Movie News

A Conservative Republican Reviews V FOR VENDETTA!!

Published at: March 16, 2006, 10:03 a.m. CST

Merrick here...

ThatFrenchGuy (he’s already asking for trouble with a pseudonym like that) just sent in this review of V FOR VENDETTA.

If you’ve been reading the Talkbacks for other recent reviews of the film here on AICN, you may have noticed a lot of discussion about the film’s political orientation. ThatFrenchGuy, a professed “moderate conservative” from Mississippi, continues the trend with an interesting perspective on the film and its relation to our world. Keep in mind, while V’s message is pretty damn obvious, the meaning people take from that message will undoubtedly vary -- and is clearly a source of hot debate.

Here’s the review. See what you think…


Just thought you might want to know what a Fox News watching, George Bush voting, moderate conservative from the red state of Mississippi thought of the film "V for Vendetta"....

I really really liked it. The only thing keeping me from loving it has nothing to do with the supposed "controversial" issues it brings up, but more on the fact that I'll have to watch it again before I make my verdict on that.

Anyways, on to the movie. You all know the basic premise about a "terrorist" named V who sets about to somehow go against the totalitarian like government that rules England. He comes across a girl named Evie who he helps from some baddies and they start an uneasy relationship which begins with Evie wanting to do the seemingly right thing, that is not help a wanted "terrorist", but of course things change.

Instead of focusing the review on how great the performances are or how well the story grabs you by the throat with V's first great speech to the people, because you've all heard about that through Harry and company in the aftermath of BNAT, but I wanted to focus more on the controversial issues that the story deals with from my perspective.

But before I dive more into that, I do want to say that Hugo Weaving is great, he is able to spout out his lines in a very lyrical and literate way, thanks to the either the screenplay by the Wachowskis or words lifted right from Alan Moore, I'll have to read to comic to find out who, but during the entire movie words come out of the actors' mouths beautifully without seeming too preachy and obvious. Speaking of beautiful, Natalie Portman is great here as well. When she breaks down to cry, I want to break down and cry, she's that good.

Now people are making a big deal, comparing the US government to that in the movie. Yes I can see where there might be some similarities, such as the whole issue of phone tapping and anti homosexual sentimentality (although this country doesn't go as far as the government in V does.) And that's what this movie is all about, its about the extremes of some of the issues Americans take and really turning them up. However, if there were a government more akin to the likes of the one in V, I'd say it's more like the Iraqi government under Saddam or the North Korean government. In order to elaborate I'm going to have to go into some spoilers...

Again, spoiler alert!... To me, this movie represents exactly what the Iraqi people should have done after they found out (if they found out) what Saddam had done to his people back in... I don't know, somewhere around 1990? when he gassed thousands of his own people. Though the reasons of both governments differ, the fact is that they both took out a large number of their own people through way of gas or virus in order to either test out a new biological weapon or for their own rise in power and well being. Any American today in their right mind would do what the people of England did if they found out the Bush administration had created a virus and killed 100,000 people just to make a little money and get some votes. Another way the Iraqi and V government are the same are the ways they use censorship.

I'm pretty sure that Leno and Letterman are still alive and well despite countless jabs at both the Clinton and Bush administration, something a talk show host died for (or did he?) in V. Hell you think a website like "Aint It Cool (and sometimes liberal) News" would make it if it were up and running in a place like the V government and openly taking jabs at the High Chancellor? I think Harry's head would literally end up on a serving platter if this were an Iraqi website promoting anti Saddam material, yet Harry is free in this country to have his own opinion and post it to millions of viewers all over the world wide web. (Although if Quint being threatened not to talk about Cars by RoboWalt isn't censorship, I don't know what is..)

The fact is, this fictitious government, in my eyes at least, is more true to that of the likes of Saddam's with some Neo Nazism thrown up rather than our own here in the states, which is why I don't think it's all that controversial.

One more thing, people have also had issues rooting for the "terrorist" V in the film. Yes the government calls V a terrorist, but is he really? He's more of a freedom fighter in my eyes. The difference to me is that a terrorist will kill innocent people for his cause, not caring if the people he kills were directly responsible for his pain or not, while V only kills those responsible for some atrocity one way or another. That and the fact that every building he blows up is empty of innocent people.

Go see this film. I think it may be getting a bit overhyped, its definetly not the second coming of movies, but its a solid film thats entertains on many levels. Mystery, drama, and a little action thrown in (especially V's final badass takedown towards the end.) Go and enjoy yourself and make up your own mind about the political stance you think the movie is taking, thats the fun thing about a movie like this, you can discuss and argue with friends about it for hours.


Thanks for the review, FrenchGuy. The movie opens tonight in many parts of the U.S., and goes wide (including IMAX presentations), tomorrow.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 16, 2006, 10:15 a.m. CST

    VIRST

    by danowen

    I love V For Vendetta! Sounds like they made a decent adaptation from the source material. I would love to hear what Alan Moore thinks, if he EVER watches it. I doubt he'll eat his words, though. As much as I love Moore's work, I find it frustrating that he doesn't realize how much more powerful movies can be compared to comics.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Down with Bush.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Just wanted to get the first shot in.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:20 a.m. CST

    24 hours of news...

    by Big Bad Clone

    The 24 news cycle seems to be made up of maybe 15-30 minutes of real news. The rest seems to be divided equally between short skirted news readers looking confused and raving blowhards making mountains out of molehills. This is why I get all my news from the voices in my head. They are far more reliable. What's that? They say scientists have found a cure for cuckoo clocks. How nice.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:21 a.m. CST

    T2 bobbleheads= Dr. Pepper sprayed all over my moniter

    by Big Bad Clone

    Holy shit that ad looks fucked up.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:21 a.m. CST

    wow

    by Toxic Frog

    neat

  • March 16, 2006, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Surprised

    by NathanDetroits

    Well, I have to admit, I'm surprised. I certainly didn't expect a rational, thoughtful review of this movie from a Republican. Yes, that's a bad stereotype, but it's one that has been backed up repeatedly in the last 2 weeks. In all honesty, with all the Republicans talk about "Freedom", they should love this movie, but it seems "Freedom" is something most Repubs say just to sound good.... doesn't seem to be something 99% of them really believe in.... or at least, they seem to be awfully afraid of "Freedom" as they simultaneously talk about how much they love it. Thanks for being able to view this movie for what it is, an abstract parable about totalitarianism vs. freedom, and a concrete reminder of what Moore thought of the Thatcher administration.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:27 a.m. CST

    The British Broadsheets are HATING this movie

    by Bicycle Thief

    They still seem to hate the idea that a mere comic book movie can hold high minded ideas. Check out this damming review: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14931-2087395,00.html

  • March 16, 2006, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Language Question

    by thecrazyarmenian

    There is an interesting distinction made here between

  • March 16, 2006, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Freedom Fighter, terrorist, there is NO difference.

    by Batutta

    It's just a matter of perspective. I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers thought they were freedom fighters. If you asked them, they'd say every person in America is responsible for their misfortunes due to their ignorance, so they deserve to die. V IS A TERRORIST. Whether or not that's a good thing or a bad thing can be a matter of debate, but trying to sugarcoat his methods by calling him a 'Freedom Fighter' is a cop out. We might view outselves as Freedom Fighters but to the Arab world we're terrorists. What is 'shock and awe' but a terror tactic. My point is that all war is a form of terrorism.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:29 a.m. CST

    anchorite spin...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...to commence in 10... 9... 8... 7...

  • March 16, 2006, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Batutta - terrorist, freedom fighter...

    by AnimeJune

    ...It's entirely based on perspective. There are a lot of countries that formed and gained independence through terrorism - like Ireland. Theoretically, a lot of what was done by Americans during the revolution could be considered terrorist acts.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:39 a.m. CST

    It looks stupid.

    by Cotton McKnight

  • March 16, 2006, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Down With Bush

    by killdeer2

    Fuck You, FluffyLibFag. Just wanted to get the first shot in

  • March 16, 2006, 10:43 a.m. CST

    so actually what IS 'V'? crazy Zorro ninja clown?

    by HypeEndsHere

  • March 16, 2006, 10:43 a.m. CST

    It's people like NathanDetroit that are the problem.

    by Cotton McKnight

    Good on you for being "surprised" but stop having preconcieved ideas about people. Unless you just assume that most people won't see this because the Matrix trilogy was crap, which is what i'm doing.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:47 a.m. CST

    British broadsheets

    by Mockingbird Girl

    It's a bit soon to be generalizing about the British newspapers, don't you think? The TIMES didn't like it, but the other three major national newspapers -- the GUARDIAN, TELEGRAPH, and INDEPENDENT -- have yet to review it!

  • March 16, 2006, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Nice Review

    by Jonesey1111

    Great review, FrenchGuy! Also, thanks for pointing out your spoiler paragraph...I accidentally read spoilers all the time on aicn because they're not pointed out properly.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:51 a.m. CST

    We had a guy like V here in the U.S.

    by johnnyangelheart

    His name was Timothy McVeigh. I think you know how that turned out.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:53 a.m. CST

    I stopped short of the end..

    by white owl

    "Just thought you might want to know what a Fox News watching, George Bush voting, moderate conservative from the red state of Mississippi thought of the film "V for Vendetta".... I really really liked it." that's all that matters to me. cant wait to see this tonight. besides.. who the hell opens a movie on st paddies day? no one does anything but abuse their liver on this day.. i dont expect to see alot of drunkards at the movie theatre. It'll be a teenie bopper romper for a few days. oh well.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:54 a.m. CST

    I CANNOT WAIT!

    by indiebum

    I can't wait for this movie to come out.... I have Spring Break next week and my one goal is to go see this movie.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Wow. How "baiting" is the headline for this review???

    by Mr Nice Gaius

  • March 16, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Curious...

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Is Merrick the new AICN Sheriff these days?

  • March 16, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Saddam gassed his people somewhere around...?

    by Jimmie Dimmick

    Between 1987-88, 40 Kurdish villages were attacked - the most atrocious attack was in Halabja on March 16, 1988...

  • March 16, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Not everyone celebrates St. Patrick's like that, bro

    by Terry_1978

    Haha, even though most claim to be Irish on that day. I'm black however, and my guys don't really get all that into the holiday, truth be told, so Vendetta shall be getting our cash that evening. And probably the following Saturday.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Freedom Fighter are not the same as terrorists.

    by Kamala

    Freedom Fighter are not the same as terrorists. A lot of very dumb people make the comparison that America's founders are just like today's terrorists when they fought against British rule. I don't recall Paul Reverve or George Washington targeting civilians, and blowing up women and children on purpose, or cutting off a reporter's head, or assaulting an elementary school...etc. You get the point biotches. And most Islamic terrorism in the world comes from the fact they want to establish a pure Islamic state, not that they are fighting against oppression are other nonsense that so called enlightenment liberal spew.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Freedom Fighter are not the same as terrorists.

    by Kamala

    Freedom Fighter are not the same as terrorists. A lot of very dumb people make the comparison that America's founders are just like today's terrorists when they fought against British rule. I don't recall Paul Reverve or George Washington targeting civilians, and blowing up women and children on purpose, or cutting off a reporter's head, or assaulting an elementary school...etc. You get the point biotches. And most Islamic terrorism in the world comes from the fact they want to establish a pure Islamic state, not that they are fighting against oppression are other nonsense that so called enlightenment liberal spew.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:12 a.m. CST

    You watch Fox and vote Bush and you're a MODERATE?

    by Gul Shah

    Hell, you're not even a conservative! Read "Impostor : How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy " by former REAGAN official Bruce Bartlett. Sorry, pal, you lost me after that admission. Go and drink your Kool-Aid.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Sure, actually.

    by SpacePhil

    Sure. The Fascist government in V as Saddam Hussein - or better yet, the Taliban - works just fine. In fact, from a conservative point of view, why not look at this movie as a reenactment of the American Revolution - or the French Resistance during WWII - in a futuristic setting? Freedom fighter versus the oppressive system. Easy, right?

  • March 16, 2006, 11:17 a.m. CST

    I have a feeling as a Brit this may be laughably bad

    by ChorleyFM

    Although it might be that from the outside looking in it seems quite enjoyable. Also that Times review says the book is good but has been adapted poorly, with Moore being right to have removed his name and that those involved with the film should have listened to him.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Terrorism never works.

    by cookylamoo

    Because you can never get to the guys who are in power, and it gives them a perfect excuse to crack down on what personal freedom is left. Totalitatian governments don't get overthrown, except by other governments. If the United States became totalitarian, that would be the end of human freedom and it looks like we're on out way.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:19 a.m. CST

    this review is very much from ThatFrenchGuy's point of

    by vicious_bastard

  • March 16, 2006, 11:19 a.m. CST

    ...view

    by vicious_bastard

    As opposed to what? Some rich exec's?

  • March 16, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    forgive me-dont mean to change the topic of the tb

    by misnomer

    *not too psyched about v tbh* but I came across this interesting interview with hayden church on SM3 on the shh boards: http://tinyurl.com/cbg6a it really looks like venom will be in it and not be a true baddie until the end of the movie. this goes in line with the Q&A that was featured here a few weeks ago. looks like the Q&A may be genuine! ;)

  • March 16, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    VICIOUS

    by Joseph Merrick

    Excellent point. Written in a pre-caffeinated state. Wording adjusted accordingly.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Watches FOX? Likes Bush? A MODERATE?!

    by www.valiens.com

    "Hey, everyone. I'm not a Nazi, I'm a neo-nazi. Anyway here's my review...."

  • March 16, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Mark Kermode said it was enjoyable

    by ChorleyFM

    But incredibly silly and camp with a bit of an edge. It doesn't appear to be as intelligent as the AICN boys are saying or McTeague and the Wachowski's actually think.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Just a heads' up for HypeEndsHere

    by squidman

    For a reference on the character design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_fawkes Scroll down to "literature". Interesting stuff. Not sure if everyone knew this. I never read the graphic novel, so this is a nice, albeit brief explanation.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:47 a.m. CST

    V is not equivalent to modern terrorists

    by morgoththegood

    Modern Muslim terrorists are secular, brainwashed, ignorant idiots, while V is literate, well-informed (in fact, what separates him from the rest of the population is the fact that he's BETTER informed than they), and, of course, he does not target innocents. Call V a terrorist if you will, but he is in no way equivalent to the brainwashed dogs that flew into the World Trade Center.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Watching FOX News does NOT make you an extremist...

    by beefywhore

    attending Fred Phelps ralleys and picketing abortion clincs, or volunteering to stuff envelopes for Focus on The Family while you discuss Rush's show with your ladies prayer group on the other hand...

  • March 16, 2006, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Jimmie Dimmick

    by PwnedByStallone

    All of those with the weapons we sold him and under the close supervision of the CIA

  • March 16, 2006, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Um, that IS what the Iraqi people did

    by MOMERATH

    and U.S. promised to help them then we sold them out at the last minute. The result? hundreds of thousands gassed to death, with chemicals paid for the U.S., with a check signed by Donald Rumsfeld.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Before Anchorite takes his shots...

    by UncleEthan

    1- Best "first" post ever. 2- Watching Fox News does not make you an extremeist. I watch it because I like to know what the extremist are thinking...ok. It makes you a spoon fed ditto head. 3- If you have it available...listen to Terry Gilliams commentary on the Criterion edition of Brazil. I checked it out again as a precurser to going to see V. Gilliam points out that the villians in his film are not the obvious ones. The real villians are not the manipulators, but the loser masses who allow themselves to be manipulated. They are usually manipulated using their very shallow wants and desires. It is also interesting to note (And I am a Yank with a limited perpective on this) that Gilliam states tha he and Tom Stoppard based much of "Brazil" on the day to day realities of Maggie Thatchers England. The same administration that inspired Alan Moore to write "V". England still has more government survelliance cameras on that tiny island than there are in the entire US. Just a nugget for thought.

  • March 16, 2006, noon CST

    How does V see trough the mask? Is he re-imagining...

    by Curt Jurgens

    the surroundings or can he just plug into the Matrix? Also for those not familiar with Hugo, can they regognise him by the voice when he tortures Padme?

  • March 16, 2006, 12:14 p.m. CST

    It's only fair to see Padme tortured.

    by cookylamoo

    Her acting tortured us in three movies.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Is Kamala 12 years old?

    by Childe Roland

    Just curious. And while comparisons of our founding fathers to the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center is not a worthwhile or valid pursuit, many sound parallels can be drawn between the Iraqi insurgents (often mislabeled as terrorists) fighting our occupying forces in Iraq. The latter "terrorists" are much more like the "freedom fighters" we hold in such high regard in both ideology and tactical preferences than most Americans care to admit. And we are much more like Revolutionary-era Britain (right down to King George) than most are able to see. How long before folks start dumping gas into the local ports and harbors as a sign of mounting frustration? Who knows. But it will be interesting to watch from the flyover states.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    There's no such thing as a "moderate conservative"

    by SpyGuy

    I know, many people like to refer to themselves that way, but the poltical spectrum runs from liberal extremist to liberal to moderate to conservative to radical reactionary. If you're a so-called "moderate conservative," then you're either a moderate (with some liberal view and some conserative views) or a conservative that likes to think he or she is progressive but really isn't. Enough with the wishy-washy, namby-pamby labelling, people...Pick a viewpoint and commit to it already.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:31 p.m. CST

    The Times review...

    by Killah_Mate

    ...was written by a moron. He casually spoils arguably the biggest plot point in the movie within half a sentence, completely without care or warning. Stupid critics.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:31 p.m. CST

    A conservative homosexual nazi democrats review

    by glitzless

    'good explosions'

  • March 16, 2006, 12:38 p.m. CST

    anchorite

    by blackwood

    The movie IS about ideas - and so are politics. The fact that people will bring their own politics into it is inevitable, and why positioning the reviewer is worthwhile. Maybe the US is moving towards a totalitarian state - but that's not the fault of the film. Regardless, that review sucked - it was seemingly one paragraph repeated with different adjectives thrown in.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:39 p.m. CST

    In Natalie's defense

    by beefywhore

    The scene in Clones where her shirt is ripped and she looks like Wilma from the old Buck Rogers series is the only fond memory I have of that picture.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:40 p.m. CST

    FINALLY!

    by jorson2

    A conservative contributor -- or, at least, a moderate conservative willing to say so. There's hope yet.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:43 p.m. CST

    not to nit-pick,

    by samsquanch

    but there's no such thing as a "Fox news watching, Bush voting MODERATE conservative". Moderate conservatives believe in smaller government and a responsible, free press. For these reasons and many, many more, watching Fox and voting for Bush puts you somewhere out on the extreme right, which in my opinion, as a legitimate moderate conservative, negates your claim to being a conservative at all.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:45 p.m. CST

    I dont know shit about politics but its nice to see...

    by Curt Jurgens

    both liberal and conservative joining and sharing forces and opinions in pushing us to see the movie. They agree in a kind of totalitarian way that either you see the movie or you are not allowed to comment on it. Very V like. Also release of the movie bombing the shit out of England iconography on StPatrick's Day is a nice touch.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Yes, anchorite, I do believe that intentions matter...

    by Childe Roland

    ...as much as location in violent conflicts. So does the law in our country. If you were to shoot somebody who was implicitly or by statement intent on doing you bodily harm or harm to your property in a publicsetting, you would risk and likely be subject to prosecution and punishment (depending on factors such as state and local venue as well as the predispositions of a sitting judge and/or jury). However, if that encounter had happened in your home, where your wife and children sleep, the law (and the public) would look at it differently (depending, again, on the above factors). The gist of the difference being that the stranger you shot sacrificed a certain amount of the protections afforded him by the Constitution when he invaded your home unlawfully (sure, you could still get sued in civil court if you shot the intruder or if he fell and hurt himself while burgalarizing your place, but that's more a perverse extension of what our system has become than a testament to the spirit of the law). If you kill or injure someone who is acting aggressively toward you on your own property, you are automaticlaly given a benefit of the doubt that you would not be afforded you elsewhere. It's just the way perception works. As for the tactics employed by the Iraqi insurgents, are you familiar with the concept of acceptable losses? Often people assume that, when the U.S. military uses this term, they are talking about projected casualties among the armed and designated "friendly" fighting force. Not so. Acceptable losses (in both military and civilian law-enforcement applications) frequently (to the point of routine) include civilian casualties deemed appropriate or necessary in the interest of a particular objective. This doesn't even take into account the often blackly ironic concept of "friendly fire." As many astute individuals on this board have already pointed out, the righteousness and justifiability of these casualties (and, really, any hostile action taken by anyone) is entirely a matter of perspective. While I can't condone the deliberate or accidental deaths of non-combatants in a war zone, I can certainly understand how they happen. Are you suggesting you cannot?

  • March 16, 2006, 12:56 p.m. CST

    If moderates didn't vote for Bush, he wouldn'

    by chrth

  • March 16, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Er, let me try again

    by chrth

    If moderates didn't vote for Bush, how do you think he won? I know the left and right hate to hear this, but the large majority of Americans are moderates (by definition and in reality). The total number of far left and far right is roughly equal to the population of North Dakota.

  • March 16, 2006, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Government created by the US?

    by chrth

    How does that work? Do you go to a store and purchase an "Oppressive Government Kit", just add homicidal madman? I think you're confusing Saddam with the Shah. The Baathist party was Soviet-funded from the beginning.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:01 p.m. CST

    and yet, chrth, those people determine

    by HypeEndsHere

    who are our candidates. somehow seems, i don't know...fuckedup?

  • March 16, 2006, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Anchorite, you ignorant slut...Moderate IS a viewpoint.

    by SpyGuy

    Being a moderate means you cherry pick the viewpoints of both left and right wings that make the most sense to you and consolidate them into a singular ideology. For example, you believe child molesters should spend many years in jail but not be put to death (or something along those lines). Being moderate isn't namby-pamby, but being moderate AND a conservative is. I mean, how can you be completely against abortion in all instances at the same time you're okay with abortion only in the instances of rape, incest or where the pregnancy is a danger to the mother? That's completely fucked up.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:04 p.m. CST

    You do know the government of Saddam created by...US"

    by m2298

    When? In 1979 or earlier? Some details please as suppoting need not = 'creating'?

  • March 16, 2006, 1:10 p.m. CST

    A true moderate is a fence sitter.

    by EriamJH

    Which ain't a bad thing. You sit up high on a fence above the minions to the left and right, and can logically see both sides of the issue. Those trapped in the propaganda of either side can't see past the fence to other side. (Because it's a nice privacy fence, made of Colorado pine, with bright colors and mirrors...) BESIDES... the movie is not supposed to be liberal vs. conservative BUT anarchy vs. facism.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:18 p.m. CST

    question for Brits

    by m2298

    I must first confess that I haven't read Moore's V graphic novel or read anything he's had to say about it. It does seem that he meant it to be a statement on the Thatcher government. While I imagine many didn't like her policies or the effects they had or social services and employment, was there ever any 'totalitarian' rule involved? Back in the US, I recall seeing many demonstrations and articles against her government in the UK and am not aware that anyone was thrown into prison over them. Please enlighten.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:25 p.m. CST

    RE:"Spy Guy, then there are NO moderates. Period."

    by I Dunno

    That way of thinking is exactl what's wrong with American politics. All these partisan assholes who don't give a thought to the actual issue but rather vote and think along what their team thinks. These kinds of people make me want to puke. Nothing will get accomplished with this way of thinking.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Terrorist/freedom fighter

    by Durendal

    Freedom fighters fight oppressive governments, and they fight only that. Terrorists fight everyone, killing soldier and civilian indiscriminately. Ergo, the Iraqi insurgents are terrorists. How many "freedom fighters" kidnap aid workers that have lived in the area for about a decade (a woman who did nothing but help Iraqis through Saddam's reign, giving food and aid) and cut their heads off on tape? How amny "freedom fighters" will run a car loaded with explosives into a crowd of kids to kill a few soldiers when they could've waiting two minutes to get the soldiers alone? These guys aren't "freedom fighters", they are terrorists, and they are not morally justified in doing these things. It's one thing to fight the US troops. It's quite another to deliberately slaughter their fellow countrymen. These terrorists are cut from the same cloth as the other fundie Muslims. You think they want freedom? No, they want another oppressive Muslim theocracy.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    speaking of evil, twisted mindsets...

    by samsquanch

    Even if you're right, do you think there's any reasonable argument an ordinary, non-terrorist Iraqi citizen might have for NOT wanting America the Beautiful to roll in and tell him how he should live his life? And also, let me just say, blaming anti-military propaganda on the left is so last year. The military, by it's nature, are beyond partisan politics. if a soldier goes nuts and kills an innocent civilian, or breaks into someones house, (it does happen buddy) don't turn it into a right/left thing. The soldier takes orders. where do the orders come from? it's just as wrong to hero-worship the military as it is to vilify it.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:31 p.m. CST

    a mere comic book movie can hold high minded ideas

    by Harker-Writes

    I think it's made into a movie so people who can't even understand comic books can get to see it! That's why the American's love it and the Brits hate it.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:42 p.m. CST

    RE :so actually what IS 'V'? crazy Zorro ninja clown?

    by kibbled

    V is actually wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. Guy Fawkes was a English terrorist who tried to blow up the English Parliment building in 1606. This event is known as the Gunpowder Plot and is now celebrated as Guy Fawkes day every year on Nov 5th. I got this information from Wikipedia so if you want more info look it up there. I don't know why the English would want to celebrate this day. Wouldn't it be the same if we (Americans) would celebrate 9/11?

  • March 16, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST

    can we officially retire...

    by Lando Griffin

    the "drink your kool-aid" phrase? Along with "sheep"? Fuck you if you use those on a regular basis.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Kamala

    by lynxpro

    The Sons of Liberty were a terrorist organization. Study some of the atrocities they committed during their era. Granted, they didn't have the means to kill people like today's fanatical Muslim terrorists. However, if given the opportunity, they would've killed as many Loyalists as possible back then. Washington hated irregular forces, but he still led a rebellion against the Crown over a taxation that amounted to about 1% of a person's total income in an effort to pay off the massive British war debt that was incurred protecting the British American colonies from French hostilities in the war known here as the "French & Indian War" when the colonies proved they could not defend themselves. That's called ingratitude and treason. And when an idiot politician like Barbara Boxer - who claims to support education - starts making public speaches about how "Europe and Japan should pay for their own defense" it makes me want to smack her upside her thick head with a history book since we have this country today due to not wanting to honor our war debt.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Erm not really

    by Babyshamble

    We celebrate Guy fawkes day because he didn't blow up parliment. He was caught and executed. So every Nov 5th people make dummies of Guy Fawkes and put them on bonfires. That sounds pretty wierd actually but really it's just an excuse to go to bonfire's and firework displays and eat bangers and mash. Last year I went to a fair and got pissed at the pub. Most things in England are just an excuse for a piss up. No one thinks about the politics of bonfire night.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:56 p.m. CST

    hey anchorite

    by staticneuron

    "The Americans and our allies are trying to rebuild their country and ensure freedom and civil libery that the Iraqis haven't been able to participate in." And that shows the problem with the US population. It is all about perspective. And that statement makes it seems as if our american troops and the forces that put them there are only doing it for the good of those people. No it isn't. We are doing it for our own good. We really shouldn't be there in the first place. America really has no right in policing the world because we would be doing it from our own perspective. forcing upon others what we "think" things should be. And I am an american that is sad at his own country because even if I am not killed or put in jailed for my point of views I will be labled as "unpatriotic" and recieve all the negative attention that goes with that.

  • March 16, 2006, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Bush = A-hole

    by PhantomSpazzz

    "we're still being challenged in Iraq and te reason why is a free Iraq will be a major defeat in the cause of freedom". -W This reviewer was an idiot. I like how he trys to justify how moronic the leaders of this country are. "Any American today in their right mind would do what the people of England did if they found out the Bush administration had created a virus and killed 100,000 people" (what about the administrations failure to act upon the devistation that Katrina brought?)

  • March 16, 2006, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Winners write the history books

    by chains

    Who really knows how much terrorism our founding fathers were responsible for during the Revolution? Does anyone think such acts would make it into our history books? If Germany had won WWII, do you think the Holocaust would have been included in history books? Step outside of yourself and imagine you were born in another country. Then decide whether you accept the spin from your government.

  • March 16, 2006, 2 p.m. CST

    Childe Roland has a dick in his ear

    by Kamala

    Most of the so-called insurgents in Iraq come from the lovely neighboring states of Syria, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. They would rather blow up innocent Iraqis and their Mosques, then dare have a western style democracy in their area. I don't recall Southern Baptist blowing up Roman Catholics while at Christmas mass during the American Revolution. That in way is what is happening in Iraq. Now, go back to going down on Howard Dean.

  • March 16, 2006, 2 p.m. CST

    Oh Chains, yee of little faith.

    by Mr Nice Gaius

  • March 16, 2006, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Interested in what Alan Moore says about the movie?

    by vroom socko

    It's at MTV, of all places: http://tinyurl.com/otjhv

  • March 16, 2006, 2:02 p.m. CST

    BAHAMUT-KUN

    by lynxpro

    The Ba'ath Party was founded by a Syrian along the lines of the Nazi Party of Germany. Their origins are found with a German supported rebellion against British control of Iraq during WWII. The founder of the party annointed Saddam as its champion. And the U.S. did not bring Saddam to power nor really supported him. Saddam's Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union with a cozy relationship with various French politicians like Chirac way back in the 70s. The U.S. "helped" Saddam in fighting against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which the U.S. considered to be even more vile at the time. The History Channel has a nice 2 hour special it airs sometimes about the connections between Saddam's Iraq and Nazism. You might want to watch it and then you might replace that knee-jerk American liberal critique of yours with some actual facts to ponder.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:04 p.m. CST

    "Insurgents"

    by chains

    First of all, what the hell do any of us know about what's really happening in Iraq? We only know what is funneled through our media, which gets its information directly from the US government. If Rumsfeld says an attack was made by "insurgents" and it killed a bunch of civilians, the media has no way of verifying that information. Conversely, there have been many reports (including photographs) that our troops are using white phosphorous on civilians. That's a chemical weapon, folks... melting the flesh of women and children. I don't hate America, but just as there is good and bad in every person, there is good and bad in every nation. Ours is no different.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Guy Fawkes Day in America

    by lynxpro

    It used to be celebrated in Boston during the Colonial era. It became "Pope's Day" which was the same celebration except that instead of burning Guy Fawkes dummies, they burned dummies made to resemble the Pope. Riots usually broke out during the anarchy/festivities. The practice ended when Irish Catholic immigrants grew to majority status of the city's population.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:06 p.m. CST

    You're making a lot of assumptions about intentions...

    by Childe Roland

    ...anchorite. Any hard evidence to substantiate your claims to know the minds of these insurgents? Or even their true ethnicities (has the U.S. conducted some sort of census of people shooting at them? "Pardon me, sir, but could you hold your fire for a bit and tell me where you're from and why you're so angry with me?"). I would agree, if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that everyone shooting at us in Iraq is a foreign (non-Iraqi) national on the payroll of the Iranian government, those people could be classified as terrorists (or simply an invading army picking an opportune time to stake their claim, which -- by sheer geography -- is more legitimate than any claim the U.S. might have on the territory). But there's no evidence, no hard numbers or signed confessions of intent, to support your assertions. In fact, they sound suspiciously like the very spun information the government has been answering inquiries with through its very polished and "on message" communications efforts. There have, however, been polls of Iraqis, which seem to suggest the indigent people of the nation (or about 80% of them as of last week) do not want the U.S. there at all. I have to presume these were civilians polled since the pollsters survived long enough to report their findings to the associated press, which disseminated the results via what I would consider a traditionally conservative radio station in my city (hot on the heels of reports on Bush's dwindling popularity and news of the shot-down Arab Emirates port supervision deal -- almost as if the traditionally conservative station were trying to distance itself from Bush). Coincidentally, a relatively high percentage (38-50 according to two separate polls reported last week) of U.S. soldiers also thought getting out of Iraq sooner rather than later would be a really good idea. Would you call any of those soldiers cowards or question their patriotism simply because they, based on first-hand experience, have decided whatever it is we're trying to acheive over there isn't working? I certainly wouldn't. Oh...and for the record...Americans have broken into homes in search of insurgents (sometimes finding them, sometimes not) and if you believe that soldiers aren't taking "souveniers" over there, you obviously aren't very familiar with human nature. But even if they were all behaving as the perfect model of the American soldier (and I think it's pretty clear by our own government's admission that not all of them are), it's reasonable to assume that someone living in a U.S. occupied neighborhood in Iraq might have legitimate reasons not to want the foreign soldiers, who don't speak their native language or understand their culture, walking around near their homes, schools and mosques exhausted and demoralized with their fingers on the triggers of automatic weapons.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Bush = A-hole

    by Lando Griffin

    well at least you refrained from Bush=Hitler, good job, (pat on the head) However you forgot to mention the HurricaneMachine (tm) built for Cheney by Halliburton

  • March 16, 2006, 2:12 p.m. CST

    a jew killing german soldiers in the warsaw ghettos...

    by darth wayne

    Suppose you have a ninja jew prowling the alleys by night of a WWII-era Warsaw ghetto. He consistently kills German soldiers, blows up their shid, and gets away. Though the Germans would surely consider him a terrorist, he's not. Because he's right. There's right and there's wrong, and it's not just actions that define you, but who it is you're acting against. F moral relativism...

  • March 16, 2006, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Whatever.

    by Mooly

    I'm looking forward to this movie, but there is no way the reviewer is a conservative, Bush supporting, Fox watching republican. That is an excuse. Clearly the fact that he doesn't think this movie is controversial as other rednecks, but admits that he sees all these issues in both America and the movie. But hey...he sees it more in old Iraq so clearly the American connection isn't that big a deal. I guess an issue can only affect one coutnry at a time. Give me a break. If this movie has an American subtext and he sees it, then it is also attacking everything he claims to stand for and believe in. Yet he says it doesn't so he can't be what he claims. He's either a poser or a liar.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Mooly, you're a simple-minded douche.

    by darth wayne

    grow up.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Forget France

    by Meremoth

    I'm sorry, but it had to be said. Boy do I feel better now. Oh and the Revolution wasn't just about a 1% tax, it was about wanting to expand but the Brits giving the land won in the 7 Years war to the Indians and then making America pay for it. It's about not being represented in government. It's about dumping large quantities of tea into a harbor while dressed as Native Americans dammit. It's about many things. And I think France might have helped us, but that's irrelevant. I'm done now, think I'll eat me some freedom fries if you'll excuse me.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:26 p.m. CST

    HypeEndsHere: Actually, they don't

    by chrth

    Otherwise we'd see Pat Buchanan as a Republican candidate facing off again Howard "AARRHH!!!" Dean. Presidential Candidates will say what needs to be said to consolidate the extreme part of their base, but Clinton was no more of a Liberal as President than Bush was...and Bush isn't very conservative, for that matter. Traditional conservatives believe in little government--while Bush keeps expanding the current one. Far right conservatives advocate against American imperialism, which is what the left is accusing Bush of in Iraq. Moderate candidates will always be the order of the day because the Karl Roves of the world know that extreme candidates simply can not win.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST

    While your dick/ear thing was certainly creative...

    by Childe Roland

    ...on a fourth grade reading level, Kamala, coupled with the regurgitation of standard party rhetoric concerning the situation in Iraq it really does nothing to stimulate intelligent discussion of motives, location and perception as they influence the public acceptance or condemnation of violent actions. Try again. Try harder.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Lynxpro, fuck you and your fucking lymie sympathizing

    by FluffyUnbound

    If there was a class of citizens in the US who were denied the vote as a matter of law but who were still taxed [other than, say, felons, who I personally feel should get their voting rights back when they leave prison], that class of persons would be perfectly morally entitled to fuck the rest of us up and blow up our shit. Whether the tax was 1% or 99%. And if the government suddenly made illegal trade with all nations except, say, France, and trade with France was to be carried out on terms favorable to France, then French people should expect to get fucked up and to get their shit blown up. And if the army started quartering citizens in private homes without the consent of the propertyholder, then I would expect some army guides to turn up in hospitals, and I would expect yet more shit to get blown up real good. And if the government decided to cut the state of Massachusetts off from the rest of the states, and ban traffic in and out of that state, because they were mad at Massachusetts about something and wanted to punish them or teach them a lesson, then I would expect the residents of Massachusetts to head down to their national guard armories, grab some artillery, and start blowing shit up. All of these events would be entirely appropriate, fair, just, and in proportion to the provocation. Just because the British were too fucking stupid to realize that granting voting rights to their colonists [both in the US and elsewhere, for that matter] on the basis of property ownership would have kept their empire together and probably eventually had the Union Jack flying over the entire world, that's no reason to try to make excuses for them now. Dumbasses.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST

    yeah, I know about Guy Fawkes, but I didn't know if V

    by HypeEndsHere

    had powers or something. is he a ninja? or superstrong? how could one man take on an entire gov't?

  • March 16, 2006, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Uh, Fluffy?

    by chrth

    For the Majority of American history, there were taxed individuals who could not vote: non-landowners got the vote the soonest, then African-Americans, and then finally women at the beginning of the 20th century. Are you suggesting that the first 150 years of American history should have been rife with violence against the government?

  • March 16, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    HypeEndsHere: V's powers *spoilers for comic*

    by chrth

    In the comic book, there are suggestions that the experiments done on V by the government "helped" him (although this is never specifically stated, just hinted at). Also, he has l33t h4xx04 sk1llz. Not sure if it's the same in the movie.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:37 p.m. CST

    A Republican review on AICN...?

    by ejcarter9

    ... is this liberal site becoming... tolerant????!?!!?!!!

  • March 16, 2006, 2:38 p.m. CST

    V Is A Tagger.

    by Buzz Maverik

    Big whoop.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:38 p.m. CST

    Chrth - Of course.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Unless we want to retroactively state that it was RIGHT for women and the poor to not have the right to vote. And until 1865 it would have been morally right, just, and good to start a bloody revolution in the US on the behalf of the slaves 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The colonists who rebelled against the British were right to do so, and had the slave population rebelled in turn, or had the Jacksonian forces been forced to turn to rebellion instead of the political process, THEY would have been right to do so.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:40 p.m. CST

    and chrth, I kind of believe the opposite

    by HypeEndsHere

    I believe if you are deeply involved in your party, you are not moderate. by the nature of being involved in the campaigning process, it seems that politicians are loyal to the party first and the country second. and i believe a party will select a candidate that first, is party loyal on EVERY issue, secondly, able to drift into the middle only as much as needed to secure a win. (and if the win occurs, they snap back to their hard roots immediately). the failures of Dean and Buchanan are due to the image the middle of the road american had of them, and so their parties turned on them. in retrospect, who the fuck cares that Dean yelled like a weirdo? i was more disturbed by the fact that grown men worth millions attend pep rallies.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST

    well, Chrth

    by staticneuron

    In the first 150 years happened to have alot of violence in there. Even if it wasn't all against the government it was all pretty much related to the way america was founded and run. BTW, I am damn sure if those african american slaves had access to guns and bombs alot more violent stuff ( on top of the violence already there) would have happened in american history.

  • March 16, 2006, 2:53 p.m. CST

    I think we need to distinguish two types of moderates

    by chrth

    There are the country moderates, that is, Republicans and Democrats (and independents) who will pick the candidate they feel they can support best as President. Sometimes they'll be united behind one (Nixon in '72, Reagan in '84, arguably Bush in '88, although not to the same extent as the previous two), sometimes they'll be sharply divided. These are the people who decide the election. ... Then you have the "party moderates", staunch members of the party who are willing to compromise on issues with the other side if necessary but more importantly aren't committed to what they would consider an agenda. In other words, a moderate Republican won't necessarily campaign against Roe v Wade; they might not like abortion, but they don't consider it the end-all issue. They're willing to trade-off among the different positions they have to support a candidate who agrees with the majority of their viewpoints. The extreme members only support candidates who back ALL of their views. These are the people that accuse Arlen Specter of being a "RINO" (Republican in Name Only--as if there's some sort of test you're required to pass). Moderate members of the party are more numerous than the extreme--again, almost by defintion--and thus are more responsible in the choice. Now, it is possible that one that is considered an "extreme" candidate could be a favorite of the moderates as well. Usually though, the extreme candidates unwavering and aggressive personality turns them against him or her. The reason is simple: moderates like compromise. They understand everything isn't black and white. They understand that compromises might be involved. And when a candidate comes off that way, they're no longer in ideological agreement with the moderates.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:03 p.m. CST

    I FIND IT AMAZING, THAT IN 2006....

    by JefferyLebowski

    ...some people still brag about watching Fox News and voting for George W. Bush. Let that idiot flag fly, my simple friend.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:04 p.m. CST

    by the way, Happy Ides of March everybody!!!

    by HypeEndsHere

    go out and stab a politician today!

  • March 16, 2006, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Childe Roland=Mullah's favorite tent boy

    by Kamala

    Yawn... Yet another moral relativist who thinks he is 'enlightened" because he doesn't see islamo-facist terrorism for what it really is, the scourge of modern man. When people get killed over a cartoon, and you can still make excuses for them, then you have lost it. Now put down your thesaurus were you get your big words from and get back to servicing Howard Dean. As you said, "Try Harder".

  • March 16, 2006, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Childe Roland=Mullah's favorite tent boy

    by Kamala

    Yawn... Yet another moral relativist who thinks he is 'enlightened" because he doesn't see islamo-facist terrorism for what it really is, the scourge of modern man. When people get killed over a cartoon, and you can still make excuses for them, then you have lost it. Now put down your thesaurus were you get your big words from and get back to servicing Howard Dean. As you said, "Try Harder".

  • March 16, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Bush &#8800; Hitler. Bush < Hitler

    by Harry Weinstein

    Hitler may have been evil, but he was at least competent at it. Hitler, who is, for the record, evil, managed to write a book. I can&#39;t imagine Bush doing the same - he has people to do it for him. He&#39;s a guy who would probably get fired from the late shift at the local 7-11 for locking the doors and napping on the job - if only his family didn&#39;t own the local franchise. He was simply born into a remarkable set of circumstances. Conservatives ought to ENCOURAGE people to compare Bush (or Clinton, or Gore, or any leader) to Hitler. If the comparisons are invalid they discredit themselves. If the comparisons are valid, well, we got a fucking problem that needs solving. I think, unfortunately that some comparisons between the two leaders DO hold water. Not all of them - we&#39;re not gassing people at Gitmo that I know of, just for example. But America needs to stop acting in ways that put these questions in people&#39;s minds in the first place. In 1999 it would have been unthinkable to me that such comparisons could ever be worth serious discussion - I see now that they are. This isn&#39;t about liberals -vs- conservatives. This is about people who believe in democracy and the vision of our founding fathers -vs- people who are more comfortable with textbook fascism - be it the left-wing or right-wing variety of fascism. Patriotic liberals and conservatives need to understand that they are actually on the same side in this. Liberals don&#39;t hate america - Fascists masquerading as conservatives who try and cloak the dissent that is the foundation of democracy in the rags of treason are the REAL enemies of this country. Nobody should be quicker to compare Bush and Hitler than conservatives - you guys are supposed to be the ones who truly value the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This administration makes no secret for its contempt for them - to quote the President, the constitution is only a "goddamn piece of paper". Liberals, true conservatives, time to show your brass ones and really take a stand. Unless, of course, you hate America and everything it stands for.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST

    killdeer2...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ... fuck you too - just wanted to get that in - what the reviewer here misses is that what makes the story of this movie contraversial is not that the ruling power is facist or nazi-like - we all know things were worse &#39;overthere&#39; with saddam in iraq and the taliban in afganistan- that comparison is easy - the contraversial element of the story in v is that such a ruling power could exsist in a modern western culture - like britain or america - the movie is faithful to the comic in that it takes place in a future england - can you imagine the shit storm this movie would kick up if it took place in a future america - it actually wouldve rang as more possible - in my opinion - but &#39;that&#39; movie will never get made - this next staement is a carry over from merricks review talk back session - its funny how no matter how much bush fucks up on the job his blindest supporters will always keep defending him - and their favorite method is by pointing to democrats that they think fucked up worse - bush is in office right now - not the &#39;evil democrats&#39; - bush is the figure head to the body that fucking this country up now

  • March 16, 2006, 3:13 p.m. CST

    How old are these people?

    by Spangler

    I always wonder about this site, I mean I love movies so I&#39;m here, but is everyone between the ages of 14 and 22 (I&#39;m 24)? How can so many liberals exist? Why don&#39;t they win elections? Do they not vote because they&#39;re too drunk or stoned and forget? Seems to me Liberalism is for the easily persuaded... they make promises like "longer recess!" and "no more hall passes!" and "soda machines in every classroom!"... childish nonsense. Young Conservatives will all be WORKING HARD and making money and fucking beautiful women when November elections roll around and we pick up seats despite Bush&#39;s approval rating and lackluster performance as of late (WTF was that Harriet Myers shit all about?) So all you that bash Fox news and free thinking people in general etc.. can enjoy it on CNN (Lou Dobbs rocks though) when everyone is so damn confused why a bunch of whiny idiots lost AGAIN. The American people are not stupid. When Conservatives promise opportunities and Liberals promise outcomes, it only takes a little thought to realize that only one of those promises is possible. Happy St. Patty&#39;s day everyone - once we&#39;re all drunk we&#39;ll like eachother again :-)

  • March 16, 2006, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Spangler, was it Churchill who said ...

    by chrth

    If you&#39;re 20 and conservative you have no heart; if you&#39;re 30 and liberal you have no brain .. ?

  • March 16, 2006, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Kamala is right

    by NathanDetroits

    Americans weren&#39;t terrorists during the Revolutionary War. Americans didn&#39;t commit terrorism until they dropped the A-bomb on Japan after Japan had already made concessions for surrender. Targeting non-combatants with an A-bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still the worst terroristic act of all time.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Trying to think makes you sleepy, Kamala?

    by Childe Roland

    Is that why you resorted to the same tired locker-room innuendo about servicing Dean? Honestly, I had to look him up to remember whther he was a Democrat or another Republican who abandoned Bush, so you&#39;d be dead wrong in your assumption that I have any particular affinity for the man. And you talk about relativism as if it&#39;s a concept you truly don&#39;t understand. If you did, you&#39;d realize that everything in the universe is relative to one&#39;s position in time, space and personal belief system. You clearly believe America can do no wrong under Bush. That makes you part of a shrinking minority. Not that I believe that should impact your beliefs in any way, shape or form (believe what you believe, not what others pressure you to believe), but you should know that a great many people don&#39;t see the world in terms as simple or as narrow as you do. Its a great big complicated universe full of variables. But maybe it&#39;s easier for you to to just believe what you&#39;re told to believe by whomever it is that ingrained their beliefs into you. Whatever gets you through the night. And you just go ahead and keep mugging for the imagined appreciative audience instead of actually addressing any of the points I&#39;ve raised. It&#39;s easier to assume you&#39;re winning when you believe your own bullshit. Of course, while you&#39;re busy patting yourself on the back, everyone else wonders if you&#39;re crazy or stupid or both. Just ask Bush.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Interesting observation Spangler...

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    I wonder where the focused voice of liberalism is these days (and true conservatism for that matter). But thanks to people like Nancy Pelosi, we know it&#39;s part of the "Democratic Agenda" to make sure everyone in America gets Broadband. Which I suppose is nice if you don&#39;t mind the fact that a MILLION other issues are at stake. Be that as it may gents, I&#39;ll bet you that MODERATE REPUBLICANS and INDEPENDENTS will become the Democrats&#39; best friends during the mid-term elections.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Spangler, it&#39;s not about liberal vs. conservative

    by FluffyUnbound

    Not any more. George Will thinks W is a horrible President. So does Bob Barr. And so does just about every member of every non-religious conservative movement with which I am familiar. The guy&#39;s an incompetent clown, and his core supporters - his only remaining supporters, really - are medieval savages who really shouldn&#39;t say anything about islamofascism because it&#39;s a pot and kettle thing if they do. And I can&#39;t watch Fox News any more because they&#39;ve simply dumbed it down too far, and they don&#39;t seem to want to program any non-talk hour without a gross-looking skank whore as an anchorette, and that and the production design make the channel unwatchable if you aren&#39;t trailer trash. I could live with their bias. I can&#39;t deal with their bad taste.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Chrth

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    I don&#39;t recall if Churchill said that or not. But I believe you&#39;ve got it backwards. I always thought the saying was, "If you aren&#39;t a liberal while young, you have no heart. If you aren&#39;t a conservative when old, you haven&#39;t learned anything".

  • March 16, 2006, 3:31 p.m. CST

    NathanDetroits

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    You should read up on what Japan did to the Asian continent during WWII. Talk about targeting non-combatants.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:32 p.m. CST

    Mr Nice Gaius ... no, that&#39;s the same saying

    by chrth

    Just worded differently (paraphrased?).

  • March 16, 2006, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Childe Roland & Howard Dean sitting in a tree...

    by Kamala

    Dear Goat Whore, this may come as a surprise to you, but there was Islamic terrorism before bush was office. I believe they tried to take down the World Trade Center in 1993. So make it about Bush all you want. It wouldn&#39;t matter if Ward Churchill was in the white house. The problem would still be there and growing. Just ask people in France and Demark. Not exactly two nations that come to mind as war mongering countries. By the way, is this you in Muslim drag? http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/holo.jpg

  • March 16, 2006, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Chrth

    by Spangler

    Yeah maybe, it started with me when my parents explained abortion, a 7-year old against abortion definitely has a heart. I like "a conservative is just a liberal who&#39;s been mugged". Of course these days I&#39;m more concerned about the how government was explained in the constituition: Fed govt rules state govt, which rules county government, which rules city governent which rules homeowner&#39;s association (hahaha) which rules families which rule individuals who rule THEMSELVES.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Chrth

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Yeah, you&#39;re right. I just realized that they say basically the same thing. Cheers.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Spangler- cheers

    by samsquanch

    for making the most subtly hilarious joke I&#39;ve heard in awhile. I thought your post was serious, till you let the cat out of the bag by saying "So all you that bash Fox news and free thinking people in general etc." I lauged at the screen. nice one.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Some truth fluffy...

    by Spangler

    in what you&#39;ve said - I don&#39;t think he&#39;s horrible, in fact at one point I thought he was "The Greatest President" - Colbert is hilarious... not sure what&#39;s goin&#39; on these days. The government is too big, he&#39;s fucked up 3 times in the past 6 months... man what a bummer, the next one will be better. Mcain would rock, so would Guliani (yeah pro-life I know... whatever)

  • March 16, 2006, 3:41 p.m. CST

    dstrbo1

    by Spangler

    haha you sound like a friend of mine, I miss that kid... anyway by free thinking I mean these days it&#39;s tough to be a conservative. I went to Penn State dude, and yes, you have got to be freethinking to withstand the bombardment of liberal Marxist propoganda they spew there... it was rough, and they almost got me, but then I remembered something my Grandmother said: "To thine own self be true"

  • March 16, 2006, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Spangler...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ... im 40 - i vote - and i work and pay taxes - you are an idiot - making lots of money and fucking beautiful women are lofty goals - and according to you they are the driving force behind young republicans/conservatives - go team go - you are a free thinker - wow - what does that even mean anymore - youre free to make bad choices that are self serving and destructive - honestly - you are your own worst enemy - the reason the republicans won the vote for president last election was not because all liberals and democrats are lazy drunk teenagers - most teenagers these days think like you - me me me - the reason your side won is because conservative christian republicans turned out by the bus load all over the country - your team just has more members - that simple - as far as not caring enough goes - there are a lot of people who lean to the right and are too lazy to vote - being too lazy to vote has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative - i wonder about this site too - i love movies too - its why im here - why are you really here - it surprises me how many &#39;guys like you&#39; show up here - i would think this place is too liberal for such a staunch conservative

  • March 16, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Oh, silly me

    by samsquanch

    I guess you were serious. Isn&#39;t it funny though, how these packaged little sayings, like: "A Conservative is just a Liberal who&#39;s never been mugged." can work just as well in reverse? It depends on your deeper perception of what separates the two ideologies. A Liberal gets mugged, realizes that his values are naive, wakes up to the fact that the world is a harsh place and the poor people he&#39;s been sticking up for are just greedy assholes who will do violence against him. -CONVERSLY- A Conservative gets mugged, realizes that his values are naive, wakes up to the fact that the socio-economic realites are more complex than he realized, and that he&#39;s been a victim of his own country&#39;s inability to adddress real problems with poverty at their source. funny, huh?

  • March 16, 2006, 3:46 p.m. CST

    And anchorite, I applaud your ability...

    by Childe Roland

    ...to recognize that the insurgents our government seems intent on labeling as terrorists might not all be from the same place and, therefore, might not all be acting as one unified body with the same goals and concerns. I am also completely willing to entertain this notion. But you can&#39;t then say that video tapes from Osama&#39;s people are truly representative of the intentions of every insurgent in Iraq. Nor can you say it is clear all of the insurgents are non Iraqui because they&#39;ve been seen crossing borders (in both directions). I cross interstate borders all the time, sometimes not in my own car (which conveniently identifies me, via my license plate, as being from a particular state). Would you assume, seeing me driven back to my state of origin in a car bearing a license plate from a different state, that I was from that latter state? You&#39;d be wrong, then. Back to the video tapes. If you were Osama and wanted to demoralize Western civilization (and I have no doubt whatsoever that is HIS intent), wouldn&#39;t you assume credit for the things vexing the U.S. most at any given time? I still maintain it is entirely possible that Osama merely claimed credit for the World Trade Center bombings as a way of thumbing his nose at us since he was already on our international shit list (kind of like when the kid you were chasing around the playground to beata up for his lunch money would laugh at you when you tripped and skinned your knee and say "See? God punished you!"). If I were him or his people, you can bet I&#39;d be claiming credit for as much of what makes the U.S. miserable as possible, just to perpetuate the illusion that my power and influence were far greater than previously imagined. Am I positive that&#39;s what&#39;s going on? Absolutely not. But I don&#39;t have near enough evidence to rule it out, either. Just as you can&#39;t possibly have enough information to claim with certainty that at least some of the people fighting us in Iraq aren&#39;t Iraqi&#39;s with legitimate, personal reasons for not wanting us there. As for the polls you question (and rightfully so), every single poll conducted by anyone on any given subject is and should be inherently suspect. It goes back to the whole perspective and relativity issue. Someone had to make that poll and, unless that someone was a robot, they felt one way or another about the subject at hand. But polls are the way we make determinations in the U.S. Even determinations of what is right and wrong. To skip back to my legal system analogy of earlier (and I fear you might&#39;ve missed the point of that because you seemed kind of hung up on the burglary aspect of it when it was the location of the conflict that was important), guilt or innocence is determined in our country most often by "a jury of one&#39;s peers." Obviously this doesn&#39;t mean you or I would necessarily be judged by a panel of monitor-gazing geeks with delusions of enlightenment and catchy screen names. It means that a representative group of individuals will be selected from a larger pool of elligible candidates and screened through a questioning or polling process to determine their suitability. Of course this process can be influenced by the questions asked by either side (prosecution or defense) during the selection, just as the final decision of the jurors selected can and will be influenced by questions and answers from both sides during the trial itself. Even the closed and sequestered deliberation process can be influenced by particularly saavy members of a jury with an axe to grind. It&#39;s all about influencing the perceptions of those polled so that, in the end, the tally stacks up in favor of the position you&#39;re advocating. That&#39;s why they try (so often with a stunning lack of success) to get potential jurors not to watch media reports concerning important cases...because perception can and does influence the reality of the outcome. All this to say, the polling process isn&#39;t perfect, but it&#39;s what we&#39;ve settled on as a nation to make our most important (i.e. life and death) decisions. What you hear from those you know is clearly different than what I hear from those I know (some who have returned from the desert already, some who haven&#39;t). I&#39;m simply telling you what you&#39;re saying sounds an awful lot like what the White House officials say in their press conferences and you aren&#39;t presenting any more compelling evidence for your arguments than they are. That&#39;s not to say I don&#39;t respect your opinion or your right to have it, I would just prefer you not speak of such things as the motives of those we fight in Iraq as though you have conclusive or irrefutable proof that your position is correct. I&#39;m perfectly willing to admit that any number of things are possible when all the facts aren&#39;t in. You should be too, as a reasonably intelligent person. Otherwise you might start to sound like Kamala.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:49 p.m. CST

    This is a ...

    by 9000rpm

    ...studio plant. "I really really like it" Yeah, sure.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Here&#39;s an ironic quote for the current thread theme...

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    "Liberal: a power worshipper without power." -- George Orwell

  • March 16, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST

    At least FoxNews doesn&#39;t have Nancy Grace

    by Jonesey1111

    That cunt needs a fist to the face.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:51 p.m. CST

    How do you think it feels to be a Libertarian?

    by chrth

    You got the wankers on the right saying "Small Government" and you say "Yes!" and then they say "But" and you say "Uh oh" and they conclude with "We&#39;ll tell you what to do", then you got the wankers on the left saying "Do what you want!" and you say "Yes!" and then they say "But" and you say "Uh oh" and they conclude with "As long as what you want is to give the bloated government your money to waste on other people" ... *sigh*

  • March 16, 2006, 3:51 p.m. CST

    hey spangler

    by Cameron1

    you are 24? Me too. I&#39;m a liberal but not a Democrat I hope you can make this distinction as you sound like one of the many people my age who cannot for the life of them undestand political nuance. I refer to your "liberal marxist" bullshit. Although thanks for the new oxymoron. It&#39;s tough to be a conservative these days? Hahahahah oh man that&#39;s fucking funny, newsflash fucko, Universities are pretty much ALWAYS liberal, maybe you should go live in the real world and you&#39;ll see how liberalism is now a dirty word in America, mianly cus idiots like you try to equate liberals with socialist or communists. When I was around 7 or 8 I had abortion explained to me, y&#39;know what I was sickened to however when I was about 12 or 13 I find out what rape was and I had the free thinking ability to realise that "hey perhaps I need to see the issue from more than one side". Liberalism isn&#39;t for the easily persuadedm I think you&#39;ll find GW&#39;s fundamentalist christianty fills that spot quite well. Oh and one last thing, this particular administration promises a long war and more fear, how is that an oppurtunity? Unless of course you work for the arms industry.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:51 p.m. CST

    the radical of one century is a conservative the next

    by HypeEndsHere

    The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    jimmyjoe...

    by Spangler

    yeah ya know sometimes ya gotta make these posts short so some inflammitory garbage will pop out... sort of like a cable network. I respect anyone&#39;s opinion over 35 or so, they must have formed it with some diligence, but my experience is pretty much only with young liberals (and crazy uncles fresh outta jail for selling pot) - and I worry about the source of their opinions.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    by HypeEndsHere

    no. i&#39;m not going to give the man who wrote it any credit.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:55 p.m. CST

    cameron

    by Spangler

    nope, not the arms industry, a small programming company - we pull in like a mil a year - 6 of us in all, the boss just handed me a guinnesss!! haha life is too good to worry about this shit.

  • March 16, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Of course, all this discussion doesn&#39;t change the fact

    by chrth

    That my bracket is falling apart as we speak! >_<

  • March 16, 2006, 3:57 p.m. CST

    mine too, chrth

    by Jonesey1111

    How the hell can Oklahoma loose on me???

  • March 16, 2006, 3:59 p.m. CST

    It&#39;s not just Oklahoma killing me ...

    by chrth

    Seton Hall lost ... Marquette is losing ... Nevada is losing ... Tennessee is losing ...

  • March 16, 2006, 4 p.m. CST

    why i consider myself MODERATE...

    by FrenchBastard03

    is mainly because i&#39;m against the death penalty. though there are a few other smaller issues i would tend to lean left on, the death penalty is a major one. i dont know where in you guys&#39; political line that would make me fall, but im catholic, and im firmly against both abortion and the death penalty. any suggestions on what to call myself? another thing. i didnt say i was a blind bush supporter, ive been very unhappy with a lot of the things he&#39;s done, but i did vote for him in the last election, as i saw it as a lesser of two evils and how i saw his viewpoints on a lot of issues were the same as mine, except for the death penalty of course. oh and MOOLY, i AM a conservative, like it or not, sorry to dissapoint. just one who&#39;s level headed enough not to be drinking the Kood-Aid. Im not a blind supporter by any means. and sorry for the review being a bit incoherent, i wrote it at 5 this morning.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:01 p.m. CST

    "life is too good to worry about this shit"

    by Cameron1

    I&#39;ll assume you&#39;re being flippant. I was just wondering what oppurtunities, the 15 million children in this country who live below the poverty line, have been given by Bush?

  • March 16, 2006, 4:02 p.m. CST

    "any suggestions on what to call myself"

    by chrth

    Yeah--Consistent. I&#39;ve always been bugged by the idea that someone could be for Abortion and against the Death Penalty or vice versa. In either case, someone (be it an individual or a government) is playing god and destroying a life, trying to distinguish finer level of detail is just hypocritical rationalization.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Something has to be going on!

    by cookylamoo

    If you look at how relentlessly and single-mindedly the Republicans are eroding out basic freedoms, you can&#39;t help but thing they must have some larger agenda. They&#39;re afraid of something and I doubt it&#39;s geeky liberals or unwashed Arabs. I think they&#39;re looking forward to a future filled with hungry, jobless, poor angry Americans and they feel they need the power to deal with them ruthlessly without the impediment of a free press.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Cameron1: This is where the libertarian gets ticked off

    by chrth

    It&#39;s not Bush&#39;s (or Kerry&#39;s or Dean&#39;s or Thatcher&#39;s or Churchill&#39;s or Spector&#39;s) responsibility to provide opportunities. Opportunity should begin at the lowest level, the individual. Since we&#39;re talking about children, the next level is more appropriate--the community. This whole notion that our leaders (how come you didn&#39;t mention Congress, because they&#39;re not all from one party?) in Washington are up to the task of providing local initiative is silly.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:08 p.m. CST

    cookymaloo: This is also where the libertarian gets ...

    by chrth

    ticked off. Eroding our freedoms? Where the hell have you been? Our freedoms have been eroded for centuries by the government--just because you were too foolish to notice it until now doesn&#39;t mean it hasn&#39;t been happening. Open your eyes: people in power want power, be they Democrat, Republican, or Monarch.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:10 p.m. CST

    by HypeEndsHere

    as for the abortion thing: i think anyone that wants one is qualified to get one. first, the procedure is not FUN. to actually go through with it is a fairly traumatic and life-altering experience. but anti-choicers make it seem like people use abortion as a form of birth control and it just isn&#39;t so. it&#39;s not that abortion should be illegal, it should be unnecessary. a friend of mine is a juvenile probation officer and the stories he tells me. jesus, it seems every female offender between 14 and 18 is pregnant. why can we teach the biology of a frog in school and not the biology of a human being? hello, welcome to high school: here&#39;s some condoms. doesn&#39;t that encourage kids to have sex? does it matter? they&#39;ll continue to have sex anyway (only now with a refreshing pang of guilt). on a biological level, we can put a MAJOR halt to STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but some people have to walk the fine line of "Abstinence Only/No Abortions". and we bow down to these people with the weakest sensibilities. these are people who don&#39;t want to look at humans as animals. it hurts them to believe we are just biological beings. these are people who believe in censoring WORDS. because those words are words that describe our animal selves. fucking, shitting, pissing, and the body parts that are used for all of them are what we consider foul language. they believe we have been separate from nature since the Serpent and the Apple. i just don&#39;t know anymore. literally. that&#39;s all i know.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:10 p.m. CST

    say it louder

    by samsquanch

    I don&#39;t think Bush heard you over the wiretap.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Oh My Holy Shite. Times Review + Retardo

    by CommanderCoconut

    Thats just silly No way has James Christopher read V, hes just leaning on the fact Moore rubbished it (well, the script, like 2 years ago) as a crutch for his wierd spasmo curtain-twitch of a review. He is a confussed chuffer right there...

  • March 16, 2006, 4:12 p.m. CST

    chrth...

    by Cameron1

    I work in and around a community where the majority of people live below the poverty line. In that situation everyone working so hard to support themselves and thier kids that there&#39;s very little additional time or money to help the community as a whole. Individuals strive hard to try and give their kids the oppurtunities that they were never given but it&#39;s till not enough. When a single mother works 2 jobs to just be able to pay her rent and feed her kids, with the help of the Supplemental Food program. Your saying she needs to get a 3rd job now so her kids don&#39;t starve? The state has an absolute moral responsibility to eradicate poverty and see that every child is educated. How selfish can people be to disagree with this?

  • March 16, 2006, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Now anchorite...

    by Childe Roland

    ...while I agree that the image of a Republican administration "relentlessly and single-mindedly...eroding ou[r] basic freedoms" is a bit silly, it&#39;s a little ironic for you to be calling someone out on stating opinion as though it&#39;s fact, isn&#39;t it?

  • March 16, 2006, 4:15 p.m. CST

    cameron

    by Spangler

    Dude I hear ya, I kinda thought it could be taken in a bad way... but I think it is good to enjoy life when ya can without forgetting about others. I think the free market is the way to go, those kids can and will make it out, with a little help from the rest of us perhapes. But I think we should all agree that government charity has never worked, and will never work. Inspiration is gone for those that recieve it, but on the other hand if a child&#39;s life is changed by an individual or to a lesser extent a church (better then govt) then I think they can still see the beauty in life and go out an seize it. The human spirit will never die, but for those that are convinced it doesn&#39;t exist, it will sleep.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Cameron1: It goes to a deeper issue

    by chrth

    The problem in this country is the allotment of taxes; I know the typical libertarian viewpoint is the elimination of taxes, but I&#39;m not typical. The problem is that our taxation level is an inverted pyramid: we may the most money to the federal government and the least to local. That&#39;s what&#39;s fucked up. It should be the reverse. The federal government should only be responsible for those things that impact the entire nation as a whole. What do you think would happen if the amount of money you give to the federal government every year went to your local government instead? I&#39;ll tell you what: the situation you described would all but disappear. The community would have the resources to provide for its own by its own--not just in manpower, but in money as well. Instead, the money goes to a highway in Alaska or a National Heritage site in Montana. Am I the only one this makes sense to?

  • March 16, 2006, 4:21 p.m. CST

    no one starves in this country

    by Spangler

    name one case - well I guess some of them don&#39;t have television! We should be worried about children in other countries where they actually do starve... oh shit... when we do the world freaks out and claims we&#39;re trying to start an empire. Look at Liberia, look at Grenada folks... these are some countries that are thankful.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:24 p.m. CST

    spangler...

    by Cameron1

    I agree charity isn&#39;t the responsibility of the governement, making sure it&#39;s citizens don&#39;t starve or freeze to death, however, is it&#39;s responsibility. The kids I work with are already sorta resigned to their life never getting any better. It&#39;s fucking heartbreaking to see a smart 14 yr old kid already knowing he won&#39;t go to college cus his mom can barely afford to buy his schoolbooks let alone college fees. There&#39;s a huge underclass in America 37 million souls to be precise and without the help of the more fortunate it will never get any better.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    thanks chrth..

    by FrenchBastard03

    ..you nailed it on the head about how can a person be both for abortion, and against the death penalty, or vice versa. whether its an innocent life or a guilty one, murder is murder, and human beings have no right to decide when the life of another is set to end. i understand abortion is a horrible and life changing process, i mean you are essentially killing your own child. but should we have "murder clinics" where if i feel that my 3 year old son is being a bit annoying, really costing me a fortune and being a real inconvenience, i can just bring him to the clinic and be rid of him? i dont think thats fair to a 3 year old or a baby in the womb. we were all there folks, everyone starts out in that embryo, how would you like it if someone made that decision for you?

  • March 16, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST

    I love AICN

    by Jonesey1111

    The only website where you can call a woman a cunt and say she needs a fist in the face, and nobody gives a damn. BUT, if you say, "Bush sucks", you get drilled.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:30 p.m. CST

    spangler and chrth

    by Cameron1

    buddy, I&#39;m a social worker, trust me people starve. They don&#39;t always die cus until recently they got the supplemental food programme, but that&#39;s now been eradicated. Chrth I half agree with you, more funding for local government is a must. However poverty does impact the entire nation so the Federal government does have responsibilities as well. But god damn it we could start by cutting the tonnes of bureacracy and red tape which sucks up tax dollars.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:31 p.m. CST

    damn

    by Spangler

    Ya you&#39;re right, it sucks. My grilfriend (the beautiful woman I referred to earlier) used to substitute teach in inner-city Erie PA (yes there is such a thing - it&#39;s pretty rough actually) and these kids are pretty SOL. And the hard thing is I don&#39;t have a single solution. Many of these kids are beaten and sexually abused, they are fucked for life. What do we do? Damn... it really comes down to education, and in this department our country fails miserably. I say, instead of charity, we funnel shit loads of money into teaching salaries so we can get PHD&#39;s teaching highschool students. The best teacher I ever had was my 9th grade history teacher... he had like 2 PHDs and did it for the kids despite the shitty pay (and this is Northern Virginia, teachers get paid pretty well)

  • March 16, 2006, 4:31 p.m. CST

    about abortion...

    by Cameron1

    what about when a woman is raped?

  • March 16, 2006, 4:32 p.m. CST

    how would i like it if i were aborted?

    by HypeEndsHere

    uh... i guess i wouldn&#39;t care. the question doesn&#39;t make sense. i don&#39;t want to be killed NOW, but if i were aborted, i wouldn&#39;t have been around to feel bad about it. so yeah.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:35 p.m. CST

    cameron, you rock

    by Spangler

    You&#39;re a better man than I, thanks for helping out the kids, there is nothing more revolting than some of the stuff that goes on with children in this country... I&#39;m against the death penalty, but I was happy to hear they&#39;re gonna kill that bastard that raped and killed that 11 year old girl... I think her name was Carlie... bless her. I have a sister who is 11, so I&#39;m pro-life and anti-death penalty, but I can&#39;t wait for that fucking piece of shit to burn in hell.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Spangler, damn right about the teaching...

    by Cameron1

    There&#39;s not many more important or noble jobs than being a teacher. And this country treats them like shit.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:38 p.m. CST

    i agree Spangler

    by FrenchBastard03

    education is the key to a majority of our problems, especially the unemployment rate. and i think its a combination of not only bigger pay for teachers, but a way to get more teachers who actually care. here in mississippi, if you went to a public school, you were pretty much fucked and had to start over in college. i cant tell you how many people i ran into who didnt know how to study in college because they never had to in high school, and thats a shame, and its due to shitty teachers who dont care either because of shitty pay or because the PE teacher was giving the duty of teaching biology because they couldnt find anyone else. it all revolves around the quality of teachers. i was fortunate enough to go to a private (catholic) school, and i didnt realize how thankful i was for my great education until i got to college. now i have a 4.0 and trying to actually teach people how to pay attention in class, take notes, and study. thats something that should begin being taught by at least the end of elementary school.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:39 p.m. CST

    when a woman is raped

    by Spangler

    yeah that sucks, but I&#39;ve seen stories (Opera maybe?) where the woman actually saw their new child as something good that came from something evil. Personally I don&#39;t get it, but anyway I might agree with you on that, just get the abortion early please, morning after pill something! Abortion is fucked up, and a child concieved during rape is about as rare as it gets. And if this country made abortion illegal we still couldn&#39;t make exceptions for rape because then ya gotta know women would claim it left and right. They already abuse their power as it is... men have no say whatsoever. Phyllis Shyflay (sp?) is a good source on this subject.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:39 p.m. CST

    spangler, thanks man glad we can talk....

    by Cameron1

    reasonably on AICN. You don&#39;t want to know the shit some of the kids I see go through. And you know what&#39;s even worse? 9 times out of 10 it&#39;s all within the family.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:42 p.m. CST

    opera=Oprah

    by Spangler

    though she looks like she could sing opera doesn&#39;t she? (That wasn&#39;t a fat joke... ah shit why not... it IS! hahaha)

  • March 16, 2006, 4:43 p.m. CST

    You don&#39;t consider the Patriot Act an erosion....

    by cookylamoo

    of our freedoms? They can come in your house, go through your stuff, arrest you, lock you up, keep you locked up and you&#39;ll never get to see a lawyer. How much more erosion do you want? And the Republicans have pursued this law like it was the holy grail.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Spangler...

    by Cameron1

    yeh I&#39;ve known a woman who saw the child as something good. But there&#39;s no way we should dare expect that though. And earlier is of course much much more preferable. Since those knew 3d imaging scans have come out I think we should look at stopping late term abortions where-ever possible.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:46 p.m. CST

    cameron

    by Spangler

    yes, I&#39;m more interested in learning than pushing agendas (but bombastic remarks are FUN!) - seriously though, yeah how do we stop these parents? I think it goes back to education, educated parents are less likely to do the things that these others do that ruins their kid&#39;s lives... and that&#39;s just an assumption, but it seems to make sense. Time to go home. And I can&#39;t wait till this movie comes out! The Matrix rocked! Happy St. Patty&#39;s day all!

  • March 16, 2006, 4:46 p.m. CST

    I voted against The Super Lovey Snuggle-Bunny Act.

    by HypeEndsHere

    because it allows people to swing a sack of kittens against a tree. most of my colleagues voted for it because they only read the title.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:46 p.m. CST

    by Spangler

    yeah how bout those 3-d scans, you see the smiling one?

  • March 16, 2006, 4:47 p.m. CST

    They&#39;re also pro-torture.

    by cookylamoo

    So basically, they can drag you out, torture you, imprision you or just dump your body and never tell anyone why. And it&#39;s all protected by the Patriot Act. Don&#39;t wait for Totalitarian America, it&#39;s here now.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:50 p.m. CST

    hype...

    by Lord Asriel

    nicely done sir. Have you read about Strauss&#39; love of double coding in speeches and policy?

  • March 16, 2006, 4:53 p.m. CST

    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER

    by conniebrean

    WAR IS PEACE IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

  • March 16, 2006, 4:53 p.m. CST

    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER

    by conniebrean

    WAR IS PEACE IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

  • March 16, 2006, 4:53 p.m. CST

    DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER

    by conniebrean

    WAR IS PEACE IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

  • March 16, 2006, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Conservatives believe that if your force women

    by cookylamoo

    to have children they will automatically learn to love them and nuture them. How charmingly naive. More likely, they&#39;ll just get dumped in the child welfare system and you can support the unwanted brats.

  • March 16, 2006, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Jonesey1111 hit the nail on the head

    by DOGSOUP

    You people don&#39;t really fucking care so stop pretending you do.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:01 p.m. CST

    Spangler...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    you girlfriend sounds like a liberal - does she spit or swallow

  • March 16, 2006, 5:02 p.m. CST

    cooky - stereotype much?

    by Lando Griffin

    all the things you speak of are so rampant - hold on a sec someone just bashed in my door....

  • March 16, 2006, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Seriously Cookylamoo!?!?!?

    by Aggimundo

    The Patriot Act really allows for those provisions!?!?! Oh my gosh!!! Can you please cite the sections of the Patriot Act in which such torture and arrest provisions are allowed! We can take this information to the media, and it will be bigger than Watergate!!! BTW -- References to fellow 14 year olds on DemocraticUnderground.com claiming these provisions exist, probably won&#39;t do us much good... :-(

  • March 16, 2006, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Cameron1: The problem is the federal govt doesn&#39;t do it

    by chrth

    right. Redistribute wealth, that is. If they actually did it right, I&#39;d support it. But they don&#39;t redistribute, they spend. The money doesn&#39;t go down to where people who know what needs to happen can do something with it. I mean, Washington DC is one of the worst places in this country for crime and poverty, and Congress is still unable to do anything about it. If they can&#39;t handle what&#39;s in its backyard, how can we expect it to understand and help people in Wichita or Eugene or Compton? That&#39;s what I&#39;m saying, it&#39;s about oversight and decision-making on where the money should be spent. 600 people are currently responsible for divying up over a trillion dollars. How can anyone expect them to get it right?

  • March 16, 2006, 5:17 p.m. CST

    How did V know there were no janitors or...

    by Immortal_Fish

    ...security guards in the buildings when he blew them up? Just asking. Oh! Plot convenience. I get it now.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:18 p.m. CST

    The erosion of the meaning...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...of the word "liberal" and "liberalism" is not just some random occurrence. It serves very specific political agendas. In America, where the left-right scale has been relegated to a very small area to the right of center on a broader scale, "liberal" has become an epithet which equals "socialist" or "communist". In western Europe, the left have co-opted the term "liberal" and use it to describe right-wingers (sometimes as "neo-liberals"). True liberals believe in a free market but draw ire from the far right because they don&#39;t believe in an UNREGULATED market. Socialists, on the other hand, hate liberalism because it provides a vision of a capitalist society which (if managed correctly) offers a decent life for the working class, thus robbing socialists of the basic support they need to create a society in which the state controls everything. As soon as I hear anyone call a conservative a "fascist" or a liberal a "communist", they immediately lose any shred of credibility they may have possessed in terms of political perspective. The conservatives who are bitching and moaning about V For Vendetta today are no different than the socialists who bitched and moaned about Orwell&#39;s 1984. The fact is that if you&#39;re so zealous in your political allegiance that you can&#39;t appreciate a cautionary tale of a future run amuck, then you have some serious, serious problems in terms of internal and external vigilance. What both V and 1984 are, are warnings against totalitarianism on the right and the left respectively. If you can&#39;t get behind both of those sentiments, then you are a very, very dangerous person.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Oh I know chrth..thye get it dead wrong.

    by Cameron1

    But that&#39;s not to say they always will or that the resources and ability aren&#39;t there for whoever&#39;s in power to do so. BUT like I say I agree with you to some extent. Spending is good BUT ONLY if it&#39;s spent on the right things. And I know in ALL about how bad DC is, that&#39;s where I&#39;m a social worker.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:23 p.m. CST

    DocPazuzu hit the nail on the head

    by DOGSOUP

    As usual.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Come on, Doc...

    by Childe Roland

    ...people who can&#39;t understand either work (1984 or V for Vendetta) are really only dangerous if anyone takes them seriously in any regard, right? I mean, if an idiot falls in the forest and no one is there to mock him, is it funny? On the other hand, I suppose there are some rather influential idiots out there and they are most definitely dangerous. W for What the hell is that guy in the funny mask doin&#39; on the screen?

  • March 16, 2006, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Meremoth

    by lynxpro

    Wrong. The British weren&#39;t taking land away from the Colonists and giving it to Native Americans. The British restricted colonial expansion out West by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to prevent colonials from illegally squatting on Native lands which led to the Natives going to war against the British troops who were assigned to protect the colonists because they didn&#39;t do a good job of protecting themselves. The GM Brand "Pontiac" is named after a Native American chief who led a war against the British forces over illegal Colonial squatting on their lands which led to the previously mentioned Royal Proclamation of 1763. No wonder that the majority of Native Americans fought on the side of the British during the Revolution and the later War of 1812 where they would have actually had a "country" (as defined as a nation state) given to them to be settled on the Great Plains had the British won. And yes, all of the taxes the British asked the American colonies to pay amounted to 1% of the average persons yearly wages and radicals protested against it despite the fact that the revenues were to pay back the debt wracked up keeping the American colonies out of the hands of the French. History is your friend.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore is full of shit.

    by Darksider

    He takes real people and others&#39; characters and writes his own stories with them and it&#39;s ok. Now if someone makes a story out of his work (which he borrowed from others), it&#39;s a fucking crime. Hypocrite.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Childe

    by DocPazuzu

    "if an idiot falls in the forest and no one is there to mock him, is it funny?" .... Heh... I&#39;m less concerned about individual idiots in power and more concerned about the danger posed by vast hordes of idiots who support said individual morons.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:42 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by lynxpro

    Since you are hurling insults, I am going to level one on you for being a dumbass and "ignant" of history. You claim the British didn&#39;t offer the right to vote...apparently in some reference to some slight against voting rights being granted to the American colonies. Well, just to inform your ignorant self, the British Parliament offered seats to the Colonies after the whole "no taxation without representation" argument. The rebellion minded Colonial leaders were the ones that rejected the offer once the British countered their alleged grievance. And even Ben Franklin thought closing of Boston Harbor was legitimate until the destroyed tea was paid for. Furthermore, the "quartering of soldiers" did not happen in private homes. The British troops stayed in the local inns much to the liking of the inn keeper because he was being paid for it. The whole issue was that the Colonial Legislature was forced to pay the cost of the British troops directly to the inn keepers. Of course, they don&#39;t teach that in high school, even for those who pay attention in bonehead history. You don&#39;t find out that little tidbit unless you investigate the subject on your own or learn about it at the university level. The freedom to trade with non-British nations was finally granted to the newly independent United States following the end of the Revolution. Of course, it also plunged the nation into a recession immediately because the British turned around and excluded them from the Imperial trade system for their ingratitude.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:50 p.m. CST

    chrth

    by smackfu

    don&#39;t mean to bust your little bubble there, but the Bush goverment has spent more on social programs than any democrat President in history. As far as moral relevatism goes, it&#39;s absolute. There is probably not a human being in the history of the earth that didn&#39;t go to his death bed sure in the fact that he is a stand up guy and everyone else are assholes. Think of the world stage as a blown up version of AICN. Everyone thinks they are right, scratch that, *knows* they are right, and no one will yield to the idea that they may be wrong, done wrong or said wrong, any more than they could saw off their own dick with a breadknife. Go ask the thousand rednecks at a kkk convention if Hitler was evil, and you&#39;ll get a good example of moral relativism. I&#39;m sure Hitler thought he was doing a great thing, if he sincerely thought that the jews were the scourge of the planet and getting rid of them was for the good of all of us, for the good of the future, christ, he probably thought he was a fucking hero. Taking over the world? I&#39;d certainly consider it evil if Germany tried to take over my country. But on the other hand, conquering is a commonplace part of our history, england did it, the spanish did it, we all wouldn&#39;t be here if we hadn&#39;t decimated an entire race of brown people. Were we evil? Do you consider Spain to be an evil country? I&#39;m sure if you were on the receiving end of that shit back in the day, you&#39;d consider them evil. But why don&#39;t you consider spain to be evil now? Because it&#39;s all fucking relative. It&#39;s just people fighting for their own interests, and it&#39;s gone back and forth so much that every single culture on the planet is guilty of it at one point, save a few. The fact that everyone in this world points the finger at everyone else but themselves is proof positive of the relativism of morality.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:51 p.m. CST

    more to annoy FluffyUnbound

    by lynxpro

    Just to insult your anti-British sensibilities, the British Empire officially abolished slavery nearly 50 years before the United States did. Just to clarify, I am a pro-American whose ancestors did fight the British, but at least I&#39;m adult enough and educated enough to admit that the whole Revolution was bullshit, just as an educated ancient Roman would have said that the "myth" about the founding of the City of Rome was bullshit as well. To throw even more fuel to the fire, the Continental Army did not really represent what would be considered the typical Colonial American. 72% of the soldiers were recent Irish immigrants. Not exactly a portrait of angry English descendend colonials pissed off about their Mother Country now is it? Another good chunk was made up of former slaves seeking freedom through the war...although more slaves fought for the British. Point is, the Continental Army did not have popular support...the majority of the Colonial Americans fence-sat while waiting to see whether the Rebellion or the British forces would be victorious so not to take a chance at backing the losing party. The Loyalists were then essentially kicked out of the country and their property was stolen which then was sold and became the first major influx of revenue for the new government.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:51 p.m. CST

    you people sicken me

    by ashhole

    i&#39;m actually going to see the movie tonight. i&#39;d love to be able to talk about that, but no, i would have to talk about people accusing achorite of spin, then watrching every other wannabe spin-meister have his turn, then puking my guts up over an argument over what MODERATE is and whether it even exists. if you want to pretend to be a pundit, go to the huffington report, if you want to talk about a movie and its implications, leave your opinions of iraq and this administration at the door and talk about the goddamn MOVIE.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Lynxpro, that&#39;s simply false.

    by FluffyUnbound

    The Crown and Parliament at no time offered the American colonists the opportunity to elect their own representatives to hold seats and cast votes in parliament. Their counterargument to the "no taxation without representation" slogan was the extremely lame claim that each and every MP represented every citizen of the empire, and that meant that getting to directly cast votes was redundant. And I don&#39;t care if Ben Franklin felt that the closure of Boston Harbor was appropriate or not; the simple fact of the matter is that the city was punished collectively for the actions of the Tea Party terrorists, and a gross injustice of that kind cries out for vengeance. And you can save your breath on the 1% issue - the entire "the American colonists were greedy and didn&#39;t want to pay their taxes" argument has only gained currency since the gradual transformation of most people in the English speaking world into fucking eunuchs who expect to be taxed to death, and as a result hear the amounts of the taxes in question and mutter, "Hey, that doesn&#39;t sound like such a big deal," and then play with the air where their scrotum should be. The English were very fond of deciding, among themselves, what colonials should and should not consider "no big deal", but anything other than governing the colonies on the same terms and with the same system of representation as the metropole wasn&#39;t acceptable then, and it wasn&#39;t acceptable to England&#39;s other colonies right on down the line, except for the bootlicking ones like Canada. Oh, and by the way, we should keep in mind that GB was a monarchy in 1775, and that makes its government illegitimate right off the bat, and anyone who wanted to kick it the FUCK out was morally entitled to do so.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST

    "talk about the goddamn MOVIE."

    by DocPazuzu

    Yeah, I remember my first day at AICN too.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:56 p.m. CST

    The British abolition of slavery and suppression of

    by FluffyUnbound

    the west African slave trade is a point in the empire&#39;s favor. That is very true.

  • March 16, 2006, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Well said moviemack

    by beefywhore

    I couldn&#39;t agree more.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:01 p.m. CST

    See what you done, kids? Now ashhole is sick!

    by Childe Roland

    Seriously, man, you should probably get used to this sort of thing. It&#39;s been going on since the first talkbacker crawled from the primordal ooze and realized it was just a glob of pizza grease on Harry&#39;s belly. Politics and movie talk go together like gay-bashing and superhero costume critiques on AICN. Oh, and smackfu, spot on concerning the concept of moral relativism. Until we&#39;re all assimilated into some collective hivemind, that&#39;s what we&#39;re going to have and we&#39;re going to need to be able to talk to each other about our differing opinions without our heads exploding. Or we could just kill everyone we don&#39;t agree with. That could work, too, I guess. As long as we were sure we were right.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:03 p.m. CST

    another repressive government movie...

    by lynxpro

    *The Handmaid&#39;s Tale*. Granted, I thought it sucked.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:04 p.m. CST

    smackfu: I&#39;m aware of that

    by chrth

    and I&#39;m far from happy with it. Nowhere did I say I&#39;m pro-Bush, and you&#39;ll notice I criticized the right just as much as I criticized the left. So I&#39;m not sure what bubble you think you&#39;re bursting.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:05 p.m. CST

    "Yeah, I remember my first day at AICN too."

    by chrth

    DocPazuzu, you rule!

  • March 16, 2006, 6:08 p.m. CST

    lynxpro

    by Meremoth

    America obviously didn&#39;t need British protection from the Indians. We did a fine job of protecting ourselves as well as taking the continent over, how it was accomplished was rather atrocious and inhumanitary, but the point is America didn&#39;t need British soldiers for protection against Native Americans. All I was saying is that many colonists were unhappy about paying a 1% tax that they never voted on and that they never gained anything from the war except a damn tax. Victor&#39;s almost always take something from war. Thats the entire point of war anyway, to take something thats not yours, and at the (metaphorical) end of the day, whether you were defending or attacking someone normally won and got some, if not all, of the other sides stuff. I mean all America got at the end was taxes and was told to not take the neighboring lands from people viewed at the time as lesser. And you can&#39;t try to flip it with modern ethics, they didn&#39;t use modern ethics, except for the maybe the Quakers. And I doubt many of you would relinquish your alchol and porn collection to become a Quaker. Wow that was long. I am just going to state that Native Americans are not lesser people and did in fact get screwed over by the white man. I&#39;m not a racist., really. Ok maybe a little. I really hate crackers. Kill em all. Bastards.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:11 p.m. CST

    FrenchBastard03

    by smackfu

    Outlawing abortion is eqivilant to subjecting causality to rule of law, which is why the issue will always be a grey area. Exactly how far back to you go in a causal chain before it stops being murder? A cluster of cells that hasn&#39;t yet formed anything close to a human yet, but it will *someday* form a human, stopping that process is murder? Stopping something from *becoming* a life is murder? Because we&#39;re really talking about cells multiplying and carrying out instructions until they form something substantial and tangible. What about at the point where the fetus is only comprised of 10 cells? Is aborting that still murder? What about 5 cells? 2? Killing the first cell, murder too? What about the sperm that combined with the egg? If that is killed before it combines with the egg, is that murder? If not, why? If that guy didn&#39;t decide to fuck his date that night, murder? What if he never went on the date at all, because his buddy convinced him she was a skank and they played xbox instead. Conspiracy to commit murder? In fact, there&#39;s a 50/50 chance that I could murder several million kids tonight. Watch for my picture on the evening news... Interrupting a process that *leads* to creating a person cannot be subject to prosecution. Personally, I think abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong. It&#39;s a decision I can&#39;t comprehend a person making, not because they&#39;re &#39;murdering&#39; someone, because of the fact that they&#39;ll spend the rest of their lives imagining the kid that was never created, how old it would be each year, what it would have looked like, what they would have named it, etc.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Let me check my copy of V for Vendetta ...

    by chrth

    Hrm, I don&#39;t see any mention of abortion in it! Maybe we should go back to mocking people who think this is a movie site? (and yes, I&#39;m aware I&#39;ve previously contributed to the abortion debate)

  • March 16, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Go fuck yourself

    by DannyOcean01

    Stopped reading this review the moment he criticised the Iraqis for not standing up against Sadaam after the gassing travesty. I find it funny how any Yank can say a damn word after their hideous betrayal of the Iraqis after the Gulf War..didn&#39;t that fucking well lead to the gassing.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Doc, "a cautionary tale of a future run amuck"

    by Immortal_Fish

    I applaud you. Interesting how liberals always interpret themselves as the good guys. Looking forward to this film as much as I was looking forward to Aeon Flux for similar reasons. Perhaps I&#39;ll like this one more.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Lynxpro II

    by Meremoth

    Yes I guess my wording did make my statement, about Britain taking land from the colonies, wrong. But at that point in time many colonists expected or at least hoped for that land only to be shut out. So yes my statement was wrong as far as modern day, but viewed from the colonists perspective it was taken away.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Er, DannyOcean01 ...

    by chrth

    We&#39;ve already established in the talkback that the gassing took place before the Gulf War. Other than that you&#39;re spot on.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Thanks for your contribution, TomBodet

    by chrth

    Don&#39;t forget to take your complimentary fruit basket on your way out.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:24 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound, monarchy, Stalin, etc.

    by lynxpro

    Why isn&#39;t a monarchy an acceptable form of government? Even in 1775, Britain was a constitutional monarchy (arguably back to 1688 although the struggle for one went all the way back to the English Civil War). What&#39;s illegitimate about that? (Britain has been known since that time as a "Crowned Republic"). After all, the American system of government, as designed by Alexander Hamilton, was aping the common (mis)understanding of how the British system of government worked. They wanted the same thing, just directly in their back yard and not 3,000 miles away. That&#39;s why the original plan was for the Senate not to be elected and the Senators to have life terms, just as the Presidency was meant to serve for life. If the Presidency serves for life, then how is that different from a monarchy aside from the bloodline/dynastic argument? See, you are asserting the "sensibilities" of one radical by the assumed name of Tom Payne...who at the time was a recent emigrant to the Americas. It should be noted that despite penning "Common Sense" which many Colonial Americans took to heart like the later Germans with "Meinn (sic) Kampf", when Payne returned to Britain, he wasn&#39;t tried for treason or executed...however, he was almost executed by Revolutionary France though. In fact, the French Revolution happened when the French King resisted the whole movement to restructure the French government along the lines of the constitutional monarchy known as Great Britain and not the Republic of the United States. Hamilton&#39;s fatal flaw with the system was the idea that the British Executive (the King) ruled separate of the Legislature (Parliament) wheras they&#39;ve generally ruled in concert. And thus we have this whole servitude to the idea that "checks and balances" is a great way to rule when all it does is cause gridlock and does not clearly identify which party is at fault when something goes wrong so the American public can vote the offending party completely out of power as can happen in Canada (the near destruction of the Progressive Conservatives in the early 90s) and Britain "today" (well, New Labour&#39;s first victory). Point is, monarchs and emperors are not inherently evil. In fact, most of the alleged "progressive" modern European countries are constitutional monarchies. Now with an absolute monarch, the challenge is to find one who is noble and wise, and not a wholly corrupt individual like say, Stalin. Which brings up another point. Why is Hitler still considered the most evil man of all time? The current estimate is that Stalin killed 40 million of his own people (40 million > 6 million), including more Jews than Hitler&#39;s regime killed. Plus, Stalin tried to start a nuclear war with the United States but allegedly was poisoned by Kruschev & Co. to prevent the disaster. Stalin is the textbook example of "madman" and "evil incarnate".

  • March 16, 2006, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Terrorists that conservatives like

    by Subversive01057

    ...are called "freedom fighters."

  • March 16, 2006, 6:30 p.m. CST

    chrth, Steve Martin rules.

    by HypeEndsHere

  • March 16, 2006, 6:31 p.m. CST

    chrth

    by DannyOcean01

    How dare you take this drunk persons righteous indignation away. I&#39;m surprised you also didn&#39;t criticise me for assuming the reviewer was American. But yes, apologies for making that silly error in chronology.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Meremoth

    by lynxpro

    But the Colonists did get something for their money. They benefited immensely from having the British Army totally defeat France in the French & Indian War (aka "The Seven Years War"). For over 100 years, the Colonies had to deal with the French forces in Canada threatening to exterminate them (read up about "Deerfield") and that was ended when the British evicted France from its New World colony. Peace through security. And thus it was just to have the Colonies make a small contribution to pay back the loans that nearly bankrupted the British treasury fighting that long war mostly for the benefit of the American colonies. Unfortunately, many in the Colonies objected to paying any amount. They then claimed that the British troops stationed in the Colonies were there to suppress them in violation of the longstanding Rights of Englishmen preventing standing armies when in reality the British troops were left in the Colonies to dissuade the French from trying anything again...which they did as evidenced by their quick desire to aid the American Colonies in rebellion despite the fact that France was an absolute monarchy (and not a constitutional monarchy) aiding in the creation of a republic which was diametrically opposed to philosophically speaking.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:48 p.m. CST

    Maybe I&#39;m dense, but who are you, MERRICK?

    by Lenny Nero

    I&#39;ve been here for 7 years and for some reason I&#39;m drawing a blank.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Subversive01057

    by Immortal_Fish

    Today&#39;s talkback has been brought to you by the letters F and U.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:49 p.m. CST

    America

    by BannedOnTheRun

    ...where else can you hear millions complain every day that they have no freedom of speech. And Spangler, there is no such thing as inner-city Erie Pa.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Lenny Nero

    by Immortal_Fish

    Merrick was brought onboard just this week. He is an obvious testiment of AICN&#39;s strive toward diversity. I hope his eventual avatar cartoon is of the prophet struck with elephantiasis. Please, please let it become so.

  • March 16, 2006, 6:57 p.m. CST

    AICN offering reviews according to political outlook?

    by newc0253

    why should i care whether a reviewer is conservative, liberal, democrat, republican, nazi, commie or blue with pink spots? i don&#39;t know who harry, moriarty, quint or herc vote for, nor do i really care. that&#39;s their business and it affects their quality as a reviewer not one jot. i give weight to reviews according to whether the reviewer offers an intelligent and well-written account of their opinion of a film, not according to whether they track my own political preferences. the retards who turn every talkback into a rehash of 9/11 or bush or iraq are bad enough, without AICN pandering to them.

  • March 16, 2006, 7:05 p.m. CST

    actually i can guess that harry didn&#39;t vote for bush:

    by newc0253

    but frankly the parts of harry&#39;s reviews where he turns to politics are always the worst, and i say that as a left-wing liberal. if i wanted to engage in tiresome political discussions about the merits of constitutional monarchies with a bunch of halfwits, there&#39;s a gazillion other sites on the internet. let&#39;s keep this about the movies, huh?

  • March 16, 2006, 7:09 p.m. CST

    houses of parliament go boom:

    by newc0253

    looks like the NYT didn&#39;t think much of it - so much for that famed liberal media hegemony, huh? http://tinyurl.com/nzlbf

  • March 16, 2006, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Once again I must disagree

    by Meremoth

    French Canada was not much of a threat to the U.S. either. Granted when the U.S. tried to invade Canada it lost (I believe we tried invading twice but I could be wrong). The fact is i North America the French were vastly outnumbered by the British at that time. Not to mention that many of the colonists owned guns (a fact that the British military didn&#39;t really consider at the begining of the revoltion. In fact I&#39;m pretty sure if the colonists were able to battle off Britain (granted Britain&#39;s more competent generals were involved in England trying to get rid of Napoleon around that time) I&#39;m pretty sure we could have dealt with French Candians. I state this because of the well documented fact that France rarely ever wins wars. The won in the French Revolution, but then again they were fighting other Frenchmen. In any event had the colonies been taken over I should thin there still would have been a rebellion and the only difference from the present is that America would speak French.

  • March 16, 2006, 7:44 p.m. CST

    Good review

    by quadrupletree

    well said. I will be checking this thing out and leaving all preconceptions (both about politics and Wachowski&#39;s) at the door.

  • March 16, 2006, 7:47 p.m. CST

    Ha ha ha

    by Kaitain

    "Yes the government calls V a terrorist, but is he really? He&#39;s more of a freedom fighter in my eyes." *********** Oh, that&#39;s priceless...

  • March 16, 2006, 7:59 p.m. CST

    Jessica Simpson

    by Retrace

    why are actors afraid to line themselves up with right and risk backlash from half the country when the actors on the left could care less and do it on a regular basis. Oh because the left who are supposed to be more caring and tolerant of the two....aren&#39;t.

  • March 16, 2006, 8 p.m. CST

    God forbid another talkback degrades into politics.....

    by Doc_Strange

    Nope too late.

  • March 16, 2006, 8:11 p.m. CST

    i know we&#39;re all way above this, but...

    by HypeEndsHere

    this is a video of sienna miller getting all nude and making out with a model in a restaurant. http://tinyurl.com/o8ebv again, this will appeal to prurient intersts. oh, and it&#39;s not a porn site.

  • March 16, 2006, 8:20 p.m. CST

    "A conservative Republican reviews VFV" Huh?

    by The Wrong Guy

    Conservative Republican? Fancy that! I can&#39;t help but wonder what a non-conservative Republican is like... Aren&#39;t they like leprechauns, or rational liberals? You know, non-existant?

  • March 16, 2006, 8:33 p.m. CST

    TomBodet...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ... was there a &#39;made in china&#39; stamp on bushs brain that showed up in that scan - wow - all these conservatives flocking to a website that is - according to most - left leaning - whats the deal - youre all conservative but like to play with liberals - with all your &#39;republican&#39; conservative savvy and insight and intelligence your party is best known right now for keeping homos from getting married - allowing joe citizen to conceal and carry a gun - and trying to give the federal govt the power to force women to carry a pregnancy to term no matter what the surrounding circumstances - hooray

  • March 16, 2006, 8:56 p.m. CST

    That&#39;s scary, Ashok0

    by I Dunno

    I don&#39;t know if you&#39;re trolling or serious but either way, it&#39;s scary that anyone could even joke about believing that.

  • March 16, 2006, 9:04 p.m. CST

    Capitol 1,whats in your wallet???

    by Oxymoron

    Senators earlier voted 52-48 to send Bush a measure that would allow the government to borrow an additional $781 billion and prevent a first-ever default on Treasury notes. Whew we almost went to the Po&#39; house

  • March 16, 2006, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Are we now a welfare country?

    by Oxymoron

    Hmm who will show up on Springer first?

  • March 16, 2006, 9:08 p.m. CST

    about abortion

    by Jonesey1111

    I had a postnatal abortion. The house was really quiet after it.

  • March 16, 2006, 9:47 p.m. CST

    of course you&#39;re proud. that&#39;s because you&#39;re speci

    by HypeEndsHere

  • March 16, 2006, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Now I know you&#39;re just fucking with us, Ashok0

    by I Dunno

    Bravo.

  • March 16, 2006, 10:42 p.m. CST

    Protect the babies...

    by cookylamoo

    and then fuck &#39;em as soon as they&#39;re born - Republican motto

  • March 16, 2006, 10:59 p.m. CST

    look - another bush zombie

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    where are all these bush groupies coming from - ashok0 - im curious - i assume you represent the average well spoken &#39;bushie&#39; - what is your opinion on the regular practice of disposing unwanted or unused embryos - using the &#39;right to life&#39; arguement - isnt that practice as bad as abortion or stem cell research - asswipe - and another thing - bush says he opposes abortion except in cases of incest or rape - why - if the unborn in such cases are innocent victims why allow for their termination - if your going to oppose abortion - oppose all not some

  • March 16, 2006, 11:08 p.m. CST

    HAHAH!

    by HypeEndsHere

    keep it comin&#39;, man! you&#39;re priceless.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:14 p.m. CST

    obviously i recognize sarcasm. that&#39;s why

    by HypeEndsHere

    i said to keep it comin&#39;.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:16 p.m. CST

    "Modern Muslim terrorists are secular"

    by Monkey Butler

    Funniest shit I&#39;ve read in a while.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:36 p.m. CST

    So this movie is anti-conservative?

    by Orionsangels

    Bill O&#39;Reilly is evil? I really don&#39;t think O&#39;reilly is a bad guy. I think he&#39;s just passionate about what he does. I think the confusion comes from O&#39;reilly&#39;s arrogance. He&#39;s one cocky SOB, no doubt about that, but guess what, most of what he says is true. It&#39;s his delivery that pisses off the left. Oh how dare you say it like that. How dare he be so opinionated in that manner. Now Hannity is another story. I think he&#39;s worse, because he&#39;s one of these religious nuts. Who&#39;s overly passionate about the word of God and he uses it too much on the air. Which him sound ignorant, but about V. I know it&#39;s the dream of the left to compare bush&#39;s presidency to this movie, but lets be realistic. The government in V is so extreme that it&#39;s hard to compare it to any modern day administration, let alone government, not that a government coudn&#39;t become like that. I just don&#39;t think we&#39;re quite there yet, haha. An election is coming in a few years, an option that doesn&#39;t exist in V. Now, this movie makes you ask questions and warns us of a possible future. Which I think is a good thing, but I wouldn&#39;t compare what V does in this film to to terrorism. He&#39;s fighting a totalitarian government. Who has unquestionable authority over an entire nation where the people have no say at all. Vs acts are warranted. V fights for the people. He&#39;s more like a modern day Robin Hood. He&#39;s not a selfish, fanatical nutjob. His cause is geared towards the bettering of humanity, not to create a state of terror.

  • March 16, 2006, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Bush stole the elections from Gore and Kerry?

    by Orionsangels

    I forgot that was completely proven without a shadow of doubt. Oh yeah it wasn&#39;t, but you&#39;re so sure right? Fuck, I&#39;m not crazy about republicans. Just about all politicians are lying cheatin scumbags, but at least the reps get shit done, whether its right or wrong. they take action. they got balls. All you fuckin lefties do is whine and complain. Do something, or just STFU! already. It&#39;s been 6 years! get over it!, or go make a protest documentary where you glorify soldiers moms for your propaganda war. sell T-shirts, hold up an antibush sign. You yellow skinned vegan pothead. That&#39;ll work, haha!

  • March 17, 2006, 12:06 a.m. CST

    pantera sucks... fugazi rules

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    you are all full of shit - especially you pantera - the w bros wrote the screenplay for this movie - they didnt direct it - it was their direction of revolutions that made it - and reloaded - less than stellar - not their writing - you dumbass conservative insect - and to orionsangels - oreilly is a twat - he proved that when he picked a fight with letterman on lettermans own show - you think most of what he says is true - i guess it must be if you agree with it - right - idiot - hes an over paid perv - its funny how when these assholes like oreilly or limbaugh get in trouble with the law it mysteriously disappears after a few weeks and their back on the air - they line their pockets through the arrogance and ignorance of mental midgets like panterarocks - &#39;no spin zone&#39; my ass - oreilly likes to attack liberal celebrities as hypocrites and phonies - what the fuck is he - he makes about 30m a year for shitting out of his mouth - what do all of you conservative bushites think of the curent situation here and in iraq - does it all look good to you guys - are you hopeful - the best thing that ever happened to bush was 9/11 - hes been milking that sad day for everything he can - now hes mister &#39;preemptive strike&#39; - i guess our next target is iran - wait til we have to fight north korea and the hard line chinese - theyll be fighting to win and its going to get infinitely uglier than this iraqi fiasco

  • March 17, 2006, 12:18 a.m. CST

    orionsangels...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    you sound pretty angry - if you follow bushs example and pray a lot - your anger may subside - tourist - cant just one of you bumpersticker patriots admit that bush is fucking up on the job - is our country really better off since he was hired - you guys really believe that

  • March 17, 2006, 1:08 a.m. CST

    Hollywood

    by battlestone

  • March 17, 2006, 1:18 a.m. CST

    Hollywood Hates America

    by battlestone

    This movie is evidence of that. All these Upper Westside lib homos ever do is complain about how oppressed they are by President Bush and the Republican Party like their freedom is being taken away. If you ask me, freedom is overrated and unAmerican. This is a country that has always recognized boundaries and yet today we have such a permissive society and media it makes me sick as an American of Christian faith. Freedom of speech is truly overrated. All it is ever used for is to allow the loony left to complain and whine about President Bush while not bringing forth any of their own ideas. If someone who is proud of their own race, specifically the white race, that man gets censored right off the bat. Freedom of religion is hogwash it really is. All it does is allow people with a distorted vision of God and the scripture to practice their ways. The facist democrats engage in a long war on people of the Christian faith and then they talk about "freedom of religion". Right to privacy? All that is used for is to protect perverts. If you have nothing to hide then why do you care that the government is tapping your phones? Unless you&#39;re a terrorist, which most you libs are, you should have nothing to be worried about.

  • March 17, 2006, 1:38 a.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky

    by Orionsangels

    I&#39;m not angry and I&#39;m not a bush supporter, nor am I religious. Did you read my post? How come whenever anyone puts down the left. They&#39;re automatically the bush supportin chuch goin redneck. The left love to sterotype. I hate both parties, but If I to choose one for WWIII though. I&#39;d choose the Reps. Dems talk alot, but don&#39;t do shit.

  • March 17, 2006, 1:42 a.m. CST

    battlestone

    by Orionsangels

    """Westside lib homos ever do is complain about how oppressed they are by President Bush""" www.moby.com haha lets sell iced tea and fill my pockets with the green, that&#39;ll show&#39;em!

  • March 17, 2006, 2:48 a.m. CST

    asshole

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    you dont have the balls to say your a republican or a bush supporter - cause you know what a joke the two things are - and no matter what you think of liberals or democrats - republican conservatives have much more to answer for - globally - yet when pressed you say you prefer the right to the left - youre right your not a dem or a rep your the kid that waits to see whos raising their hand before raising your own - you feel safer under the thumbs of the rep party and its moronic figure head - they appeal more to the old all american &#39;manifest destiny&#39; mentality - and i wonder how many of you outspoken conservative christian republican know-it-alls ever really had to fend for yourself in the real world - away from mom and dads credit cards - or fight in a war - its no fun getting shot at asswipe - i bet you guys sleep really well - no nightmares just wet dreams for how great we have it here - battlestone - you proud white christian halfman - hollywood doesnt hate america - it hates your america - you think christians got it tough - your nuts - have you ever been overseas - you well fed god fearing hump - christians got it easy here in america and always have and always will - read a book - besides the bible - theyre runnin everything - look around - theyre even trying get public schools to teach creationism in science class - i guess adam and eve rode dinosaurs on their way to church where they learned how not to take it in the ass because we all know only satanists do that - right - put your money where your mouth is - get out there and be a model christian - spread the word - take some bullets - do some converting - smuggle some bibles - your antiquated belief system is still the most popular - especially here in america - dont worry - your kind still vastly outnumbers my kind

  • March 17, 2006, 3:02 a.m. CST

    also...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    as far as ww3 goes - we are fucked - we cant even handle a hurricane on our own shores - we are no safer than we were 5 years ago - keep telling yourself we are - your words say a lot orion - you say if youd have to choose a party to run shit if there was a 3rd world war youd choose the republicans - the funny thing is - theyd be the ones starting the war - preemptively ofcourse - because might makes right - right - would you fight if asked - or drafted - or get 5 deferments like cheney

  • March 17, 2006, 3:40 a.m. CST

    TalkBack Jay Sherman says...

    by DOGSOUP

    " I give this petty bickering my highest rating......7 out of 10"

  • March 17, 2006, 3:55 a.m. CST

    leading left-wing british paper gives V one out of five

    by newc0253

    the Guardian call it &#39;V for Vacuous&#39;: http://tinyurl.com/jc5tn

  • March 17, 2006, 4:12 a.m. CST

    All Partisan and no brains!!

    by Psychobilly

    Just a few thoughts. 1. You ever notice that when we kill innocent women and children who had nothing to do at all with the deaths of our own, it

  • March 17, 2006, 4:23 a.m. CST

    The British Media are LAUGHING at this movie.

    by Bicycle Thief

    The only positive British review of this I can see so far is from Empire magazine. The broadsheets are completely taking the piss out of it.

  • March 17, 2006, 4:55 a.m. CST

    British broadsheets

    by ScaryJim

    This has gone down terribly with Johnathan Ross and The guardian. Main laughing points being the Wachowskis (sp?) view of what British people are like, over simplicity of the &#39;message&#39; and the plot, which isn&#39;t even redeemed by any really flashy special effects. They don&#39;t like the acting either. One comment that made me chuckle was something about repressed Britains being represented by &#39;a man with bad teeth down the pub watching state run television&#39; . I&#39;m British and I&#39;m wary this will probably be shit.

  • March 17, 2006, 5:21 a.m. CST

    DOCTOR WHO on Sci-Fi tonight!!!

    by Barrymore

    DOCTOR WHO is a smash hit British TV show that will start airing in the US on the Sci-Fi Channel at 9pm EST on Friday March 17th! In the UK, the show gets a huge audience, from families to teens to grandparents. For the 13 new episodes, Christopher Eccleston ("Elizabeth", "Gone in 60 Seconds") fantastically portrays the Doctor. The Doctor is an adventurer who travels through time and space to right wrongs, fight bad guys, and just have fun. He&#39;s accompanied in his time travels by teen shopgirl Rose Tyler (breakout star Billie Piper). Rose is cute and smart and is The Doctor&#39;s....uhm, friend. In the UK in later 2006, The Doctor will be played by David Tennant (seen in a part in the last "Harry Potter" film), with Billie staying on as Rose. Tell your friends and family to watch DOCTOR WHO tonight--I think they&#39;ll be pleasantly surprised how good this show is!

  • March 17, 2006, 5:29 a.m. CST

    America has nobody to blame but ourselves

    by Swarmy

    We brought the horrible state of the world on ourselves. We are the biggest cause of most of the evils of the world, including terrorism, most world hunger and the environmental damage being done to this planet every day. Wake up and take responsibility, it will be the beginning of real change.

  • March 17, 2006, 5:31 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah, V is the BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!

    by Swarmy

    Forgot to add that in. If it doesn&#39;t make at least $200 million in domestic BO it will be a crime.

  • March 17, 2006, 6:05 a.m. CST

    re:America has nobody to blame but ourselves

    by ScaryJim

    Add badd grammar to that . You lot really are hard on yourselves.

  • March 17, 2006, 6:17 a.m. CST

    RE: "If you have nothing to hide..."

    by I Dunno

    "...then why do you care that the government is tapping your phones?" WOW...just...WOW. You people deserve to live in a totalitarian state. Our forefathers would be ashamed that you people call yourselves Americans. Oh and the "demoncrap" and "LIEbral" baby talk makes you all sound like fucking retards. As for the so called "liberal media", just because the news about this administration is always bad doesn&#39;t mean there&#39;s any leftist spin attached to it. Maybe they&#39;re just reporting the facts. People throw around "liberal media" a lot but no one can actually explain what that means or give any examples. Christ, why am I even wasting by time with you cretins.

  • March 17, 2006, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Not in my backyard!

    by ROBE

    Some Americans have the opinion that terrorism is okay as long as: (1) No American is harmed/killed and; (2)the terrorist act does not take place on US soil; (3) or against any US interest. Growing up during the troubles in Northern Ireland I have always held a contempt for so called "Irish" Americans who supported IRA terrorism even though most people living in Northern Ireland did not. There was never any shortage of Senator Semtex&#39;s and Mayor Shamrocks who were willing to support IRA terrorism just as long as Irish American lobby groups promised them votes and money. Today in New York and Boston there will be the usual Saint Terrorists Day celebrations (whoops! I meant Saint Patrick&#39;s Day), no doubt certain terrorists will be guest of honour at "Irish" American parties. But if New York has some "Freedom Fighter" action, that will of course be terrible and once again the Brits will be expected to help out America because nobody else will.

  • March 17, 2006, 7:37 a.m. CST

    re: Not in my backyard!

    by ScaryJim

    And what was the relevance of that in a talkback about a film involving a &#39;freedom fighter&#39; fighting against a dictatorial neo nazi regime? It&#39;s not one and the same is it? This is easily one of the most confused talkbacks i&#39;ve ever seen. Your assumption that St Patricks day is a celebration for terrorists is also rather strange. I personally don&#39;t see why people care about Irelands patron saint in particular, I can only think it&#39;s so they have a reason to drink lots of guinness. Like most normal people, I just drink it when I want. And get this! I don&#39;t support the IRA!

  • March 17, 2006, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Not in our backyard!! But in yours!!

    by Psychobilly

    NIMBY is a true American tradition. If it happens in our backyard, we

  • March 17, 2006, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Swarmy the second biggest douche on the board.

    by Kamala

    Islam has been a war with the west for a thousand years before there was a United States of America. And today, they are constantly killing and maiming in areas were the US has no presence or interest (ie Kashmir, Bangladesh, etc). It funny how a swamp donkey such as yourself blames the US interfering in places they don&#39;t belong, then blame the US again when the don&#39;t do enough to help in places like Rwanda. Now I will do the Kamala splash of the top rope on your 145 pound scrawny ass.

  • March 17, 2006, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Swarmy the second biggest douche on the board.

    by Kamala

    Islam has been a war with the west for a thousand years before there was a United States of America. And today, they are constantly killing and maiming in areas were the US has no presence or interest (ie Kashmir, Bangladesh, etc). It funny how a swamp donkey such as yourself blames the US interfering in places they don&#39;t belong, then blame the US again when the don&#39;t do enough to help in places like Rwanda. Now I will do the Kamala splash of the top rope on your 145 pound scrawny ass.

  • March 17, 2006, 8:08 a.m. CST

    The main reason American Media seems liberal

    by cookylamoo

    Is that, without bad news, they&#39;d have nothing to report. Sure, you could run 24 hour propaganda on how wonderful the conservatives are, but who&#39;d tune in to watch the ads?

  • March 17, 2006, 8:22 a.m. CST

    W is for Wendetta

    by Motherfracker

    Think about it.

  • March 17, 2006, 8:44 a.m. CST

    good business move

    by ZO

    a big action movie about a terrorist who is a good guy who blows up buildings get ready for 40 mill total

  • March 17, 2006, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Darth Wayne

    by Mooly

    I appreciate the response and all the evidence you provide to back it up. Childish name calling followed by telling me to "grow up." Interesting. I fail to see what I said that was any different than anybody else on the thread. In fact, I&#39;d say many of the people trying to split hairs over the definition of terrorist vs insurgent while acting like they know the intendtions of dead people is much more laughable than anythign I&#39;ve said. Maybe once you&#39;ve visited forums more often you will notice then, more often than not, when someone starts a topic with some sort of disclaimer, they are either lying or trying to pre-empt criticism in an attempt to be clever. It&#39;s a very common tactic. Maybe you wouldn&#39;t have said anything if I started my post with "I&#39;m also a conservative, Fox loving Bushite...but..."

  • March 17, 2006, 8:49 a.m. CST

    by Psychobilly

    Remember, in Socialist Russia, they wanted you to listen to only a limited number of media sources. Of course, those sources must support the leadership with very little criticism of it. Repetition of party goals and ideals were to be emphasized. Criticism and chastisement of those of varying opinion were to be constantly practiced. Any sources outside of government supported media were to be declared enemies of the State. Now doesn

  • March 17, 2006, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Fox! The Comrade News Network!!

    by Psychobilly

    Forgot to place a subject on my last post!!

  • March 17, 2006, 8:53 a.m. CST

    A conservative rambling

    by nflp

    Well, maybe I should qualify that statement. I do consider myself a conservative. Do I think the current state of the US is some sort of conserative dream come true? Not by a long shot. I think things have gone in a very bad direction. I think the patriot act is a bad idea, I think the wire taps are blantantly against the law, and I wish the religious right would sit down and shut up (which they never will) but do I think smaller government is better? Yup. Do I think there are too many handouts to too many people? Yup and do I think lowering taxes is a good idea (basic idea, not specific cases mind you. There are plenty of cases where the taxes were right and cases where the tax was wrong.), yeah. I guess I identfy with the basic ideals of the GOP. That&#39;s not to say I don&#39;t see, or agree in part, with some of the DNC&#39;s ideas too. A perfect example would be the current story line on West Wing. If we actually had two canidates like Smits and Alda running, I for one would have a very hard time picking between the two of them. Now enough of that and on to what I really wanted to talk about. Does it have ANYTHING to do with the review above? Hell no, I am going to rant about stupid shit (unfortuantely like 90% of the talkbacks posted above, no offense). I have to admit I get real sick of people comparing terrorists to freedom fighters. There is a very VERY clear difference. A freedom fighter fights for an ideal. He/she fights against what they preceive as opression and tyranny and they fight for a better future. In short, a freedom fighter fights for FREEDOM. A lot of you would say, "ah, but a terrorist could be fighting for the same thing just from the their point of view!" True, but here&#39;s where the differences happen. A freedom fighter attacks the people directly responsible for their opression. Government, Military, leaders and those that directly support them. A freedom fighter blows up a military supply depot, a freedom fighter attacks a military convoy, and a freedom fighter tries to blow up the parlement of the government that they are fighting against (Guy Fawkes). A terrorist on the other hand kills to incite terror, hence the name. A terrorist blows up a bus filled with people going to work. A terrorist blow themselves up in the middle of a crowded market place killing women and children, and a terrorist runs a plane into a building filled with innocent people who are simply working for a living. You could say (I don&#39;t, but someone could pose the arguement) that the attack on the Pentagon was a freedom fighter cause. That could be argued but that doesn&#39;t excuse the attack on the Twin Towers. That was not a military, nor a government target. That&#39;s what makes it a terrorist attack and not a freedom fighter cause. In Iraq right now, how many attacks are happening against our military personel versus the attacks on a bus or a market or a person&#39;s home? Just this week (I can&#39;t remember the specifics) a bunch of Iraqi people were killed in a bombing. Not US troops, or British, but Iraqi civilians. I see no fight for freedom here. I could go on but I think I made the point I was looking to make. I&#39;m sure some out there will say I&#39;m full of shit and have it totally wrong. That&#39;s fine, but I don&#39;t comparing someone who&#39;s fighting an injustice, who attacks those who attack him; who attacks his agressors and fights to bring his nation a better life by fighting the good fight with a monster who blows up women and children on a bus or kills scores of people just trying to buy food in the morning to prove some point. Someone who doesn&#39;t kidnap military personel, but rather kidnaps journalists and other civilians because they are easy targets. There is a world of difference between the two. War by definition is a hellish thing. Robert E. Lee had it right when he said, "It is well that war is so terrible, - we should grow too fond of it." but is fighting a war the same thing as blowing yourself up in a nightclub with the single aim of taking as many innocent people with you as you can the same? Personally, I see a difference.

  • March 17, 2006, 9:11 a.m. CST

    But nftp,what if you can&#39;t get to the people in charge?

    by cookylamoo

    I think if most "terrorists" had a chance of blowing up George Bush, they would do so and thrus cross your line to become "Freedom Fighters" Unfortunately for them, Bush has the best security in the world guarding him. And though the World Trade Center was only an office building, the hijackers took it as a symbol of oppression because it represented "world trade". At any rate, by your definition, the Pentagon was certainly a legitimate target for a "Freedom Fighter" as well as wherever the fourth plane was headed. You can also make the argument that people who support American imperialism by remaining silent and voting for warmongers are by no means innocent. They believe themselves shielded from the horrors of war and thus support their country&#39;s military though silent consent. The purpose of terrorism then, is to bring the reality of war to the complacent faceless populance. Maybe if "civilized" countries were willing to discuss democratic reforms in countries like Saudi Arabia there would be less need to get people&#39;s attention with a bomb.

  • March 17, 2006, 9:12 a.m. CST

    A conservative rambling...a response.

    by Psychobilly

    I like your post; it did come across like a bunch of talking points or regurgitation from the Sean Hannity radio show. This I respect. Personally, I just want people to think and not necessarily agree. However, I think there is a flaw in you argument. Not that you are wrong in intention but in your semantics. We bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima to

  • March 17, 2006, 9:12 a.m. CST

    They remade "V"?!?! AWESOME!

    by CatoTheCensor

    Did they bring back Robert Englund and the scary German guy? "For VICTORY! Now, go tell your friends!"

  • March 17, 2006, 9:26 a.m. CST

    cookylamoo

    by Kamala

    So blowing up a bomb is way for these people to get attention? No, it is more like the ultimate form of hate crime. So vile are people of other religious faiths to them, not only is it their duty to kill them, but if you die yourself in the process of carrying out such an attack, you a reward with 72 smelly virgins in heaven. There are plenty of bombings around the world that having nothing to with the US and the supposed oppression of these people. It is hate, pure and simple. "ohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the man responsible for injuring many people by intentionally trying to run them over with his car, wrote to a Raleigh-Durham television station and stated that his motives were due to his "love for Allah." He is charged with nine counts of attempted murder in the March 3rd attack. "Allah gives permission in the Koran for the followers of Allah to attack those who have raged war against them, with the expectation of eternal paradise in case of martyrdom and/or living one&#39;s life in obedience of all of Allah&#39;s commandments found throughout the Koran&#39;s 114 chapters...""

  • March 17, 2006, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Conservative Apologists Should All Go To Hell

    by admkirk

    I love how these republicans, the same guys who pushed this joke of an administration on us in 2000 and 2004, the same idiots who defended going to war with a country that didn&#39;t attack us, the same ignoramuses who had no problem with our deficit and national debt spinning out of control, all of a sudden are acting like they&#39;re the rest of us and aren&#39;t too hot on this president and the republican party. Give me a break, you knuckleheads are just positioning yourselves for the 2006 and 2008 elections. As much as a I like John McCain as a person he is going to be the same garbage president that Bush was. McCain is going to surround himself with the same stupid conservative hack jobs that Bush did. Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Michael Jerkoff, and the thousand other losers in the Bush Administration will continue to be there once McCain wins. The only consolation is that McCain will nominate Supreme Court justices who are pro-choice and pro-gun control. Ofcourse, the conservatives don&#39;t trust McCain on the social issues and taxes so he&#39;ll do exactly what Eisenhower did when the GOP pereceived him as too liberal and he will nominate a right-wing cancer to be his VP. Eisenhower did that with Nixon. Who will McCain get? Sam Brownback? George Allen? Bill Frist? God forbid any of those losers come within a heartbeat of the presidency. Another 8 years of conservatives running this country into the ground? Sounds wonderful. If only young people and poor people got off their asses to vote.

  • March 17, 2006, 9:52 a.m. CST

    HUGE difference??

    by Psychobilly

    Like with Nagasaki and Hiroshima? How many government agents died in those attacks? How many armed soldiers??

  • March 17, 2006, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Again, by your own definition...

    by cookylamoo

    The terrorists who flew their plane into the Pentagon were Freedom Fighters because they chose a military target. That there were innocents in the plane would seem incidental since there was no way to let them off. ******** Regarding terrorism, Yeah, it&#39;s trully, unfortunate that you need a bomb to wake people up. But it&#39;s equally unfortunate that as long as most people are well fed, well paid, and well lubricated they could really give a rat&#39;s ass about anyone else&#39;s freedom. Everybody looks at the Germans and says, how could they just stand back and let Hitler do what he did? But how many Americans actively oppose their government on any level? How many Americans really care about oppressed people? And even if you do protest, it&#39;s a sad fact that governments only listen to the wealthy and the influential, unless someone is putting a gun under their nose.

  • March 17, 2006, 10:36 a.m. CST

    cookylamoo the terrorism fan

    by Kamala

    It is both funny and sad that in the world today there is a mindset that now believes America was the bad guy in world world 2. These same freaks boo hoo the fact that we and interment caps for Japanese people living the states. I can guaran-fucking-tee those camps were like the Marriot at Disney compared to the camps run by the Japanese. I don&#39;t recall anyone doing medical experiments on the prisoners in the US. It happened in Japan, that is a fact. See "Men behind the Sun" for some insight.

  • March 17, 2006, 10:44 a.m. CST

    "Men behind the Sun???"

    by cookylamoo

    That brilliant objective documentary? Next thing you&#39;ll be refering me to "Ilsa-She Wolf of the SS" for insight into the Nazis.

  • March 17, 2006, 10:48 a.m. CST

    killdeer2

    by OurManInMontr

    loves it in the ass.

  • March 17, 2006, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Cookylamoo da cock

    by Kamala

    Your right, the Nazis were unfairly given a bad name by those campy "Ilsa-She Wolf" movies. I guess they were just victims of American propaganda, of course.

  • March 17, 2006, 11:24 a.m. CST

    But I assume Ilsa-Harem Keeper of the Oil Shieks

    by cookylamoo

    was pure leftist propaganda directed against the friends of Bush.

  • March 17, 2006, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Yes JimmyJoe RedSky

    by Orionsangels

    They are jokes. What&#39;s your point? I don&#39;t support either parties. I was talking about the lesser of two evils. If the dems were in the white house right now they&#39;d be shaking hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by now. Truth is I hate both parties. Frankly this whole two party system has to go IMO. It&#39;s tore the country apart. You&#39;re so sure the dems got it right. They&#39;re so sure the reps got it right. Truth is both parties are fucked up and people like me are stuck in the middle. In other words "It&#39;s a huge shit sandwich and we&#39;re all gonna have to take a bite out of it." You&#39;re just pissed because I caught you off balance. I dissed your precious dems and wasn&#39;t the stereotypical rep in a nice little package you were hoping for. So you resorted to calling me an asshole. Real mature. As for getting shot at. That&#39;s why I didn&#39;t join the army. If you do you obviously accept the consequences.

  • March 17, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST

    I voted Republican once.

    by zoetree

    I was a bit conservative at the time, too, come to think of it. Although the level of wrong government action in the movie are very exaggerated compared to our current situation, it is our duty as citizens to notice when things are going in the wrong direction and stop them before they get out of hand and revolution is necessary. Ever heard of the frog who never makes a move to escape as the water he sits in very, very slowly heats up to the point of boiling?

  • March 17, 2006, 1:10 p.m. CST

    But Bush Isn&#39;t Conservative....

    by Colierrannd

    Bush is a dictator. Congress has let go of it&#39;s role as a check and balance. All the so-called conservatives who were so afraid gays might marry who have kept this group in power are gonna regret it sooner rather than later. Just wait.

  • March 17, 2006, 1:22 p.m. CST

    still an asshole

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    you think the republicans are the lesser of two evils - how so - look around - too bad theres no ken starr to investigate bush - those appointments are reserved for serious things - like lieing about getting blown - are you for real - and as for joining or not joining the armed forces - youre so pro war - and see starting a war as an example of "getting shit done" - but wouldnt dare serve - why not - youre only comfortable with the "consequences" so long as they dont affect you directly - funny how so many war supporters wouldnt dare actually serve - and - anyone thats pro life and pro war is a hypocrite

  • March 17, 2006, 1:36 p.m. CST

    "Republicans are Lesser of Two Evils" - B.S Argument

    by admkirk

    I&#39;m trying to figure out the "evils" that Clinton did as president. He got head from Monica Lewinsky. Wow, that&#39;s a lot worse than getting 2,300 American troops killed fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq. The conservatives on this site are a bunch of spineless jellyfish. They see what a disaster these conservative policies have been and yet rather than admit they&#39;re wrong they just pretend to act like it&#39;s the lesser of two evils. Instad of calling themselves conservatives they call themselves "libertarians". Here is an idea, if you are a libertarian vote for the Libertarian Part instead of the republicans. Thank you for giving us this mess.

  • March 17, 2006, 1:58 p.m. CST

    And Lets not forget

    by cookylamoo

    The Sneak and Peek, Wiretap Patriot Act, Loss of Bankruptsy rights, Loss of Student Loans, loss of Medicade Benefits, Loss of Pensions, Huge Trade Defecit, Conservative owned voting machines with no paper trail, permission to detain indefinately and torture, no hurricane relief, no environmental plans, no jobs plan, no plan to curb outsourcing of American jobs, a failed education program, and etc, etc, etc. Of course, if you&#39;re a lobbyiest, and oil baron or a Haliburton shareholder, it&#39;s been great.

  • March 17, 2006, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Stupid

    by Mahasamatman

    We created Saddam. We created Bin Laden. Does anyone truly believe that? No. Then why say it? It&#39;s just shit to make everyone upset. Real world, folks. In the real world, we don&#39;t know shit about how things are going to turn out. You can&#39;t write about Saddam&#39;s rise to power and the US support of it without acknowledging that, at that time, the US was hedging bets against Iran. Did we know, beforehand, everything that was to follow? No. With Bin Laden, it was the Soviets. Now, you can look at our involvement with such fellows and say "That was stupid, a mistake, shouldn&#39;t have done that" and argue that, no problem. What you can&#39;t argue is that since we created these figures, we are somehow responsible for everything that followed. We made a guess. Maybe it was wrong. We didn&#39;t fucking know, and we need to take responsibility for that. But that does not mean that other forces were not in play here. To wave a wand and say "We created this problem" is to grossly oversimplify. It&#39;s not really worth discussing, and the person saying it is either a simpleton or just trying to get a rise.

  • March 17, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    What nuclear secrets???

    by cookylamoo

    You can find plans to build an a-bomb on the internet. (or you used to) The problem is not the plans, it&#39;s getting your hands on the plutonium. If Clinton had sold Plutonium like Donald Rumsfeld sold nerve gas, you would have a case. At least Clinton didn&#39;t fill every goverment watchdog agency with corporate flunkies.

  • March 17, 2006, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Robert Rubin was unqualifed??

    by cookylamoo

    That son of a bitch temporaily saved the economy.

  • March 17, 2006, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Uhm...what about the film?

    by lindyboy

    As much as this conservative hates to break up the debate here, I think after reading Merrick&#39;s review I&#39;m more conflicted than ever about seeing this film. He makes a solid point about how the regime portrayed in the film is more old-school Nazi, than any modern American or UK govt. for that matter. But lest we forget, Alan Moore wrote "V for Vendetta" as a reaction (I would argue an overreaction.) to Thacherism in the 80&#39;s.______________________________ Typically, fascist states look for scapegoats. In this case, gays and artists replace Jews and intellectuals in Nazi occupied Europe. The trouble with this type of moral equivelency is that a) it&#39;s not really true and b) the methods are so heavy handed they cannot be taken seriously. This is where "V" will always fail in my mind, because it appeals to the Chomskyite equation that age old democracies are somehow magically transformed into fascist states through any "manufactured" crisis.___________________________The Weimar Republic was anything but age old and the necessary elements to overthrow it were already brewing in German society well before it fell. So while I appreciate Merrick&#39;s view on the subject, I don&#39;t feel the majority of audiences will take that view away from the film._____________________________More importantly given the Guy Fawkes mold the character takes, I would argue that no matter how well educated or eloquent, blowing up parliment, where civilians can be killed is definitely a terrorist act.______________________________Yet I know even as I write this, some part of me will be drawn to see the film as I am a fan of the priciple actors involved as well as the producers and director. I&#39;ll go for the action and shrug off the Chomskyite histeronics, not unlike I did with Episode III.

  • March 17, 2006, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Bush&#39;s appoinments are worse than unqualified

    by cookylamoo

    He appoints corprorate foxes to guard the public henhouses.

  • March 17, 2006, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Go fuck yourself JimmyBlowsRedAss!

    by Orionsangels

    Still an asshole, wha wha wha! haha. yep, now go cry a fuckin river shithead. you fake ass person. You&#39;re a real piece a work you know that. What makes you so special anyway. Have you fought in a war? Have you changed the world? good for you. lol. You haven&#39;t don&#39;t shit. You sit there in front of your laptop typing away, acting all high and mighty. I never said I supported war, but now that we&#39;re in it. I&#39;ll be damned if i won&#39;t be for it as long as it secures this countries safe being. We come first in the world. Selfish yes. Go fuck yourself. If you join the army you know what you&#39;re in for. You have no one to blame but yourself. As for joining. I&#39;m too old to join. Aw well. Look around? I didn&#39;t create these problems. I&#39;m busy tryin to do for me. I can&#39;t pretend to worry about others like libs do. Welcome to reality. I&#39;m the only one with balls around here to say this. The rest of you. You just know hadda hide.

  • March 17, 2006, 5:54 p.m. CST

    also, Clinton...

    by FrenchBastard03

    ...once had osama bin laden in his sights on a satellite gps device. he could have easily given the order to take him out, even knowing he was a prime suspect for the first attack on the wtc, but he decided against it. there is such thing as moral inaction you know, and that shows he lacked both righteousness and balls

  • March 17, 2006, 6:35 p.m. CST

    orionsangels...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    i served during the first gulf war - and lost 35 percent of my hearing 60 percent of my vision and most of my teeth - and lots of sleep - i used to think the way you do - then i grew up - asshole - its bold of you to admit that you cant "pretend to care about others like libs do" - youre right - you are the only one here with the balls to admit thinking that way - and admitting that is the most "republican" sounding thing youve said yet - sleep tight bitch

  • March 17, 2006, 7:43 p.m. CST

    aww, now i feel bad.

    by Orionsangels

    You think you&#39;re the only one in a world of shit? I&#39;m living with health problems myself. Nobody cares I suffer everyday and I barely sleep as it is. One last thing. I never said I didn&#39;t appreciate what the troops do for this country. I can be a selfish bitch, but that doesn&#39;t mean I don&#39;t care. I&#39;m human.

  • March 17, 2006, 8:05 p.m. CST

    know you care

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    these are your words - "Look around? I didn&#39;t create these problems. I&#39;m busy tryin to do for me. I can&#39;t pretend to worry about others like libs do. Welcome to reality. I&#39;m the only one with balls around here to say this." - im not looking for sympathy or a handout - maybe i should keep some things to myself - but if your heart really goes out to "the troops" you wouldnt be saying things like -"you fake ass person. You&#39;re a real piece a work you know that. What makes you so special anyway. Have you fought in a war? Have you changed the world? good for you. lol." - you are what is referred to in prison as a "punk" - back pedal some more ape dick

  • March 17, 2006, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Fuck you!

    by Orionsangels

    OMG he really got me now, haha. look how fast i&#39;m back pedalling, haha. oooh scary boys and girls, haha. I know who I am and what I believe in. I don&#39;t have to answer to you or anyone this talkback. The nerve haha. I don&#39;t need this shit, go cry on somedbody else. You are what is is referred to as one bitter SOB. Grow up and move on, bye!

  • March 17, 2006, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Could V inspire Cubans to overthrow Fidel Castro?

    by Orionsangels

    How come you never hear that? It&#39;s always, Topple America government. They&#39;re evil. We have a communist dictator 90 miles from America. That ok right? Nobody talks about that. The only time we hear about Cuba is when Liberals like Oliver Stone and Robert Redford visit the country and hug Fidel Castro.

  • March 17, 2006, 9:55 p.m. CST

    castro plays golf and sips cognac with bush

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    wghat a macho punk you are - boy you sound pissed - keep flappin - maybe youll get off the ground - cuba poses no threat to us - either real or conjured up - not since 62 - plus cuba is a popular vacation spot now - just like viet nam - cuba doesnt scare anyone anymore - but castro is a shmuck - now go drink some warm milk and masturbate yourself into a deep sleep

  • March 17, 2006, 10:52 p.m. CST

    "osama bin laden in his sights" BWAHAHAHA!!!

    by Col. Klink

    Oh, the naivete of the red staters! As if killing Bin Laden in the 90&#39;s would have stopped 9/11. You can kill a man but you can&#39;t kill an idea. And when that idea is that America has fucked you over, no matter how many Arabs you kill, thousands more will take their place.

  • March 17, 2006, 11:16 p.m. CST

    macho macho man! i&#39;ve got be! a macho man!

    by Orionsangels

    yes i&#39;m so pissed I just pissed on your face, haha. grrr! haha. keep patting yourself on the back there old boy. you really let me have it, haha. Oh but wait my bitter little army friend. I thought you cared about people. So the people in Cuba living in slums under a dictatorship. Who risk their lives to reach America everyday. Thats ok? As long tourism thrives in Cuba? Popular vacation spot?, haha. Yes that&#39;s one of the ways Castro stays in power. You support this? As long as it doesn&#39;t effect you right? Now who sounds Republican? You greedy selfish bitch.

  • March 17, 2006, 11:30 p.m. CST

    ?... are you cuban...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    or just grabbing for straws - the people in cuba living in slums are stuck in a communist state - my heart goes out to them - but we cant invade cuba and overthrow castro simply because hes a commie - it doesnt work that way - and any cuban that can make it to our shores and thrive here im all for - i didnt say i was a big supporter of the cuban tourism board - i was merely trying to explain to you the current situation between us and cuba - i was stating a fact - i wasnt endorsing it - and - i never said i was in the army - and the only thing im bitter about is how bush is screwing us all - you should be bitter about it too - dickless - im done argueing with you - its a bore - maybe ill run into you in another thread - until then - thanks for the sparring match hot head

  • March 17, 2006, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Orionsangels - "people in Cuba living in slums"

    by Col. Klink

    Why is the population of Cuba living in poverty? Ever hear of the Cuban Embargo? You know, where the US starves the people on the island to convince them to overthrow Fidel. 40 years of American interference in their affairs has gained us NADA!

  • March 18, 2006, 12:46 a.m. CST

    Col. Klink

    by Orionsangels

    Ever hear of Mexico, Venezula, Columbia to name a few. Who still ship goods to Cuba. They&#39;re the reason the Cuban Embargo isn&#39;t working. If these countries joined the Cuban Embargo. The sanctions would start working and topple that old fart. Fidel has been the problem for 40 years, not funding a dictator. Either way. At this point his days are numbered. He&#39;s dictator on his last legs. If you know spanish like me and listen to his ridiculous speeches. Which are incoherent rambling and make no sense at all. You&#39;d understand. He&#39;s a frail old man who&#39;d be in a retirement home if he was in America. He&#39;s getting worse, shaking all the time, can barely walk, voice is scratchy. It&#39;s pretty obvious his people are not telling us the truth. That he most likely has parkinson&#39;s desease. It&#39;s sad what this man has done to this country and countinues to do to this country. What it&#39;s even sadder though is the way you passive liberals turn it around and blame America. You seem to have sympathy for this muderer. You libs are all the same. As long as you&#39;re not running the country. America is to blame for everything. Even if it means siding with terrorist. The golden rule of Liberals.

  • March 18, 2006, 1:01 a.m. CST

    You sure love to insult don&#39;t you Jimmy

    by Orionsangels

    You know I wouldn&#39;t have insulted you if you hadn&#39;t insulted me first. He who throws the first stone or some shit like that. I mean, I&#39;m a nice guy, but don&#39;t push me. I&#39;ve been on the Internet 15 years. I&#39;ve delt with worse kind than you. That&#39;s not threat just a fact, but that aside. Your last post is the one I agree with the most. except the dickless part. Now, where was I? Oh yeah. I&#39;m a reformed bush supporter. that&#39;s right. I was right there cheering him on defending before the war, but you reach a point where reality starts to take over and no matter how much you wanna support someone from your party. the writings on the wall. you can&#39;t deny bush is close to a retard and i&#39;m realist first. so i said fuck it! to both parties!, but i&#39;ll be damned if i stop supporting my country, especially to support my party. how low can you get? oh and don&#39;t insult anymore jimmy. you love throwing those insults around. that wasn&#39;t nice. you should really be apologizing to me, but i&#39;ll let it slide. since i threw some at you. i guess will agree to disagree. adios mr jimmy.

  • March 18, 2006, 2:44 a.m. CST

    All this political bickering

    by Undead Neverhood

    Over a movie thats barely even going to register at the box office and will vanish by the second week. Even the Bush haters won&#39;t be able to keep this one from having crappy box office receipts. I am going to see it though, and not because I hate America or hate Bush and blah blah blah. I&#39;m seeing it for old fashion reasons...because I&#39;m a fan of the comic book and source material. I just don&#39;t think this is going to do well at the box office.

  • March 18, 2006, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Did this guy watch the same movie?

    by TrendyGuy

    I don&#39;t know what movie this guy watched but I didn&#39;t really like the Wachowskis script. Actually some parts of it were just plain stupid and they just happened to fit in a matrix like fight scene it it. And, portman&#39;s acting wasn&#39;t that fantastic

  • March 18, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Why Does America Deal with Bad Guys?

    by cookylamoo

    Because in the end, politics is bullshit. There are rich guys, there are enforcers, and there&#39;s everybody else. The rich guys make the deals, the enforcers (like Saddam) carry them out, and everybody else has to eat it. The rest, words like patriotism and freedom are simply smoke and mirrors.

  • March 19, 2006, 4:39 a.m. CST

    The US never created Osama/Hussein

    by Walterego

    Hussein rose to power entirely on his own through assasination and manipulation of Baath party rivals. He was dictator of Iraq for many years before his war with Iran resulted in the US permiting him to purchase chemical components from some US companies that He decided to make weapons out of. The US govt. never gave him any weapons. The US never delivered any weapons to Osama nor did the US train him. He was one member of an Arab group (MAK) that received ample funding from saudi arabia. The US supported AFGHAN muj, not arab groups like MAK. By the time he assasinated the leader of MAK and took over the remnants the US had ended its involvment in Afghanistan. Years later Osama founded AL Qaeda following the gulf war. Years after that, the Taliban was formed with support from Pakistan&#39;s ISI. The US created none of these: Al Qaeda, Taliban, or Hussein&#39;s regime. Each is entirely responsible for their own actions. The US spent billions and expended hundreds of lives of US servicemen during the 80s/90s trying to help various muslim countries/people as best as it could. The US neither provoked nor produced Al Qaeda. Suggesting otherwise shows contempt for history, let alone for americans.

  • March 19, 2006, 4:42 a.m. CST

    BeefyWhore...

    by JaeZion

    ...contends that watching Fox news doesn&#39;t make you an extremist. S/he is right. It makes you simple and easily led.

  • March 19, 2006, 4:53 a.m. CST

    chrth

    by JaeZion

    18-35 year-olds are too busy with their x-boxes, dvds, computers, ipods, etc., to vote. Karl Rove conceived a strategy of basing Bush&#39;s every response to a question with "What do soccer moms think Jesus would do if...". Middle class women got tricked with propaganda about the "liberal view" of stay-at-home moms, and old people got tricked into thinking Kerry would gut Social Security. And since most are too lazy to research the issues on their own, they all got conned. Hence, they all got what they deserved. Bush is great! Woo-hoo!

  • March 19, 2006, 5:01 a.m. CST

    Down with Bush

    by JaeZion

    I just couldn&#39;t stand someone with no sense of sarcasm or irony construe the last post literally. Is everyone registered to vote?

  • March 19, 2006, 5:29 a.m. CST

    That are no French people in Mississipi anymore

    by chien_sale

    Fact

  • March 19, 2006, 11:20 p.m. CST

    DELL

    by REDD

    One thing that was kind of funny in the movie, the United States is shown to be very chaotic and sliding into anarchy; but the police in the movie are using Dell Computer equipment. I guess Dell was able to withstand all of that (unless they&#39;ve relocated to the UK in the future).

  • March 22, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST

    um.. chien_sale...

    by FrenchBastard03

    i am indeed French. my parents were born there and they both are now living in mississippi. theres even a Mississippi French League for all the French people in MS to be able to get together and socialize and get to know each other. youd be surprised, MS isnt as bassackwards as many think.

  • Jan. 5, 2007, 8:01 p.m. CST

    Great Review

    by zillabeast

    I liked it!

  • Aug. 19, 2008, 4:09 p.m. CST

    FIRST POST OF 2008

    by JBouganim1