. 6: I think he raises an important issue. The fact is, because women bear the child, they are given all the rights associated with that child, while men have no options. If they have the rights, they should also have the responsibilities. It's not quite so clear cut as that (it never is), particularly as the major concern should always be the welfare of the child. Perhaps men should be given some window in which they can opt out of both the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood? Besides the point, but trust me, I think there is a staggering amount of hypocrisy from "women's rights" activists who are unwilling to consider that sometimes men are the oens getting hsoed by the system. 7: I didn't make your point, you said she tried the case in MA because of MA's "loophole"--but givne her position, MA was the *only* place she *could* try it. And what evidence do you have that she intended such a thing personally? She wasn't a plaintiff in the case. 8: But why do you get to decide that it's not "well-written"? Wouldn't a constructionist reading of the text say that we have to address what's there, not what you WANT to be there? More than that, where do you get this information that other states' constitutions define marriage as between a man and a woman? The NJ constitution doesn't even MENTION the word marriage, and the New York cosntitution says nothing about marriage laws, except to say that the Family Court handles annulments and divorces. If other states define marriage in their constitutions, why are all these referndums even necessary? Where did you get this information? And while you're quoting sources, ever come up with one on Ms. Marshall being a lesbian? 9: If existing law is NOT the basis for the decision, please tell me what existing law the decision CONTRADICTS. What legal ground is their to dney marriage to gays in MA? What law says they CAN'T get married? 10: When something new happens, that means law was created? That is simply not true. In a case where someone wants to do something new and is prevented from doing so by someone on the executive branch, the prosecutor in the case is the one with the burden of proof to show the thing is illegal. When flag-burning cases first went to the SCOTUS, did they "Create law" by saying people could burn flags? Of course not. They showed that the law (the first amendment) already existed giving them that right. In MA, the SJC claimed that existing law grants gays the right to marry, they just haven't been allowed to yet. If you disagree with that assessment, cite the existing law that proves you right. 11: Which conservative judges? Once again, provide evidence for your claims. Tell me of a circumstance in which a conservative judge has recused themself form a case in which a firend or fmaily member was not involved and also did not impact them financially. 12: Google isn't proof. I already googled your claim, and guess what I found? Nothing to support your claim. In fact, I found out she's married to a man! Between this claim, as well as the claim that MA is the only state not to define marriage as between a man and a woman, can you not see why I'd doubt how informed you are? When someone asks for evidence and they give you google... come on. You're just being evasive again. If you have no proof, you have no case.
-
Given up? And just when I was gathering some hope you planned on having a reasonable debate. Oh well.
-
I'm now here. Now, hang on. I know you're an F5'ing muthafucka, but hold your horses. As I wrote earlier, you appear to digest conservative tourettes more easily in smallish doses, so it may be awhile before I'm through. Besides, I'm converting Moral Orel to MPG1, so lucky for you, I have time to kill. Pounce for the jugular when I say GO!!
-
No. The word "gay" actually stems from a euphoric state of being, be it naturally or chemically induced. The origins of the word can be traced easily enough through literature. The word "gay" took on a homophobic leaning in the late 19th century and even then only in artistic license that can hardly be distinguished as creative license. This is somehting we will likely have to agree to disagree on, since there is no hope for us to arrive at an agreeable conclusion in an AICN TB.
-
Please. That label was adopted for obvious and apparent reasons, unlike the word "gay". Are all homosexuals euphoric?
-
"As you're now attempting to conduct a discussion more fact-and-reason based" No, that is not correct. In fact, I, indeed, welcome you to the conversation. Facts and reasons have been the focal point of everything I have written here. This includes even the nonsense posts, which were orchestrated to underscore how your desire for all words to mean anything essentially results in nothing. "Facts and reason" have always been on the plate. It's what you have done with them that have led us astray. Now, we can keep veering off into the poppy fields if you like, but I'd prefer to follow the yellow brick road if you care to join me, as I have been trying to do all throughout this dialog. Case in point -- how many times vs. myself have you compared our exchange to this movie at-hand? You do the math.
-
Some of my replies to you are now out of order. Sucks for you!
-
Mar 29, 2006 9:06:49 PM CST
virtually all of the wiretaps lead to innocent American
by immortal_fish
Really? Those tapped are those in communication with known terrorist links overseas. (Hopefully) This means neither you nor I. So what's your beef? BTW, taps have been commonplace since the JFK years. Thankfully, the targets have been filtered down under this administration. But, please, don't let me stop you from guaranteeing another 7-minutes of CIC inactivity, which appears to be your goal. When it comes to foreign policy, that man is damned if he does, damned if he don't.
-
Why is it that I have to provide weblinks to Margaret Marshall's publically admitted and publically practised sexual preferences yet you find yourself excused from needing to provide links to support you "virtually all" FBI claim? Quid Pro Quo aside, is one not more weighty and relevant than the other?
-
I'm not a catholic, I'm agnostic. I don't know. Or, I **DON'T** KNOW!!! Whichever you prefer. So, no, I don't know about any legal limitations placed upon a religious order, because I don't practice religion, so I don't care. SURPRISE!! That having been said, I have no idea why it would be a surprise to someone why catholics are being discouraged from supporting homosexuality or abortion, since it goes against their principles. If you want to be a part of their "club" you have to follow their rules. And those are their rules. If what you say is true, then I find it a crying shame that government is attempting to shape religion. That whole separation of church and state should cut both ways, yes? If you take the easter bunny out of the town hall, then you have to expect catholics to vote in a bloc against homosexual unions, right?
-
Moral Orel just finshed transcoding, so I'll have to pick this up at my convenience on a later date. Reply if you need to, but that will mean your words part-ways through #4 may go wasted. Your call!
-
I'll wait for a more thorough response before I tear apart your current arguments. :)
-
Why would anyone want to continue this only to be 'torn apart' in a future installment? Clearly, you've already moved on toward bigger and better. You and I have no hope of convincing the other otherwise anyhow. So why bother? No sense in educated folks pissing on each other with an audience. Despite that, please do look me up in more current-day talkbacks.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 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!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts