Cool News
Massawyrm Thinks LIONS FOR LAMBS Is The Best Movie No One Will See!!
Hola all. Massawyrm here.
Once upon a time a little bit of political controversy could drum up box office numbers like nobodies business. A little liberal song and dance would trigger a lot of saber rattling from the right and generate just the kind of buzz a small film needed to go from unknown to the biggest thing anyone was talking about. But those days are gone now. A country once divided by passion and rhetoric seems to slowly be reuniting through general apathy. We've started the search for our president's replacement a full year earlier than normal and our media is drowning its sorrows in the antics of a bunch of drunken twenty something's and celebrity mugshots. So now that we no longer seem to give a shit…that's when Hollywood rolls out all the political films. What would have been politically charged and poignant two years ago is little more than static today. Everything's been said. The show's over. It's time to go back home, go back to sleep and hope that when we wake up another celebrity has used the N-word, just so we'll have something new to talk about.
Which is why I wish someone would grab Robert Redford by the scruff of the neck, smack him around a little and tell him "Keep your goddamned mouth shut and let the movie speak for itself, dumbass." Robert Redford is one of this countries most respected filmmakers. A longtime distinguished actor who perfected the art of appearing natural by knowing just when to interrupt himself in mid-sentence and a director who always makes very well made, character driven films, he is also known for being one of Hollywood's most successful mavericks. And an unabashed liberal. So when he set out to make a film about the media, the military and the War on Terror (™), it's pretty clear that not only is it going to be something worth watching, but which way it was going to lean when you did.
Except that despite all of his rhetoric at the films premiere, the film is actually NOT what you would imagine. In fact, quite to the contrary, this film doesn't beat the liberal drum to a tune that will satisfy liberals. It plays a beat that aims right at the heart of the center. Knowing that the far right isn't going to pull its head out of the sand long enough to see what's going on and that the left doesn't need convincing, Redford goes for the single most neglected group of individuals left in this country. The center. The moderates. The folks who actually decide every election. While the democratic contenders all try to prove who's more liberal than the other without being Kucinich and the Republicans all try to prove they're the next George W. Bush without actually being anything like George W. Bush, Redford goes for the jugular of the heart of America by skipping the usual blame game.
Instead, Lions For Lambs passes up the usual suspects. There's even a line in it that says "Forget about the guys that got us here, they're irredeemable" and it puts the blame elsewhere. On us. On the media. On everyone that let it happen. And it sets out to remind us that we were the ones who allowed all this to happen and we're the only ones who can fix it. Not by who we vote for, but by what we as individuals do. Lions for Lambs is a film entirely about personal responsibility. It's about calling out the bullshitters and implicating the folks that usually get a pass. In fact, despite the way the Republican party is portrayed in this, it is actually the media (which looks an awful lot like CNN) who walks away with a black eye.
But while it does all this it does so in a manner that is so god damned patriotic that it'll bring tears to the eyes of seriously die hard patriots. This movie LOVES America. This is Aaron Sorkin levels of patriotism distilled down to its essence and applied liberally to every frame. This thing just drips love for its country. It guts its senators. It humiliates its media. And it admonishes the Americans who fell asleep at the wheel and let this country fall off course for a few years. But its soldiers? Man does this movie love its soldiers. There isn't a negative portrayal of one to be found. This isn't another war-is-hell movie. This is a what-were-we-thinking movie.
Not to say that it won't bother right-wingers, particularly those who still believe in the war. It pretty much deconstructs all of their current arguments and plays the Vietnam analogies to the hilt. It's going to be readily dismissed by those who would most benefit from it – but at the same time it seems to know that. It feels like it has set its sights on the very middle and presents the arguments that would best win them over.
And it certainly seemed effective. I saw this with a decidedly older crowd who all walked out murmuring about politics and the film. One man walked past the rep and when asked what he thought the man looked up, narrowed his eyes and in a gruff voice kind of barked out "Truth hurts," and just kept walking. A lot of people around him just nodded. This was a decidedly different energy than that of other political call to action films. It gives the audience something to chew on. It's not about energizing a base. It's about reminding certain people what their apathy and fear have caused and just how important it is that we do something. It's a wonderful, thoughtful film that for a certain segment of the audience is going to make some pretty profound arguments.
That said, liberals really aren't going to get much out of this thing. It's not a very exciting movie. It's three conversations that we cut back and forth between – a Senator talking with a reporter about his new plan to win the war in Afghanistan, a professor talking to one of his students and a pair of soldiers trapped on a Taliban controlled mountaintop. Not a lot happens. In fact, the film is almost play-like at times. And as these three conversations congeal into a solid argument many liberals are going to find themselves shrugging and saying "Yeah, and? I already knew this." It's a film that tries so hard to avoid preaching to the choir that it almost forgets the choir is still sitting in the room.
Right about now is the time when someone chimes in with But what about the performances? Look, it's Robert Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise. How the hell do you think they were? Say what you will about their politics or religions, but these three are all at the very top of their professions. And these are exactly the kind of performances you'd expect out of them. Cruise is especially great, once again using his natural charm and charisma to come across as a sleaze much in the same way he did in Magnolia. Everytime he smiles you just know you can't trust him. Redford does what he does best, essentially serving as the narrator of the film without actually narrating, if you follow my meaning. He's lays out the arguments and brings everything together for the audience. And Streep, jesus. If Streep's ever given a mediocre performance it was when she was alone in a dark room with the shades drawn. Here she serves as our guilt, our conscience – the realization that as much as we may voice our concern, we are all in some way complicit in what has occurred here over the last 6 years.
If this movie has any obstacle it is simply that this country really is becoming apathetic again. We're falling back asleep on the couch. We've all yelled and screamed for so long that no one really seems to care anymore. And really, these movies are a couple years too late. The only people who are bound to go out of their way to see this kind of thing are least likely the people that need to see it. If you're the kind of person who enjoys a good stageplay-on-film and enjoys reveling in fantastic performances than this comes recommended. If however you are hungering for a great political film to re-energize you for the next YEAR of presidential campaigning, then this isn't the film for you. As much as it might appear to be a liberal kiss on the cheek, it is anything but.
Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em.
Massawyrm
Got something for the Wyrm? Mail it here.
-
+ Expand All
-
Yeah, I'll probably give this a miss too.
-
Good to see The Cruise doing something other than running around.
-
and therefore will be saying "I said that YEARS ago!" to pretty much everything in this movie. Assuming I ever do se it.
Am I right in assuming, though, that there is no "centre" for politicians to aim for, due to the fact that they are far more interested in setting themselves and their families up for life with after-dinner speeches for thousands of dollars a pop following their less-than-glittering political careers, rather than trying to do what's best for the country??
In other words - who cares what party they belong to? ALL politicians seem to be out for themselves first, us second. Which is why all politicians are low-down dirty motherfuckers through and through.
Or is that just ours in the UK??? -
"the far right isn't going to pull its head out of the sand long enough to see what's going on and that the left doesn't need convincing"...so, in other words, the right is too stupid to know anything, and the left is already in such an enlightened state, they need nothing more....there is some fair and balanced thinking there, you moonbat toad. Instead of taking aim at the media, etc...how about some focus on the Islamic Radicals for once? You know, over a 150 people were just blown up last week, because...gasp...a woman is trying to run for office. Where are the liberal drumbeaters and defenders of women's rights when you need them? To busy preachy to the 'middle" I guess.
-
...a stark improvement in the quality of Massawyrm's reviews. Nice work. And I agree, despite all the mud-slinging, Scientology bashing, gay suggesting, jealously insecure hate towards Tom Cruise by the public in general...he's still one of the best actors out there.
-
This film is just not dynamic. You have to admire what it's trying in the rhetoric and the arguments are well thought out on both sides. Cruise has rarely been better. But it just cuts from one static two-hander to another and the timing of the cuts is very haphazard. What's more Redford shoots it like he's just an audience member in the theatre. This would make a great play but as film it just sits there. A real shame because for snappy dialogue and good performances this could have been one to watch.
-
Is Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise again in this movie? God does this guy need a massive box office flop.
-
Love the "War on Terror (tm)" - love the trademark!
That, to me, in those two little letters, said more about the current state of affairs than anything else in the past few years! Well done.
... and nice review, too. Can't wait to see it. -
With you on the bias issue, it seems the reviewer's own views got in there a little >:p
As for being fair and balanced by taking on the Islamic Radicals, I think I speak for everyone who wishes to see the Islamic Radicals taken on when I say WE'RE ALL RIGHT BEHIND YOU!
And I do mean that literally. They keep blowing people up who disagree with them. Makes it hard to have a fair and balanced argument with them that doesn't involve artillery. That's something I haven't heard the liberals give a satisfactory answer on... How do you have a fair and enlightened debate with someone who will just kill your ass for disagreeing with them?
My answer: JOHN RAMBO... -
It's not that we're lazy, it's that we just don't care. The media starts the campaign early so they can write a secondary set of articles about how the campaign started too early, and then a tertiary set of articles about the voters who are apathetic because the campaign started too early ad infinitum.
-
You know there's a reason all these anti-war movies have failed at the box office......THEY SUCK! They all want to make the "This is just like Vietnam dude!" comparison. But no matter how many of these aging hippie directors try to play fast and loose with the facts telling America that we are the one's at fault, the vast majority will see through the crap and give it a pass. Just send this swill to the discount dvd bin now where it will soon be joined by Redacted. That is if Redacted even gets shown in North America. Most likely it will just be downloaded for islamo-facist training seminars.
-
is great, but NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a piece of shit because you didn't like the ending? You're dead to me.
-
In the Dictionary. You'll find one in the Liberry.
-
A nation turns its weary eyes to him. Don't let us down John. "What you call hell, he calls home"....Col.Troutman
-
to save the day???? I really hope so!
I'm interested in seeing this even though I have a feeling that it's extremely boring and about as revelatory as finding out that there is no Santa Claus. The current crop of "political (i.e. free campaign propoganda for the democratic party)" films have been about as exciting as reading a political pamphlet. The directors/screenwriters have to realize that if you want to get their message out on the big screen, they need to not only educate, but entertain as well. Oliver Stone was a director that was very successful at this. As much as I like Robert Redford as an actor, as a director he's mid-tier at best. His films play better on the Sundance Channel than in cinemas.
-
I guess that's why I hated Syriana, it just seemed to give its viewers the excuse to sit back and blame politicians and businessmen and call it day.What you Americans call "liberal" we still consider pretty right wing in my country and this seems like another movie I won't totally get because I'm not American. But no matter which political side this film endorses, I'm glad to hear it pushes personal responsibility.And yeah, I'm all in JOHN RAMBO: RISE OF THE HEADBAND OF VENGEANCE.
-
about films like this? nice that it's all well-acted and shit but people get their political entertainment on o'reilly or the huffington post now. why make a movie about it that's all, like, serious and important? booo-ring, i'd rather watch a mud wrestling match on the ocho between ann coulter and hillary clinton. good times! spandau belly: your views might make you a libertarian in this country. check it out!
-
...rationalize their decision to go to war? I mean, America tried to make a link between going to Iraq and false claims of weapons of mass destruction, but it was also seen as retaliation to 9/11 (even though that link was faulty as well). But since the UK wasn't affected by 9/11...I mean...don't they feel like America's bitch? The people that supported going to Iraq, that is. I mean, they were pretty much like lap dogs following their master. How do families who lost British soldiers in Iraq try to rationalize it?
-
Maybe, but that's not acting.
-
after he reviewed Crash. Crash was a message film that did have a very valid message about race. The problem with Crash was aside from the message, it was an awful film on every level that a film can be awful. The fact that Ebert would prop such a terrible film up based on it's message and not it's cinematic merits said to me that the guy is no longer interested in good films, he's only interested in good messages. In the end that's the problem with most message films, they may have a valid message behind them, but as a work of cinema they fail. Basically the Ebert's of the world will praise a canvas with crap sprayed on it if the author claims it's for World Peace. I'm for world peace, but that doesn't mean I should love that canvas covered in excrement.
-
I'm not saying they're not there, and I swear I'm not saying this to bolster my antiwar stance, but to date, of the hundreds of people - friends, acquaintances and complete strangers - I've spoken to, I've not found anyone who thinks it was justified. We're just like the US in that we're ruled by a government that doesn't give a flying fuck what the majority wants or thinks - they'll do what they want to do, and that's that. They are cock-juggling thundercunts of the highest order, and I don't use that euphemism lightly.
So yes - we in the UK do feel like the US's bitch, but now that slimy snake oil salesman Blair is out, and one of the few things Gordon Brown has done right is to distance us from the US a little re foreign policy, it's getting less and less so. The deaths in Iraq are totally pointless and without merit - on every side: Iragi, UK, US and everyone else. This war isn't a damn thing to do with 9-11: it's to do with securing land for oil; strategic restructuring of access for oil by the Western nations. The only thing that still surprises me is that the UK and US governments persist in thinking that their populations are completely thick. I can't speak for the US, but in the UK we all know what our government is up to. The problem is one that everyone in a police state faces: if you can't change the law democratically, because the legal process has taken the power out of the hands of the voters, what's left? Armed revolution is pretty much out, when you look at the surveillance and armed resistance you'd face. Dissenters will be effectively stopped before they start.
There's nothing we can do. The world is doomed, by our own governments. So I troll the TB boards, waiting for the end. My only friend, the end. It was nice knowing you folks. >:P -
I second your praise of Massawyrm's review. Not to bash the fella, but I was pleasantly surprised by his writing on this one, regardless of the movie.In Britain, we had our largest ever public march protesting against the war, but the government didn't give a shit and involved us anyway. They are cunts. I think we have even less of an excuse to be in Iraq than America. Bush is quite obviously an idiot, but at least you can claim he stole the election against the collective will. In the UK, Tony Blair was re-elected fair and square so we can blame nobody but our ill-voting selves.
-
...and he was bending over and taking it in the ass from which every US president came along. Glad to hear Brown is taking a different stance. World politics is a lot like high school in a way, and some leaders want to be associated with the popular kids to be part of the in-crowd. I kind of respect France more after this whole thing has played out, because they were one of the few major powers who stood up to the popular kids based on principle...even if it meant becoming a pariah.
-
This review paid for by moveon.org.
-
Guess you beat me to it, re: calling the government cunts. I am taking the coward's way out and moving abroad, much as I'd like to voice my dissent with a Molotov cocktail. I guess Brits are too polite to revolt. We'd probably queue.
-
Oct 30, 2007 10:30:33 AM CDT
If ANYONE fell asleep at the desk, it was Clinton when he was ge
by uss cygnus
Who passed on Bin Laden? Who built the wall between the FBI & CIA? Who treated terrorism as a crime no different than DUI rather than an ACT OF WAR against the United States? Who ran like a sissy bitch from Somalia after "Black Hawk Down"? Who cut our military and intelligence spending to the bone and allowed the 9-11 attacks to happen? BJ Bill Clinton. That's who. So, if you want to talk about people "Falling Asleep at the Wheel", let's start with Clinton getting blown in the oval office first.
-
Oct 30, 2007 10:31:47 AM CDT
MandalorianSage, I live in a socialist toilet and have no teeth
by spandau belly
You're totally right, that's why I talkback here because I can still communicate through typing despite having no teeth. I chat here in between studying Karl Marx and shuffling forward in the day-long line for bread. I'm glad you find what we consider right wing a joke. It must be nice to laugh, maybe eventually I will be able to afford teeth and I can laugh with you. I'll talk to my doctor about that when I finally get to meet him in 2015 once I've banked enough credits for a medical visit by pushing the plow with my fellow empowered proles.
-
...or a BJ.
-
1 million people took to the streets in protest before the war started - in comparison to population %, that would have been about 5 million marching on the streets of Washington against the war. I like mcspud don't know anyone who supported the war.
Our justification of it though was purely on WMD grounds - we were fed the dodgy dossier by Blair who put down the intel that justified invasion - only the intel was bollox and what was there was "sexed up". There was a programme on TV the other day which looked at the build-up to war, and it analysed exactly what Blair's role was in it all. And it showed that his strategy was pretty much to be involved in the talks, and thats that. He wanted to be close to Bush, and be seen to be close to him - without any intention of doing anything once in that close position, and regardless of what action was taken he would follow. Maybe it was all about Blair's ego, his self appointed position as World Statesman, wanting to remian close with the superpower - maybe it was all for the British national interest and preserving our "special relationship". All I know is Iraq has been a disaster. This programme also said that the task of rebuilding Iraq was going to be a bigger job than rebuilding Germany after WW2. But plans to rebuild Germany started 4 years before the end of WW2 - plans to rebuild Iraq started 2 months before. But who has been held accountable for this fiasco? Who has lost their job because of this criminal and suicidal negligence? No-one. And we Brits even voted Blair back into power again in 2005. Personal responsibility indeed - this one is on all our heads. -
Did this TV programme mention that guy who suspiciously and "accidentally" died over that sexed-up report? The guy who absolutely wasn't assassinated in any way? I'd forgotten about that but you've brought back memories.Also, I guess it's hard to get worked up over the war when the front page of every fucking British newspaper is about the little girl who went missing in Portugal. I'm not saying that's not news, but the coverage is getting pretty exploitative and ridiculous.
-
I made fun of you for the No Country review, like everyone else, but I really enjoy your reviews, and now I'm going to go see this (I wasn't before, I hate preachy liberal movies and I consider myself liberal).
-
...and the partisan jabs through the other 99% of the thread just made me shake my head.
-
...I would just turn on CNN and listen to Pelosi, Boxer, Kerry, Hillary and Obama spew forth their ignorant tyrades! How many times will certain wealthy Hollywood elitists display their far-left beliefs before they realize that Americans don't want to spend $10 on a movie that preaches about how "evil" and "ignorant" conservatives are? *Sigh* It is so sad that liberals (like Wrinkled Redford) feel the need to share their beliefs as if they were the only ones that mattered. But what else do we expect from people who would prefer the Government to take on the responsibility of legally forcing pet neuterizations -- but cry "fowl" when the authorities want to tap phone lines to listen for terrorists?
-
It's been months since I've done that on this site. Wow, you sir deserve a pat on the back... You put thought into that...
-
That's because this movie is shown on MSNBC and CNN every damn night. Who wants to pay to see that drivel when it's free?
-
because he was being such a fag
-
For that matter, Cindy Sheehan is just not cool the way Jane Fonda was.
-
The last line sums it up: "As much as it might appear to be a liberal kiss on the cheek, it is anything but." If you read this site regularly you know that Massawyrm is anything but a liberal so I would think a recommend from him would mean something. I guess its only true if the RNC says it.
-
It was said earlier that Ebert cares much more about the message than the craft and it is sadly, so very true. his latest debacle was with Redacted, a film that critics (who vote 90% democrat) could not even support, but he calls "perfect." but the worst part of it was when dicussing what "redacted" meant and how we export our torture so that its not on our hands, he states that this policy was "i'm sad to say, implemented under Bill Clinton." I can like a good movie even if it leans a bit liberal but needs to be well crafted and rooted in truth. what i don't like is when critics discount journalistic credibility completely and make everything they say biased and utterly one-sided. Ebert used to be a great writer, and yes film criticism is opinion, but he has taken it so far that he is incapable of stepping back and giving something an honest review. its a shame because he was once a tremendous writer. and Massawyrm is just trying to get back on harry's good side by spewing his liberal bullshit. how dare you fucking say everyone on the right has their head in the sand, while claiming that the left is enlightened. as Harry said, you are a fucking retard. and if you couldn't understand No Country, you don't deserve to offer opinion on anything fim. fucktard.
-
Not in the eyes of my father, who served his country in Vietnam to stop communist aggression. Of course, a lot of liberals are socialists, and subsequently sympathetic to the communist cause.
JUST KIDDING! But I agree that this movie is yet another propaganda piece by certain extremely wealthy, far-left Hollywood activists who feel that their anti-Conservative "message" is the most important in the entire world! I wonder: Do liberal extremists really believe their HATE BUSH and VILIFY CONSERVATIVES propaganda? It is obvious that rich activists like Wrinkled Redford does! -
... have at least three misspellings? Please get Firefox; it underlines them in red. Goddamn 28-percenters. What, percenters isn't a word?
-
and Fuck all politicians. Brown is every bit the smarmy cunt that Blair was- he has arse raped our wallets for a FUCKING DECADE- and achieved nowt. Got power without asking the country, sold us to Europe (breaking untold manifesto promises in the process) tried to spin an election that never was, and generally been the typical cunt that everyone knew he would be. Did anyone see the world cup final? where the hypocrite cunt turned up to "allegedy support England". My grandfather would have bitch slapped him for that. The problem is- who is the alternative? If we vote for the other main party then we effectively get Blair-lite for 5 fucking years. It's a real challenge deciding who to hate now. I just loathe all of them on principle, just in case I miss someone out.Democracy is truly dead in the UK and we want to export it to the developing world? Do me a fucking favour. I also don't know anyone that was for the Iraq war.
-
I understand that this is Massawyrm's take on the matter. However, there are others who have a completely different take. They call this film for what it is: It is another example of "hero" liberals taking on the "evil" conservatives who do not honestly serve their country, but operate for "alterior motive$." Do you see how this crap can be even more harmful that the blatant MoveOn.org rhetoric? It tries to mingle a feeling of "truth" (which is actually ignorant rumor) in order to illustrate their far-left point.
-
when Peter Fucking Mandelson (to give him his Sunday name) got a second government post instead of being investigated (and convicted) for fraud. His actions were very, very questionable- to put it mildly. Yet was there an investigation- was there fuck. Then, to add insult to injury no sooner is the cocksucker back in office than he is caught effectively taking back-handers to help some Indian tycoon get a passport. Then to add insult to injury, despite having had to resign TWICE for corruption related incidents- the little maggot gets appointed to the European Commission. Talk about giving the monkey the key to the banana house.And people were surprised when Blair owned up to "sexing-up" the dossier with that bleeding stupid 45 mins till the apocalypse thing.
-
Brown didn't get power without asking the country. We vote for the party, not the Prime Minister. The PM is simply whoever leads the winning party, and when Blair had exhausted all possible profiteering from the role, Brown replaced him.Don't get me wrong, the dude's still a thieving bastard. But like you say, the problem is that we have no alternative. There hasn't been a real opposition since 1997. I too will consider democracy to be dead when I am forced to vote conservative purely to even out the numbers.
-
...that the Democrats truly stick to their principles! They feel that, if you repeat something often and loudly enough, utilizing multiple avenues of the media (newspaper, magazines, internet, film, TV news, etc...), you can use lies to persuade the weak minded. How many "ordinary" people of lesser cognative ability have become convinced that President Bush isn't a bright guy by the antics of David Letterman, John Stewart, Conan O'Brien and Nancy Pelosi? They neglect to mention that his GPA at Yale was higher than fellow classmate John Kerry's. Bush also graduated from Harvard Business School, earning a MBA with Honors. While I don't agree with the President on everything, I am frustrated by the media's continuous efforts to demonize or ridicule conservatives. This film is yet another powerful example of the media's constant attempt to persuade public opinion of the weak minded.
-
but this time really took the piss. Did he even have an opponent? I just fucking resent the way those two bastards carved up power between them for 12 Years (minimum). AAARGH we need a revolution so FUCKING BADLY- purge the lot of the cocksuckers and let's start again. I'm with you on the Tory thing. Apart from the fact that I live in Camden and "my" (what a fucking joke)Labour MP has a majority so fucking large- and so supported by mindless one-party voting idiots, that my vote has become irrelevant. I hate this feeling of disenfranchisement, but am fucked if I know what to do about it.
-
he plays the conscience in the film and its hero. he is a professor at Berkeley! to quote Woddy quoting Groucho "those that can't do, teach, and those that can't teach, teach gym" the left likes to say that they love our troops while at the same time saying that they are misguided in what they do. how does the Hollywood elite know more about the war on terror than the soldiers and generals? it is a volunteer army. these kids are doing what they want to do. or is it that they are all brainwashed? not smart enough to know what liberals know. they may love their country but they are dying for a false cause, because they don't really know the truth, but the very rich hollywood elites do. love the troops my ass. they constantly imply that the troops are ignorant, brainwashed and just plain stupid, because that is the only way they could possibly volunteer to enlist. makes me sick when they pull the "we love the troops" card.
-
Bush doesn't need any help looking like an idiot: Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice errrr? donut?
-
So at Harvard Business School they teach you that "the French have no word for entrepreneur"? Or is their emphasis on "spacial entrepreneurs"? Bush is either an idiot or a comic genius. Groucho Marx couldn't write the clangers he comes out with, although I guess Groucho would also think it appropriate to mug at the Queen of England.Speaking of comedians, didn't Woody Allen once say "Harvard makes mistakes, you know: Kissinger taught there."
-
If the brit's would have held on to the middle east back in the day and civilized those people, then we might not be in this mess.
-
I think it was originally George Bernard Shaw. It's not exactly new.
-
That's Chrism, Kevinwillis.net, AnimalStructure, USS Cygnus and the rest of the "Libs are Socialist Commies" crowd. Even a movie that, according to Massa, is aimed at the Center is vilified by these mouth breathers. Apparently I'm its target audience, so I'll gladly fork over the $20 to see it. Suck on that, wingnuts. And thanks Massa for a fantastic review.
-
Who are these "others"? You wrote your original statement in response to THIS review from one of the best reviewers this site has. From what I've heard of the film it has not only the "unabashed liberal" (Redford) but also the "unflinching conservative" (cruise) along with a "reporter trying to maintain balance" and a healthy dose of "the troops". These are pretty much all the major players in our current debate and the dialog is carried out in a "play-like" manner. Seems like a quality film to me. No one in Hollywood (especially Robert Redford) is trying to convince you they don't lean to the left, but unfortunately they are the only ones who feel its necessary to make movies like this. I watch Bill O'Reilly all the time to get an idea of what people on the right actually think. I agree, it pisses me off when he tries to claim the center, but its still important to me to see what so many Americans are consuming as news.
-
Oct 30, 2007 12:05:38 PM CDT
If Nancy Pelosi mentions "Halliburton" one more time...
by ccchhhrrriiisssm
...I'm going to dress up like her at a Halloween costume party! This lady uses this word every time she wants to continue to receive her support from morons -- who are mostly unaware of the limited contracts Halliburton received in the first place! I think that the Democratic Party should be renamed the HATE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
-
You lumped me in and I hadn't even posted yet. "Communist" is really to specific, but, generally, liberals fall in a range between "quasi-socialist" and "hyper-socialist".Was I bitching? As far as Lions for Lambs, I thought I was yawning. I recently saw a bit on Fox about how "bad" the anti-war movies are doing, blaming it on politics or timing or exhaustion with the war and so on . . . but could it be, instead, that these particular movies don't sound interesting or compelling. That some, like Lions for Lambs, seem extraordinarily boring? Charlie Wilson's War, on the other hand, sounds like an interesting movie that I would like to spend time watching.But thanks for remembering me, and honoring my ability to breathe through my mouth. Namaste.
-
sorry it's been a long fucking day and this shit winds me up (believe it or not I am actually pretty much a moderate- unless misanthropy counts as a dogma)final proof that democracy is dead- the greedy, self serving, cock sucking, parasitic, excuses for humanity that call themselves "our" elected representatives are worried about apathy. Are they worried about the state of the nation? are they fuck. All they are concerned about is their fucking funding for the next election, so to fix it they are going to push through that all parties will have to be state funded. This drives me absolutely fucking insane. As well as picking up the tab on the parasitic bastards' unearned salary, not to mention their fucking dubious expenses (including paying the mortgage on a second home, which they can sell when they leave office, and not repay a fucking brass farthing)they now want us to pay for the privelege of their election campaigns. Just to ensure that they have to do fuck all to keep sucking at the public tit. I fucking hate them so much.
-
Nigga please. You were just trying to search through past posts to find something appropriate to paste here. Luckily I gave you an opportunity to be original. You're welcome.
-
"they may love their country but they are dying for a false cause, because they don't really know the truth, but the very rich hollywood elites do. love the troops my ass. they constantly imply that the troops are ignorant, brainwashed and just plain stupid, because that is the only way they could possibly volunteer to enlist. makes me sick when they pull the "we love the troops" card."
We have an all volunteer army that is controlled by our civilian leadership. The generals answer to the president. This is why no one in the army speaks against the war until they are out, otherwise they can be court marshalled. Politics are specifically removed from our military to prevent our people fearing its military. Unfortunately this means that our troops end up in places like Vietnam and Iraq for political reasons. It is up to us to prevent the civilian leadership from abusing our troops for their own misguided purpose. I'm glad you love the troops so much that you want them to die though. -
I think the problem is less with the government than with the British people. We don't have that revolutionary spirit. I would happily sign up for some good old anarchy, but most of the population would rather read about Pete Docherty's latest trip to rehab, or Amy Winehouse's hair.If Labour's done anything to perfection, it's been sedating the majority with just enough comfort and fear to keep the votes coming. I must say, though, despite being anti-Tory on principal, I would love to see Boris Johnston as PM. The speeches would be even more entertaining than Bush's.
-
That's what I meant to type. My bad. Did anyone here see In The Valley of Elah? I didn't. I don't want to pay good money to be put to sleep. But who knows, I might discover it's actually a good movie when it's part of the MVP program at Hollywood Video. I actually quite enjoyed The Lookout, a movie I never would have gone to see at the theater. Just goes to show, you never do know.Oh, and I finally saw Transformers. I enjoyed the effects, but what a mess of a movie. Damn you, Michael Bay!
-
Oct 30, 2007 12:13:45 PM CDT
LIONS FOR LAMBS OUGHT TO BE PART OF HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULA
by bringingsexyback
Word?
-
if you want something on the right equal to hollywood's left you have to go much further than o'reilly. think hannity or limbaugh. contrary to what liberals think, O'reilly is certainly not the furthest you can go on the right. and he is nowhere near as biased as someone like Oberman. and BringingSexyBack, Massa is obviously very left leaning, so something he says is down the middle, can't possibly be true. if he left his political bias out of the film, i might buy into that. but he doesn't. and therefore sacrifices his credibility. also, its streep and redford! these are two people that have no interest in debate. there is no way that this is an evenhanded thinkpiece for the middle
-
trash, how about giving it to your mom, so she wouldn't have to ho' out for the evening to make a buck? Redford doesn't need your money, the dude's already rich. So why go see another movie were he tells us how much smarter and more noble he is then anybody else.
-
I just saw it too. What a freaking mess, I agree. The dog pissing was worse than I expected. Megan Fox can't act for shit, and there weren't enough boobie shots to compensate. Don't get me started on Shia. I don't know why this movie made money, but Godzilla did so there's the answer. Fucking travesty.
-
This is not a bad review. But it certainly does not reflect the reviews posted on RottenTomatoes. I know several others who have seen the film, and one friend told me that this film doesn't attack Conservatives with a powerful uppercut, but with a resilient jab. By the way, I am not a member of the "right." I don't like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. The only thing worse than neocon pundits is the constant barrage of hypocrisy of the liberal media. Lower unemployed lifeforms (like BringingSexyBack) who haunt this forum more than the moderators use their time to attack what they mockingly and bitchingly refer to the opposition as "right wingnuts" -- without realizing that they are further to the Left than most Conservatives are to the right. The only tolerance that they show are to those who agree with the far-left extreme social views. *Sigh* I will watch this film. While I hate the public manner of his political and social views, I still think that Wrinkled Redford is one heck of an actor and director, and Meryl Streep is, well, Meryl Streep. I will spend my $$$ on the tickets and popcorn. I will return and then realize that I was suckered into attending yet another far left, elitist Hollywood tirade against the "evils" of Conservatism. BringingSexyBack will continue his round-the-clock mindless vilification of those who disagree with him and the propaganda of the far "Left Wing" of the Democratic Party. This process will repeat itself over and over again.
-
Wasn't I thanking you? Jeeze, try to be nice to some people. But I'm cool. And, dude, I'm super-happy you like boring movies because they have Robert Redford and Meryl Streep in 'em. Me, I'm waiting for the actually good movie with Tom Hanks in it. Peace-out, my brother.
-
Salman Rushdie blamed the weather for our lack of revolutionary spirit. We are a nation of moderates- we lack extremism. Apparently. Boris for Mayor of London would be absolutely priceless. He would be marginally less competent than Dick Whittington's cat.Enough of this shit, just thinking about them gives me a fucking headache- and I do apologise to any American who waded through my tirade.
-
she don't need my $20.
-
The reason I picked O'Reilly is that he has by far the most popular cable news program on tv. You're right that Olbermann is extremely biased, but I respect him more for wearing it on his sleeve instead of calling his program the "no spin zone". After years of watching his show it is obvious that O'Reilly is extremely conservative. The "no spin" crap is there just to make the people who watch it feel like they aren't biased at all and it just happens to be that their opinion is right. And btw, Massa has actually shown he leans right several times on this site. Does he lose that cred just for not trashing this film?
-
Full disclosure. I'm a rock-ribbed Reagan conservative Bush-voting right-winger (I don't care much for the idea of pre-emptive war, however).Sean Hannity, however, makes me yawn. "Right after this commercial about me, we'll be talking to someone I'll be interviewing tonight on Hannity and Colmes. Now, I interview myself about the book I just wrote . . . coming up, I'll talk to somebody interesting, but I won't tell you when, but I'll keep teasing it every 3 minutes, so that there's no time left when we actually talk to them. You've been Hannitized!
-
*Sigh*
-
Enjoy the show. I sneak popcorn and soda into the theater. I think it's insane to pay $15 for popcorn and soda when you can get it for $5. The theater can make its money by me watching the half-hour of commercials before the movie.
-
They barely put up a fight, they were getting their asses handed to them by the Deceps. Lame.
-
I'm glad you're going to see the movie, that's more than most conservatives can say for themselves. What I think you need to realize is that for every bringingsexyback on the left there is one on the right. It's like looking at a scatter plot. You're going to have your outliers that don't fit the general trend but its the majority that matters. Focusing on the nut jobs on either side (and we both have our fair share) just prevents us from evaluating each other's arguments on their merits. It's a parlor trick meant to stifle real debate, and its kinda sad. Once you're convinced that every liberal is from the far left, there is no room to entertain the thought of them having some good ideas. I don't really have anything AGAINST conservatism per se. I just think its a flawed philosiphy that attracts some of the more unseemly characters in our society who use its popularity to do some pretty bad things. Evil? Not so much. Misguided . . . maybe.
-
i still can't get over Massa's review of No Country. so maybe i'm more biased than he is, just looking for ways to trash him. I do not think this film will be as bad as Rendition or Redacted. and foxnews gave it a positive review. i just get tired of lines like "conservatives with their head in the sand." about O'Reilly... he is capable of taking the side of democrats on some things, that is why i do not think he is as ultra-conservative as others feel. Hannity and Limbaugh, like Olberman, are so set in their views they are incapable of honestly assessing anything. its all propoganda. "no spin zone" is gay and ridiculous, but alternative views are expressed on the show. my point is, its not the big bad evil right wing propoganda machine that hollywood thinks it is.
-
its redford, streep and cruise... as a big fan of film and acting, i will be seeing the movie, probably opening weekend.
-
...especially when in saner times, their sort of "patroitism" was called by it's more accurate name: TREASON!Sorry, kiddies, but grownups know that as soon as Hillary takes office, she could round people up into death camps and you guys would do nothing but cheer while claiming it was such an improvement over Dubya's imagined fascism.
-
I managed to post something to the Talkback without content or a subject? I just hit the enter key, and "Bam!" That's some spicy gumbo.Point being, I wouldn't see this movie if it was a right-wing agitation for a strong military and tax cuts and privatized social security, if the trailer looked anything like the trailer for this movie looked. And I'd go see it in a heartbeat if Meryl Streep's role had been played by Oprah Winfrey, and Tom Cruise jumped on her desk and started demanding: "Do you want to win? Yes or no? Are you a clear? Yes or no? Do I need to audit you right now? Yes or no." Now, that'd be a movie I'd want to see.Of course, I really liked David Letterman's "Uma, meet Oprah" joke. So I don't suppose there's much accounting for taste.
-
You can fire missiles and machine guns at 'em all day and do almost no damage, but you can refrigerate them and they can't move? And they can move through the absolute zero (or near, aside from ambient radiation) of space all right, but not the relative warmth of Antartica? And why no scenes of Megan Fox being pleasured by a new kind of NC-17 type of Transformer? That's what I want to know.Oh, and, uh, Robert Redford looks old and stuff.
-
The fact that he gets away with saying alternative views are presented on his show is part of what bothers us so much. If a liberal is put on, its usually a nobody and they are often outnumbered by conservatives. Yes, O'Reilly does approach an issue with common sense from time to time but even when he supports the other side its always a perfunctory note with an immediate reference to how we're so crazy that we'll never get our shit together so it doesn't matter. It's biased, and that's not even my issue. It's claiming to be above all the other biased media that gets to me.
-
Get ready to party, Dirk.
-
"BringingSexyBack will continue his round-the-clock mindless vilification of those who disagree with him"He seems pretty thoughtful, to me. Just, uh, incorrect in his political analysis on some issues. But I don't think "mindless vilification" is a fair analysis, myself. And he agrees with me about Transformers, so he has to be pretty darned smart. That's all I'm saying. People reveal their intelligence by agreeing with me about things.
-
yeah, that would piss me off too. i see your point. i used to watch hardball, until matthews started doing the same crap O'reilly does. there really is no show out there for good honest debate. Charlie Rose is where to go for a good, honest interview, and that is about it.
-
It would've been better if he was the one saving the planet instead of Shia Witwicky. Good point on Megatron being frozen. The whole movie had Crash-sized plotholes.
-
I tend to agree that Fox should bill itself as "balancing the Left!" or "Giving you the other side". Or, "We are the balance. We bring the fairness." Something to suggest they are providing an alternative perspective, rather than encompassing all viewpoints (which would result in a schizophrenic presentation). The fact is, liberal shows hosted by liberal commentators sometimes have token conservatives on, and then browbeat them or gang up on them. Bill O'Rielly is the conservative version of that (not to say one inspires or justifies the other; I think that's just the way people with strong ideological bents will tend to organize talk shows they are in charge of) . . . why they don't just say that, I dunno.
-
Thanks for having my back Kevin. We can agree to disagree. Sorry I lumped you with Cygnus and Animal. I've seen you use words with more than 3 syllables so you certainly don't belong in that club.
-
I will leave out any discussion of the 9/11 conspiracy and the NeoCon/Zionist agenda for world domination.
I hope you appreciate this gesture! -
by the right. "Fuck off, my intellectual better!" OH BURN!
-
Just days before 9/11. I'm just saying, we all know who is really to blame for 9/11.
Michael Bay. -
I definitely won't be seeing this piece of left wing propoganda BS. Hey Redford, I can give you one good fucking example of why Afghanistan isn't like Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh never flew a fucking 747 into the World Trade Center, you fucking idiot.
-
You are not of the goat whores who sneak in bags and bags of snacks into the theater, including ear-drum smashing Pringles and Ruffle Ridges. They make enough damn noise when you pull them out of the garbage bag, let alone when chomp down on them like a cow chewing on cud.
-
"Elitist" is a reference to the arrogance, condescension, and ideological myopia of a class of persons who feel they are superior to, and should largely be in charge of, the common people, like mill workers and NASCAR afficiandos.People on the right don't actually consider you their intellectual better--but they believe that you consider yourself intellectually and morally superior, and that you believe you are entitled by your intellectual superiority to power and control over the lives of lesser, more common folks, like themselves. And they tend to disagree with that assessment.
-
that's all I've gotta say. say no to nation building and policing the world. if you want both, vote Giuliani or Clinton.
-
I'm so glad I'm not the only Brit feeling this fucking disenfranchisement - in my constituency (East Midlands) we've had an elected councillor replaced by another, chosen by the council NOT the constituents, purely because the council are unhappy that this councillor was voted in. They're claiming the voting was unfairly biased, but since they control the process, how so? Twats.
So if I ran for office, starting up a new party, you reckon I could get a few AICN liberals to rally behind me? The only reason I haven't started my own party and run for office (except for a complete lack of funding and the sure knowledge that Labour and Tory would collaborate to get me out if I got in, as they did the Lib Dem councillor in my constituency!) is because I know how widespread the feeling of "all politicians are cunts!" is in the UK. I could be the most honest man in the UK (and I don't think I'm far off) and people would still think of me as a cunt, purely for wanting to change everything. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Onomatopoet - there's no dishonour in leaving this sinking ship of a fucking country if (a) you have the means and (b) you truly don't believe that there's anything can be done to bring it back to its former greatness. I agree with you and would join you if I had the means - good luck in your expatriation!!!
God, I fucking hate politics. From the most noble of civilised ideals to a fucking pigs-at-the-trough money-grubbing stealfest. We're at the point now where a smarmy twat will stay in office, completely ineffectively, for a decade, all in preparation for the after dinner speaking tour that he and his hideous clown-faced wife will tread for the rest of their fucking underserving lives - which, by the way, will pay more than his prime ministry.
Everything's going to fucking hell. Charlie Brooker is right. -
Salient point there, incisively put. Problem is, Afghanistan never flew the planes into the WTC either. The hijackers were all, bar one, Saudi Arabian. But I guess, since the US aren't certain they could win a war against the Saudis (and of course don't want yto lose the lucrative oil contracts they have with them) they won't go after the REAL villains of this piece. 300 lives aren't worth losing some serious business with one of the Middle East's richest kingdoms, are they?
But Afghanistan IS like Vietnam in the way that the US is unlikely to be able to win this war either. Ironic, really, since they're fighting people they fucking armed and trained themselves back in the 1980s. Even John Rambo fought WITH the Mujahaddin back in the day. They can't be ALL bad, can they?
Ah, right wing politics. Pick the bits you like, discard the rest... -
He can't possibly win the Republican nomination; I doubt he'd be able to withstand Hillary if all the other Republican candidates were killed in a tragic campaign-finance accident.And, while I'm personally not for pre-emptive war, that ship has sailed. I don't believe that unilateral troop withdrawal would benefit us in any way, and I'm pretty sure both Rudy and Hillary would keep us in the Iraq theater because there is no benefit to us in just abandoning it, now that we're in the midst of it.
Spud McSpud: I think your problem with politics is that it involves (nay, requires) human beings. Alas, until the machines finally take over and we are ruled by our benevolent robot overlords, politics is going to be a messy, sticky, nasty, brutish business, like all human endeavors. If you won't be happy in life until you no longer have to shit and wipe your arse, then you ain't ever going to happy: taking a dump is endemic to the human condition. -
Don't want to disrespect the dead at 9-11. But I'd happily piss all day on the Bush administration. And don't think Hillary will be any easier - she's slightly to the right of Genghis fucking Khan.
It IS all the fault of Michael Bay. Memories-of-Murder may have been right, God help us all. -
You're right - the ancient Greek idea of politics was fine right up to the bit where human beings got involved. But as you're allied with Skynet, by the sounds of it, I have to send Autobots to your location RIGHT NOW. Please remain seated.
-
yes most were Saudi, but they all trained in Afganistan with the blessing of the Taliban. Islamic fascists are not about loyalty to a nation but to an extremist version of a religion. it does not matter where they come from. the Saudis did not allow Al Queda camps to prosper within their borders. We never sent enough troops to Afghanistan and shouldn't have moved to Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan, but it was absolutely the right war to fight at the time. there are very few, even on the left, that don't think we should have removed the Taliban
-
It's not the Jooooooz OR the Zionists (although Zinoist Christian is as oxymoronic as an ideology can be) - it's David Icke, the Illuminati, AND Memories-of-Murder who really rule the world. Tegujai Batir is the nefarious assassin of this evil world, and BringingSexyBack a spy in the liberal camp.
I need caffeine, fast... -
Really wanted to go to war with Saudi Arabia. And take it over. And Egypt, as a few of the 9/11 hijackers were Egyptian. And Germany, as much of the 9/11 plot was hatched by Saudi nationals in Germany. And the State Department, as the fast-track Visa program helped ease the hijackers trip to America.McSpud, lots of folks on the right don't approve of the American relationship with our friends the Saudis. It is Kissinger's real politik in all its pustulent glory. Saudi Arabia would make a much more convincing post 9/11 target, to me, than Iraq. The House of Saud continues to finance terrorism across the globe, and extremist madrasas, and terrorist-inciting imams and mosques. The House of Saud is almost certainly more of an ongoing threat, and an ongoing actor, in the terrorist war on the West than Iraq was, or was likely to be, yet the Saudis are "our friends", so we pre-emptively wage war on Iraq. Iraq: a country between two countries also more dangerous and more prone to sponsoring terrorism than Iraq, Iran and Syria.
Unfortunately, there is no side of the political spectrum that wants to actively attack the real problem: radical Islam, and it's main financial and poltical backers (aside from going to war with the Taliban): Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria. Then perhaps the Sudanese, maybe Lebanon. Palestine. Then, perhaps, Iraq, assuming we aren't worried about North Korea at that point. But it ain't happening, and it's not likely to happen, until the terrorist death told is a hundred times the 3000 that died on 9/11, and by then we might all be Muslim (or headless) by law, anyway. -
Agreed on the "doesn't matter where they come from" argument re Al-Quaeda. But my point still stands: Pakistan allow Al-Queda within their borders, but you don't see the US attacking them, do you? For the same reasons they don't go into Saudi Arabia: they don't want to lose the business and they aren't sure they'll win the battle.
Profit before people AND chickenshits when it comes to getting the real culprits: no wonder no-one's proud of the Bush administration. -
good job. You suck far less lately
-
i did vote for him, twice, but am by no means, happy with him. that being said, if i had to do it again, i'd vote the same way. no way would i go back and vote for Kerry or Gore. If liberals hate the Christian right, they should vote for Rudy. jesus, even New Yorkers were smart enough to vote for him twice. he would effectively end any hold on the Republican party that the Christian conservatives have. we would get back to Reaganism, where religion is left out of politics. though Dems probably hate Reagan and think the country would have been better with Ted Kennedy, Carter, or Mondale. thats scary.
-
thats not 100% true. it is a much trickier situation with those two countries because they are allies who have a more moderate view. We need Mussharaf on our side. By laying off, Pakistan's general population is getting sick of the extremists and they are moving forward with taking care of the situation. Pakistan does not have the Oil that the Saudis do, so economics CAN'T be part of the reason we don't invade both countries. It is because we are on decent terms with bot governments and need to work the diplomacy angle. that was not possible with the Taliban and to a lesser extent Hussein. there is no way you can compare Pakistan to the Taliban. and if we were going to go around blowing up every country that harbored Al Queda, we'd have taken out Germany a long time ago
-
Not knowing everything there is to know about the Vietnam snafu, I'm intrigued to discover that it was a Democrat government. Was it similiar to the situation in the UK now, ie we have two parties (Labour and Conservative, or "Tory" as they're known - but Labour these days, or "New Labour" as Blair renamed them in his ascendancy, is basically old Conservatism) that are different in name but all but identical in practice? Because Nixon sounded to me very much like a modern Republican. I might be on shaky ground here...
You're right about the radical Islam thing: that does seem to be the real threat, and very few politicians are too weak and spineless to face this before it's too late. In this country - whose legal system is based on swearing oaths on a Christian bible, which makes it (nominally) a Christian legal system - we are more likely to suppress the rights of white, indigent Christians (the majority) to accommodate and placate non-indigent people of all colours and nationalities (the minorities). This is obviously done to score points, but what I don't get is: who are the politicians who pursue this crap trying to score points WITH? Obviously not the British, indigenous population - they're too busy suppressing our rights. So who with?
It's depressing how realistic the prospect of a fully Sharia legal system in this country seems within the next century, due to our spineless leaders. Because if anyone tried to take the UK by force these days, this fucking government would roll over andlet them, cowards that they are. -
Scarily you're making more sense than anything I've heard from the Bush administration regarding foreign policy. How did you find your way into this hell-hole?
Agreed about the moderate governments in those countries: I always assumed that's why the US were less aggressive with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, despite their dubious allegiances and machinations. I'm wondering why the US didn't try to get these nations to lean on Iraq and Afghanistan's more radicalised governments to get the desired result? Or maybe they did, nothing happened, and that resulted in the war. Still not justified, though, as it appears that the US has made MORE terrorists through the war, not less.
Messy business. They could do with your nous on this subject, by the sound of it.Maybe kevinwillis.net will take you on when his robots take over >:D -
JFK and LBJ, who is truly responsible for Vietnam, were both Democrats in the modern sense. and you are right, Nixon was much more moderate than liberals in this country would have you believe. the most liberal of recent presidents was Carter, who oversaw four years of absolute failure at a domestic and foreign level. he is what most americans fear, when they fear a modern liberal in office. hence Reagan winning 2 elections by the largest majority in modern history
-
No dice, my friend. As an avowed liberal, I'm a giver, NOT a taker.
Five years of public school convinced me of that position. And yes, Harry Potter is LYING to you. If it were more realistic, Malfoy would've got Crabbe and Goyle to fistfuck him on a nightly basis.
Ahem. Back to the politics... -
unfortunately Clinton and the first 8 months of the Bush administration did not do nearly enough to get the moderate muslim countries to lean on the Taliban and radical Islam. then 9/11 happened and there was no room for diplomacy. the american public and much of the world's, demanded immediate action. unfortunately this administration then decided Iraq needed to be dealt with, which they did, even Clinton in '98 said that the removal of Hussein was necessary, but it was the wrong time. it was a failed policy with no endgame and we are paying for it now. i think the idea was right, and the IDEA of a democratic nation in the middle east was and is great. we just underestimated the consequences of removing a government with no contigency plan. Iraq was not the imminent threat we thought it was, but it was a threat and diplomacy was not working. but military action should have been delayed for several years. obviously Iran is a much bigger threat to world peace, but we can do little about it, because our military is completely exhausted. and any rhetoric about Iran brings up bad memories of the lead up to war with Iraq... its all very unfortunate. i happen to lean right because i believe in conservative ideas, fiscal responsibility, states rights, small government and a strong military. Bush is no conservative and he has possibly ruined, what i believe to be a great movement, that started with Reagan. but another 8 years of a clinton is certainly not the answer to bush's failed policy
-
You're right that liberals were initially responsible for Vietnam but we as a country now realize it was a giant mistake just as we eventually will recognize with Iraq. Carter was a bad president in general but incompetence is not directly correlated to party. George W. Bush is proof of this. You can't get em all right. Also Reagan may have had record victory margins but they were reactionary (to carter's abysmal performance) just like Bush's initial popularity and his re-election '04 were a direct result of 9/11. Hopefully we'll benefit from the same trend in '08.
-
Oct 30, 2007 2:07:27 PM CDT
Can't we all put aside our differences and just agree...
by elvis cole lives
That Heroes sucks now? Big time.
-
I actually looked forward to this when seeing the first promos for it, but the more I have read, the more it looks to be rehashed and tired. Redford hasn't done a good role since Sneakers and Cruise should never be mistaken for a serious actor only an action star with occasional bouts of drama. Instead of movies that constantly ask us to plod thru situations that no matter what will seek to piss of one overly vocal side or the other, there need to be more in this arena that truly look at the situation from both sides of the glass. I submit a popcorn flick that came out a month or so ago "The Kingdom". While it was action packed and dramatic it didn't argue the point as to our being in a place that doesn't like us or even that Iraq has changed the landscape. It was about the people involved in a war whether they realize it or not. It was a little heavy handed at the end with the whole symmetry of both sides vowing to wipe out the other, but even though it was it still made a valid arguement about nothing is black and white and we can all justify our actions and reasons if we believe enough in our convictions. So in closing, more entertainment from our entertainment industry and leave the political speeches for the trash bins they usually deserve to be pitched into.
-
that was part of my point in discussing Reagan and his enormous margin of victory. i think we will see the opposite with post Bush, though not quite as large. though liberals may be unfairly associated with Carter, that is still how much of the country views a liberal democrat. that is why someone like Edwards wouldn't win 43% of the vote. the same can be said with the views of Bush and Republicans. the general public associates the Iraq mess with conservatism, which, in my mind is not right, but is no doubt, the case. one bad president can ruin years of a movement. older voters will never forget Carter just like many will never forget the follies of Bush
-
documentaries last night. two parter called No plan, No peace. Part one was about the build up to war and its aftermath. The americans were asked continually before the war what was thier plan for after. utter silence. It became apparant that the US govt didnt care what happened to the iraqi people beyond giving them thier freedom. The State department had a 13 volume plan which Jay garner didnt know about. Any general who said that they needed more troops were thrown to the wolves. Rumsfeld dismissed the pictures of looting saying during wars stuff happens. Douglas Feith was derided as being the dumbest motherfucker in the room by Tommy franks. Feith took command of a meeting by crashing his fist down on the table and roaring that the only reason that the americans were in iraq was to quote "give Iraqis their freedom and nothing more". Garners Unit were dumb struck and one guy said "what was the point of us being there". 4 days into job, Garner was recalled back to the US and fired and was replaced by Paul Bremmer, who was a businessman and who had no diplomatic experience what so ever. Meanwhile Blair was getting no where with bush who constantly had to listen to bush's embarassing my friend tony speechs. Perhaps the most chilling remark was made by a woman from Jay Garners Unit. She said that the Change was instantaneous, once Cheney got control of the DOD. This woman noted the use of the word evil started to creep in to the DOD's offical papers. She said that the DOD now were the most ideological in history. Powell's officials told rumsfeld about the Marshall plan for germany but they were rebuffed. Seemingly rumsfeld believed that by rushing things that would work. It didnt of course and america is still in Iraq four years later. The chilling part is that Rumsfeld may be gone. They are targeting Iran. the collective world has to hop that Seymour Hersh is wrong and that an attack on Iran is not immenient. If that happens AMerica is going to get one hell of a bitch slap. we can only hope that it doesnt.
-
October 2002.
Bush: "You guys wanna go to war?"
Democrats in Congress: "Fuck ya!" -
can we all just agree that the world of politics is a fucked up place and the worlds saviour won't be coming in a suit? This movie is 4 years too late. The true liberals and conservatives have been silenced by idiots
-
the problem with the uk is everyone is far too comfortable. We are too complacent in placing blaim and not solving problems
-
'Cos everyone I know is broke - either employed but unable to pay their bills throuigh ridiculously high mortgage payments (interest rates going through the roof) or so broke and/or unemployed that they're unable to get out of the rented accommodation they're in, but fearful that their landlord / landlady might want to sell up before the prices begin to fall and kick them out.
It ain't comfortable in the UK. Unless you're an immigrant, in which they'll hand it all to you on a plate. The indigenous people of the UK (people with family that can be traced back to at least the 18th century, I'd say) are at the back of the queu in a country they themselves, and their ancestors, helped create and sustain. So why are the needs of outsiders, immigrants and those whose ancestry is only from the 20th century and later, considered first foremost when applying for welfare, education, medical treatment, and housing?
Trust me, being an indigent caucasian English person who needs help in the UK today is NOTHING CLOSE to comfortable. I speak from bitter experience. -
I don't see how comfortable the middle or upper classes are - I'm still trying to survive in the working class. A non-chav working class person in a world seething with them. Bah.
So, is it comfortable from the middle class Home Counties Estuary English perspective? Do tell, old bean. -
While I didn't point out that the Democrats got us into Vietnam, it was the hawks in the Democrat party that got us there (although a Republican, Eisenhower, who first explored sending troops to help the French Colonial forces in Vietnam, the French being largely responsible for the mess there; French colonialism has, historically, had a much poorer track record than British imperialism) . . . and that helped lead to JFK and LBJ getting hip-deep in Vietnam, which had numerous problems, not the least of which was civilian military, and even the president, trying to run the war so far from the battlefield). Nixon pledged to get us out of Vietnam, but was slow to do it. And Nixon did want to continue to support the North Vietnamese and not completely abandon the country, but the congress and senate was largely united in completely abandoning Vietnam, which many people believe led directly to the tremendous bloodshed in Vietnam and Cambodia.However, Nixon was not typically Republican in any sense; he was much more of an economic liberal than JFK, and could easily go to toe-to-toe with LBJ, and was a huge believer in government bureaucracy, giving us the EPA, the EOC, OSHA, and other government bureaucracies that conservatives curse to this day.He also institued Cost of Living Adjustments for Social Security, which was arguably a worthwhile thing (although it presumes an ever-increasing working population, which is a dangerous assumption, as some in Europe have observed).Nixon also oversaw the most direct attempt at a command economy in the history of the US, before or since. Price controls for gasoline and oil, quasi-nationalizing energy markets, trying to control inflation by price-capping staple food products (leading to, of course, shortages, gas lines, much of the energy crisis that happened under Jimmy Carter) . . . although Reagan supported Nixon in his campaign in 68 (as a leader of Democrats for Nixon), Nixon was actually more liberal in terms of foreign policy and economics than stalwart liberal icon, John F. Kennedy.BTW, I really miss the podcast of BBC4's The Now Show, and blame your stupid country for taking it away from me. :)But, yes, there have been transitions in both parties. The Republicans used to be dominated by blue-blood, pro-business but socially liberal northern politicans. The Democrats were more populist in their politics, referring to themselves as The White Man's Party before the civil rights era, and had a far broader range of political stripes under the tent. FDR was hawkish, a big believer in big government, but largely unconcerned about the Soviets. Truman was more concerned about the Soviets, and a hawk (he dropped two atom bombs on Imperial Japan). JFK was hawkish and a staunch anti-communist, but also a believer in fiscal conservatism, where LBJ was the opposite. JFK also didn't care much about civil rights as an issue, where as LBJ was a huge proponent of civil rights. But McGovern, Carter and Mondale helped propel the Democrats to a more unified, liberal party . . . but it was still a southern Democrat with a centrist tone that helped get the Democrats back-to-back terms in the Clinton Era. And that's just a highly abridged version: there's stuff like the sequencing of primaries changing which politicians get the nomination, gerrymandering of districts to consolidate political power, etc., etc.
-
Erm detailed reports and statistics tell us differently. Immigrants are far less on welfare than indigineous Brits and are disproportionately represented in unemployment even though most immigrants have higher education. Being a immigrant myself I can asure you that this side of the fence ain't to rosey. Unless you are confusing immigrants with asylum seekers which is a whole different story.
-
Oct 30, 2007 3:27:07 PM CDT
"Hey you people in the Center! The correct POV is the Left!"
by george newman
That is what your review tells me Redford did in targeting the center with his film
-
Well the assholes who kicked this talkback off with irrational mind-mud have apparently left. Thank God -I'm sick of telling people to think before they speak. I've enjoyed reading the posts and the review. Massawyrm- you are the best writer on AICN.
-
Soldiers fall out of helicopters. It makes Tom Cruise yell at Meryl Streep. It makes Wrinkle Redford dye his hair and pontificate. If Lucas raped your childhood, what is Redford doing to the legacy of The Natural, All The President's Men, The Electric Cowboy . . . oh, wait. Nevermind.
-
It's pretty easy to look smart and correct when Redford writes the arguments for the opponents. He WRITES both sides of the argument in such a way that his side will always win. That is how he will convince people: by limiting the opponent's voice, sculpting, picking and choicing talking points to fit into his magical solution.
I can win pretend arguments, too. (And by 'pretend', I mean that in this film Redford, does not actually engage anyone in debate; he controls both sides, and therefore the outcome) -
There's one thing: there are almost certainly more illegal immigrants working for below minimum wage and with no recourse to human rights protection in some very amoral establishments than indigenous people in the UK, which is something I completely abhor and am totally against. I'm not saying that asylum seekers and/or immigrants shouldn't be treated well - it's a moral imperative, I think, to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated - but the way I see it, rights to the benefits of a social infrastructure in a country ought really to be given to those whose ancestry goes back the furthest in the country first. If I emigrate to Italy, say, I am not going to expect the Italian government to offer me any kind of help BEFORE offering it to Italian citizens first. A crude but effective example would be: there are mosques, synagogues, kingdom halls and worship houses for faiths of all creed and disposition in this country. If I went to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan - how likely am I to be able to set up and safely run a Christian church? Only in the UK does a government worry about offending all those who come into the country from other countries and actively tries to deny and denigrate its own history and traditions in order to make the newcomers feel more welcome than those who have lived here for generations. Can anyone see this happening in other countries? If I went to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan saying that I am an Englishman and I deman that they treat their women the way we treat our women - ie give them access to education, work, the mdeia, equal rights, the right to dress and conduct themselves how they damn well want to - who's going to take odds on how many days - no, HOURS - I'll have left to live before their fundamentalist government has me killed for not going along with their rules?
In short: if you enter another country, abide by their rules. It's a measure of our pathetic, spinesless government that, rather than stick to this way of thinking, putting their own people's needs first and THEN considering the newcomers - they actively take on the culture, customs, religion and laws of the newcomers, and trample down and destroy the original customs, traditions, religoin and laws of the indigent population. You only have to see how embarrassed regional councils are of celebrating Christmas (I've lost count how many Christmas celebrations and festivals have been renamed or cancelled for fear of "offending" those of other faiths) but how fond they are of promoting religious festivals for other faiths (such as Ramadan or Eid Mubarak) in order ot be seen as progressive and/or understanding. Again, my quiestion: who do these governing fuckwits think they are scoring points for?
I'm not against immigrants. I'm against the government who puts their needs above the needs of their indigenous population - and I'm against any immigrants who exploit this spinelessness for their own ends. And there are more than a few of them. -
If you take 1000 indigenous people and 100 immigrants, and 500 of the indigenous people were on unemployment benefit (we'll call it JSA as in the UK) but 70 of the immigrants were on JSA, you'd have markedly more indigenous people on JSA - but the percetage of those on JSA versus those in work would be more unemployed for the immigrants (70% unemployed = 70 out of 100) versus less unemployed for the indigenous (50% = 500 out of 1000).
This is called fiddling the figures, spin doctoring, massaging the statistics - name your cliche. But however you put it, figures can be made to support your own argument. Whatever the true figures are, I'm certain they can be made to support either argument - which effectively renders any work with statistics useless. -
Most moderates of other faiths than Christianity are very tolerant of the indigenous population's faith being the dominant one. I've had some very enlightening conversations with several Muslims I work with who are concerned that the UK councils who worry abot offending minorities and who end up cancelling any Christmas celebrations that become too "religious" for fear of offence, are doing more harm than good - that their reluctance to offend actually ends up offending the indigenous population, and inflames bad feeling against the minorities who never wanted the original Christian traditions to be suppressed in the first place.
Too many idiotic white UK MPs suffering from post-colonial guilt (God knows why, as none of them nowadays will be old enough to have actually been involved in the imperialist expansion of the British Empire) are causing needless tension against minorities from the (rightly offended) indigenous majority in this country. This tension is the Government's own doing, and I wish I had the faintest clue why they are still doing it. It can't end well. -
some immigrant communities may be more of a burden but people seem to always forget 68% of immigrants to the I'm are from the us and Australia. Most tension between communities is built by misunderstanding...checkout the dispatches immigrant special, very enlightening. Most immigrants do not get financial aid only certain communities like somalians, pakistanis and Romanians. The news is now concentrating on the job fiasco of migrant workers taking 40% of new jobs but they won't mention most of those jobs are taken by Americans and Australians and the public will shift their anger to people of colour because of this warped view that immigrants are mostly poor Asians and blacks from undeveloped nations. The indigineous majority have more to worry about than supposed hordes of immigrants coming to the I'm to steal their jobs and way of life.
-
Thanks for the heads-up Massy!
-
Oct 30, 2007 4:28:02 PM CDT
And yet STILL no mention of Shatner getting snubbed. WTF?
by allpowerfulwizardofoz
Come on Harry and company why are you not reporting this as news?
http://tinyurl.com/37loxz -
I do think many people just expect that immigrants are all minorities of colour, which is somewhat misleading. And the fact that many skilled immigrants are demonstrating how some jobs SHOULD be done - witness the Polish welders, who are doing a better job than the English at the place my cousin works at. They're more punctual, easier to get along with and better at finishing their jobs off to a high standard.
And, strangely, the English are trying harder - a little healthy competition on the shop floor!
I do agree with your last point - the thing we indigenous majority have to fear above all else in the UK is the indifference - no, the actively unpleasant suppression of our civil liberties and our historic traditions and way of life - shown to us by our own supposedly "elected" Government. It's be nice to be presided over by a Government who actively wants to make the UK a better place to live in, rather than strangle it with pointless curtailments on already stringent laws (smoking laws, traffic road laws, HSE health and safety laws etc etc ad nauseam) which serve to distract us from their real raison d'etre - to take the economy for as much money as they can, regardless of the mess they leave behind as they scurry out of office with the large amount of welath they have stolen from the public purse by not doing their jobs properly. Fucking parasites. -
well obviously there will be more indigineous people on welfare because they are the majority and in the areas where unemployment is high there is little influx of immigrants and it has more to do with industries being grounded down by bad management plus lack of development. I think its just very easy to blaim problems on immigrants rather than tackle the issues, hence my comment about the uk being to complacent and comfortable in its delusions rather than actively searching for new solutions. Now they want to waste more money on border patrol which will not reduce the amount of migrant workers nor reduce illegal immigration (just look at the border problems in the us) and will just raise taxes. The stories about xmas events being cancelled and such have mostly been fabricated both daily mail and express had to print several retractions ( including the whole winter lights escapade which was total bull). The sad fact that people are so easily bought into this indigenous vs non-indigineous crap is the saddest story.
-
I'm suddenly reminded of the people from the future who came into the present unemployed.
"They took our JOOOOOOBS!!!" :P -
"Only in the UK does a government worry about offending all those who come into the country from other countries and actively tries to deny and denigrate its own history and traditions in order to make the newcomers feel more welcome than those who have lived here for generations. Can anyone see this happening in other countries"This is actually common (as far as I can tell from the news) in most of Europe. Remember the judge in Germany that found in favor of a wife-beater--i.e., it was okay for the husband to beat his wife because it was part of his Muslim heritage, thus defacto allowing Sharia law to trump German law? Yikes! And similar concessions have been made throughout the West--Sweden, Denmark, Belgium are replete with examples of already being where the UK is heading. The thing Tony Blair should have made his prime ministership about (saying this a Yank) was his too little, too late condemnation of multicultarlism as a failed political philosophy.
America is trying to do it--or, one political party is trying to do it, and that's the Democrats. And the RINOs, to some extent.I personally believe broad structural systems should be neutral. Citizens should be eligible for benefits, period (if you are going to have large benefits systems; as a conservative, I'm opposed to those generally, but if you have them, they should be administered neutrally). The problem is not that Islam and British heritage are being equally honored--the problem is British heritage, the primary source of democracy, the glory of genuinely republican government, human rights and the rule of law, is being diminished and dispensed in favor of the culture sensitivities of folks who beat their wives and behead infidels and kill their children (usually their daughters) that had "dishonored" them. Sadly, the demographic trends in England and most of Europe suggest that there is a high likelihood that Britain will be a defacto Islamic state within the next quarter-century. It will no longer be your fellow countrymen pissing on your heritage and ancestry, it's going to be your Muslim political leaders, your local imam, etc. And I really don'y believe the immigration problem (and the burdens it is causing on your public welfare system) are coming fundamentally from European, Indian or Asian immigrants.
And it's not just an ethnic immigration--it's an ideological one, in that there are plenty of ethnic angles and nordic folks that are converting to Islam (at least, it sure looks that way from here).
But maybe Islam will peter out, and not cause nearly as much trouble in Europe as it seems likely to. Christianity has certainly petered out in Europe! :) -
I think it can also be argued that a high proportion of the burden on the welfare state in the UK is from people who are either too dependant on welfare - ie why bother working if the State will pay your way? - and from the misappropriation of public funds that is rife in the UK, be it the ridiculous bonuses that heads of various Primary Care Trusts award themselves year on year for turning up 40 hours a week to talk for a living, or the ridiculous red tape and rampantly uncontrolled administration that chokes every corner of English bureaucracy. Immigrants are a fairly small problem when viewed in that context.
One can only hope that radical Islam - Sharia law, honour killing, beheadings, beating women into silent submission - can be shown to be the barbaric system of religious brutality that it is - many moderate Muslims will tell you that Islam does not promote these practices - doesn't get a foothold in the West. But then again, we had Crusades throughout the Middle Ages and of course the Spanish Inquisition. when you look at the history of atrocities committed in the names of various religions in Europe and the West throughout recent history, it doesn't look good for the near future. -
I'm not sure you'd be interested, but if you'd like an interesting, if fatalistic, take on demographic trends in Europe (from a conservative Canadian who grew up in the UK), and the future of what he refers to as Eurabia, check out Mark Steyn's "America Alone". I bought it off audible.com, and I'm listening to it now. While proud of his deep conservatism, his analysis of European demographic trends--that the indigenous populations are largely not-breeding themselves out of existence--is certainly compelling. And he's also big on the destructiveness of the European social-welfare state, suggesting a large population of young Muslims is not going to do the work, or pay the taxes, to continue to prop up the pensions of retired infidels. I'm not sure he's right about his fatalistic predictions, but . . . he's a good writer and it's a compelling book. Now, that's a book I'd like to see made into a movie with Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, and Tim Robbins: Mohammed of Eurabia!
-
As the aforementioned Mark Steyn has pointed out, Islamic jihad manages to kill more people in the average year than the Spanish Inquisition did in a century-and-a-half. Catholics have nothing on Muslim productivity in that particular arena.
-
Really, why make more of these? Just slap a new name on one the hundreds already made. It's the same old liberal hate speech from the drugged-out Sixties.
-
Makes the same mistakes most of them do: i.e., rewards indolence and yet punished productivity. So, if you get yourself a part-time job, benefits get cut.It would seem to me an ideal welfare system would reward work and industry, or at least the appearance thereof, by providing more benefits for part-time workers or folks trying to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while curtailing benefits (or applying onerous work requirements) to those who simply don't work. I know--I'm a heartless conservative. C'est la vie.
-
Sounds depressing - and the not-breeding thing hits home regarding what I see around me here in the Midlands daily - but usually depressing reading is also essential reading. Thanks for the heads up - I'll get a hold of it and have a read.
I think the problem is that radical Islam is getting a toehold in the West because in the absence of real leadership, people wil flock to the loudest voice - and in religon, traditionally the voice that preaches asceticism, even whilst not practicing it themselves (or openly flaunting it by doing the exact opposite) is going to be the one that people listen to. Look at PASSION OF THE CHRIST - a pointless torture porn rendering of the last days of Christ's life. But for some sick reason we as humans flock to the idea of redemption through sacrifice, and if that sacrifice means blood, so much the better.
This is what worries me, because this seems to be one of the biggest selling point of radical Islam to young impressionables today in the West: turn your back on conspicuous consumerism. Come and walk the path of little; show your real mettle by renouncing materialism. Salvation through sacrifice. Renounce the flesh to attain the divine. Then impose your views on all who disagree, with an iron hand and the fury of a zealot.
It's a fucking terrifying prospect, when you really think about it. Brrr. -
No, I pretty much agree. My liberal soul just threw up in its metaphorically spiritual mouth a little bit.
-
The problem at the box office has more to do with the "Same Old" than the "Anti-American". Fahrenheit 9/11 was decidedly anti-American, but did very well at the box-office . . . because it could at least attract both true-believers and right-wingers wanting to be offended. Lions for Lambs? Do I hear a bi-partisan yawn? Boooooring.
-
An effort to get non-working residents in public housing to clean up and fix-up around said public housing was condemned by civil rights leaders as "the new slavery". Didn't go too far. Nuff said.
-
Carmtan working in class, singing --
"Day's never finished, massa got me worrkin'... Someday massa set me free!!!"
I have to stop myself humming that whenever I'm doing anything physical. Those South Park fuckers are gonna get my white ass lynched one of these days. -
Don't misread my last comment - I'm as against slavery as I am against any other form of oppression.
I'm all for SOUTH PARK, though. Especially when they go after Tom Cruise!!! -
is this one of those movies where we see how many camera angles there can be inside government offices with everyone trying to out yell and leer each other while some clusterfuck is happening in an african/middle eastern country? like a new subgenre, office-war. maybe they should just have it be all in offices, maybe the office crossed with black hawk down. have it be where the rift over foreign-policy is too great to bear and they start attacking each other straight out, and get the help of the newbies on the lower floors who have been plagued with too many broken staples and awkward eyes all to happy to join sides. maybe have a willard character take a voyage through the building, see heads on polls and people fashionig armor and weapons like in road warrior from office supplies.
-
Does Redford offer an intelligent proposal for how to keep the Islamic lunatics away from innocent Americans?
-
Great review over all, but you really nailed things in that opening. Apathy and obsession with superficial celebu-shit... two trends with no end in sight.
-
Oct 30, 2007 6:39:06 PM CDT
KEVINWILLIS - FAHRENHEIT 9/11 WAS DECIDEDLY ANTI-BUSH/NEOCON
by bringingsexyback
There was nothing 'anti-American' about it. It was one of the first exposes on the NeoCons without ever mentioning the word (I don't think it did). I don't think there's a more dedicated patriot than Michael Moore. When the world was still under the Bush spell, he was unabashedly vocal, taking a stand that now 79% of Americans are taking.
-
...obsessed with non-issues like gay marriage, fawning over drugged out no-talent celebretards, and giving a blank check to the bureaucrats who want to send their poor neighbor's kids off to die so they can continue to make their percentage off the crumbling status quo. Except that the "personal responsibility" sound bite crowd never takes any of the responsibility for the state of things, there's always some group of "them" on which to conveniently pin blame for ruining the image and operation of their otherwise flawlessly self-sustaining free market ideal of a great society which was bestowed to us by Reagan when he came down from the mountain. About as believable a story as Superman, and about as realistic. From one American to another, here's hoping you choke on your Happy Meal prize.
-
is to end the NeoCons' war and drive them out of Washington. Their crazy PNAC plot has given the world the greatest headache imaginable, and it's feeding new recruits to the radicals every day. It's insane. We need worldwide dialogue (which includes talking to Iran, not bombing them and calling Ahmedinejad the next Hitler, for Christ's sake) and to use media in all its forms to draw people away from radicalism. We need to shame the hatemongers like the radical clerics and Anchorite and marginalize them. The only people benefitting from their so-called "Endless War" are the Zionists, who thrive on conflict, and the weapons industry. Soldiers and civilians are suffering, the world economy is shifting wealth from the West to the East, Bush is making us lifelong debtors to China and India. We must band together to stop this escalating madness - bring the soldiers home, secure the borders from terrorist infiltration and illegal aliens. Uphold the law, secure the homeland and citizenry. Same goes for you British fellas to do the same. And it wouldn't hurt to bring Dancing With The Stars to the Islamic world. No one would strap a bomb to their chest once they've experienced its joy and bliss.
-
I wouldn't go as far as to say we deserve it. If we improve our edumacation system and create intelligent citizens instead of hate-spewing warmongers like Anchorite, then we're more likely to vote in more responsible representatives in government. But the combustible combination of a lackluster educational system, coupled with media that panders to the lowest common denominator, creates a gullible voting public. That's why I pay to see stuff like Rendition and Lions for Lambs, and Netflix shit like Transformers.
-
...it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin. That's a big If. It'd be nice if everyone woke up one day and decided to stop being self centered douchebags, but I'm not necessarily holding my breath. Nobody ever went broke over-estimating the stupidity of the average American.
-
"Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people." -- Patrick BatemanSorry, but it garnered a chuckle. Interesting blend of talking points though.
-
They've infected this talk-back!
***ALERT***
***ALERT***
***ALERT***
-
have detected right wing activity in this talk-back! ****ALERT**** ****ALERT**** ****ALERT****
-
is a big fat liar. And a poo-poo head.
-
The Brits are safe! Scary Spice and Jane Seymour to proceed to next round. Congrats to you lads and laddies.
-
You might have a point. Sicko was pretty much anti-American, and it flopped, so maybe the anti-American thing is more of an issue in regards to box office than I'm thinking. I regard the tone of Fahrenheit 9/11 to be anti-American, just as a regard accusations of Zionist conspiracies to be antisemitic. But maybe that's just me. I certainly don't consider Mike a dedicated patriot--unless patriotism is defined as a devotion to the real estate that is America, rather than the overall political, economic, and social structure of the American culture, such as it is (or perhaps was). Which is fine, it just seems odd to try to start redefining words, rather than embracing what you are. If you are anti-American, cool. America represents certain things and certain people don't like those certain things. I'm anti-Islamofascist. I'm not going to redefine Islamo-piety so that I can apply that definition to me, or people I agree with. But perhaps that's just a semantic hang-up of mine.
-
Overestimating the stupidity of the average American. The warehouses (and landfills) are filled with crappy products that stupid Americans were apparently not stupid enough to buy. And the folks that made them often did go broke. And I'm not talking the Edsel or the Playstation 3 here. Maybe more like the Zune.
-
The Cheetah girl was sent packing!! Allah and Jehovah be praised!!!
-
Anti-Zionism is not "anti-Semitic". I don't know where you got that notion. And your bias for Michael Moore is clearly clouding your logic. But since Sabrina Ryan has been kicked off DWTS (Thank you Jesus), I won't argue with you, just to say you're nuts.
-
Is to match their will, in opposition to their goals. Whether it's Neocons or Neoappeasers, dialog probably isn't the answer, but I'm prone to suspect neither is nation-building, or compassionately conservative wars of knocking before we bomb. Although it's unlikely a sustained air campaign is the best solution, either. But a vaporized majority-Muslim city for every beheaded infidel might not be a bad start. I'm prone to agree with Spuds McSpud on this one: I don't think either ideological side has the political will or the right ideas to combat radical Islam, and one can only hope that, at some point, after Western culture implodes that radical Islam follows it. Or a modern day Churchill/FDR/Truman collective shows up. Or something.
-
Best portable multimedia player on the market is the Archos - it also functions as a DVR so you can record shit off TV and DVD, and not pay for content you already own to get on a portable player. It's a French product. Awesome, you should check it out. You can have tons of porn in your pocket and wack off in the office bathroom.
-
Wow, you're full of hate tonight, buddy. You don't sound much different from the Jihadists.
The siege and massacre in Fallujah did nothing to stop the insurgency. They listened to Israel, believing that a siege (which is how they contain the Palestinians, through democide) and unmitigated killing of anything that moved in the city would break their will, but they were wrong. The lesson of this war is to not listen to anything the NeoCons say. All it did was put more American soldiers in harm's way, and destroy any goodwill they tried to build with the locals. So unless you're willing to put your body on the ground, in the MidEast, when they start raining bombs on whole innocent populations, to defend against the impending blowback, I suggest you start putting some faith in non-violent means. -
Has your prescription on happy pills run out?
-
Older, wiser people understand that there are entire countries out there that want to kill us simply because we exist, not because of any governmental policy or action, be it Republican or Democrat, past present or future. No amount of "trying to understand each other" will make them stop wanting to kill us.
You should have learned this in school. Talking to the bully didn't stop him from stealing your lunch money, and in a global sense, there's no principal to run to. It's not about oil or imperialism, it's about survival. -
Too sour. Does that make BSB anti-Semitic?
-
Why do you think L. Paul Bremer was sent in as Governor of Iraq after the initial invasion? The same Paul Bremer who is James Baker's protege and counsel to the Saudis and oil industry. Among his first executive orders was to privatize the Iraqi oil industry and sign off on contracts to Big Oil, securing all future supplies. Seriously, take some notes.
-
And, frankly, much of the complaints about "neocons" appears to me to be almost nothing but antisemitism. I'm sure I'm wrong about that, too, but if I see something that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm thinking to myself: "Duck. Definitely a duck." Simplistic and naive, no doubt.
-
I think your misguided reasoning is why the vast majority of Jews are Anti-Zionist. Surely they understand Zionism better than others, and know how twisted and malevolent Zionists are. When you see someone like Anchorite berate Spielberg (maker of Schindler's List and benefactor of the Shoah Foundation) as a traitor and a self-loather, you know you're not dealing with sane people. Your clever but inaccurate "quacks like a duck" analogy is off, but to me that simply means you're misguided. Jews understand that Zionism is a socio-political movement, not a cultural one nor religious one, and certainly not reflective of an entire people.
-
The Iraqi congress has yet to agree on the distribution of the oil profits amongst its various factions, though we have pressured them to do so for quite some time. And yes, some American oil companies have contracts to pay the Iraqis for they oil they are getting out of their ground. What, you think the French should get those contracts? We put our ass and our young men on the line to kick out a tyrant and give those people a chance at true freedom. Why SHOULDN'T American companies get some of the contracts?
We went to war to rid the world of Saddam and, more importantly, to secure a stronghold in the region of the world that is the biggest threat to our present and future security, and the world's present and future security.
Yes, oil is an important part of world security. If, for example, Iran decides to mine the Strait of Hormuz and cripple world oil shipments, before you could blink the entire world would be in upheaval because the entire world runs on oil, like it or not.
Think for just a minute about Europe, China, Russia, and the U.S. suddenly having no oil. With no oil, no groceries get to the shelves, no goods get manufactured, people are out of work, people are starving, all on a scale you can't even begin to imagine. When their people are starving, governments go to war to get their people what they need. This is why we are now in Iraq, and will be for decades to come. It's not about oil profits, it's about oil availability. -
I don't agree that oil companies should profit off the hardship and sacrifice of American soldiers.
I do agree that we need a secure oil supply, but the way the Bush Administration (specifically, at Cheney's behest) has gone about it is counter-productive and indeed, destructive. Oil is a commodity, and whether we like it or not, it is owned by the local governments in the Mideast. We should trade in good faith instead of taking it by force.
We also need to be realistic about the FACT that the world has gone past the point of peak oil supply, while on an ever escalating demand scale. Ironically, Cheney knows that and that's one of the reasons we invaded Iraq. An intelligent President would immediately devise a national strategy to create and implement alternative energy sources. But they banked on control of the Mideast instead. A mistake of colossal, immeasurable proportions. -
"the entire world runs on oil, like it or not."
That statement really caught my attention. If I might be so bold, I recommend you watch two documentaries: A CRUDE AWAKENING and WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?
The first explores the history of oil, its diminishing production and supply (quite scary when you see them trying to squeeze oil from sand) and explores some viable alternative sources of energy. The second explores the electric car. The technology exists, but was buried at the behest of the oil industry. If people DEMAND the car, the manufacturers can and will make it. -
Whatever source we eventually go to, no matter what kind of crash program we implement, a replacement for oil is at least 25-30 years away, if not longer. Global economies don't make shifts like this easily, and it will take generations to wean the world off of oil and on to whatever replaces it. For the foreseeable future oil is the only game in town.
BSB, your point is well taken, in that it is their oil. I disagree, however, that we are taking it. If we were taking it, it would be a lot cheaper. In fact, we're paying dearly for it, at the price they are asking. If you're referring specifically to Iraq, we haven't taken their oil either. They are getting paid for it, a fair market price, and the funds will be used to modernize their country and hopefully improve the lives of all of their citizens. Remember, in many oil rich countries the money goes straight into the pockets of the ruling families.
Our long term goal is global stability by preventing rogue nations from acquiring a strategic stranglehold on a resource necessary for that global stability. Yes, it is distasteful at times, and unseemly, but nonetheless essential. -
He after all must be to believe what he has written. The problem with films like Lions for Lambs is that they are not only preachy, left wing propaganda, but badly made preachy, left wing propaganda. People are not rushing out to see these kind of movies because they are a bunch of apathetic loser. They are staying away in droves because movies like Lions for Lambs are boring and terrible. Plus, no one outside of Hollywood gives a shit what Robert Redford thinks.
-
Oct 30, 2007 11:25:18 PM CDT
Robert Redford is one of this countries most respected filmmaker
by darrenspool
Wrong.
-
Too many? yes. But thats the lowest in a long time. The surge is working. Look it up. The media sure as hell wont tell you that.
-
I'm hopeful that, IF America implements a strategy for developing viable alternative energy sources and mandates energy conservation (one of the most important aspects the revival of the electric car) measures for all households, we can be weaned off oil even sooner than 25 years. In any case, we have no choice. We have passed peak oil production. Oil is running out. We do not have time to waste. If we don't take measures immediately, generations from now people will live in the dark and ride horse buggies. Again, I think you have a great interest in the matter, so please watch A Crude Awakening.
I agree with you that the people of the Mideast should reap the benefits of their oil sales. But that will never happen, even in a "democratic" Iraq. I point you to the example of Venezuela. Hugo Chavez has decreed that oil sale proceeds would directly fund government assistance programs across the board for all Venezuelans. What did Bush and the pro-business Venezuelan interests do? They attempted a coup against him. You can only imagine what they would do to anyone in the Mideast trying to use profits to benefit the people. Hell, some wingnuts around here would call them socialists.
The truth is that oil, even at current record prices, is artificially low. If we had an exact measure of the world's reserves, and factored in current and future demand, oil would be priced so high no one could afford to fill their tank. They just keep pumping it until it runs dry. Just like the fields in Texas and Russia. Barren wastelands that were once gushing oil. Someday, perhaps sooner than we expect, that will be the case with the Mideast. We're living on borrowed time.
So the ONLY solution is to elect a President who will guide us through this crisis. That President needs to first show us there is a crisis to begin with. Do I see any of the current candidates being brave enough to do that? Unfortunately, no. But fortunately there is Dancing With The Stars to brighten up our days. -
I wouldn't watch Dancing with the Stars for all the oil in the Middle East. I'm afraid with this writer's strike coming up that's all there will be on TV, though.
Nice to end the conversation on a lighter note. Take care. -
but at least watch this dance with the beautiful Edyta Sliwinska. I may convert you yet ...
http://tinyurl.com/2y6zrj
Take care .. -
"...understand that there are entire countries out there that want to kill us simply because we exist." Yeah, and real dragons are intelligent and talk. It's Iraq, not Mordor. Older, wiser people apparently think the inhabitants of foreign countries have the sensibilities of Decepticons.
-
...like Cruise, like Redford, like Streep, looked interesting... and then they based their entire tv campaign around quotes from Pete Hammond of Maxim magazine. When the only nice things they can find about a film come from that quote whore, I immediately lose interest.
-
Oct 31, 2007 12:51:09 AM CDT
Yet one MORE anti-American film for the 50-cent bid
by theghostwholurks
...at Wal-Mart this spring. When will Hollywood realize that, unlike them, most Americans actually LOVE our country and don't consider spending two hours being told we're as bad as (or WORSE) than Al-Queda to be entertaining or "enlightening"... simply defeatist.Judging by the endless flow of crap they continue to pump out, no time soon. :(
-
holy shit we're in caveman times people! fashion your spears and smear mud on yaselfs!
-
Immigration isn't the problem- compared to what else the fucking toerags are up to it is a drop in the ocean. I'd vote for you spud. But I wouldn't go to the midlands to do it.
-
After about 20 posts I was raring to respond, but you guys almost wore me out. All I can say is that you conservatives are the most defensive fuckers on the planet. You would think that the party of 80,000 Iraqi civilian deaths would have thicker skin. Anti-America this, liberal propaganda that. Jesus Christ. If you think Massawyrm is a liberal than you are a fucking reactionary idiot. This is the guy that thought The Ant Bully was the children's version of the Communist Manifesto. Oh, and regarding whether or not Harvard grad Bush is an idiot, I give you these quotes, uttered at separate times regarding education: "Is our children learning?" and "Childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured." Then the White House has the nerve to correct his mistakes in the official transcripts of the speech. Maybe it's that evil liberal media messing with his teleprompter. Oops, I didn't mean to be Anti-American.
-
Just what I needed! The dude who loved TRANSFORMERS but hated NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN talks about politics. If this guy doesn't have the answers, we're fucked. Next article: Rocket Science 201, 'cause he's "mass-turd" stuff smart people understand, too. Where does Harry find these guys?
-
Oct 31, 2007 4:57:59 AM CDT
To sum up this review "I hate republicans and liberals are alway
by razorback
No need to read the rest... you can figure it out.
-
Proving my point.
-
This year will be a liberal year!!!! GO Brian de palma, Redford!!!! Kick some redneck ass !!!!
-
"It's Iraq, not Mordor. Older, wiser people apparently think the inhabitants of foreign countries have the sensibilities of Decepticons." Hahah, thats classic.
-
Of Liberal Hollywood's obsession to be important. They get to play makebelieve with thier lives and get paid millions for it. So riddled with self guilt and loathing they now feel they have to buy carbon offsets, drive a Prius and make anti-war movies. News Flash, no matter how many times and how many ways you try to convince Americans that America is bad, you fail. Because Americans know the truth about their country. They know that America gives more aid, has saved more countries and has done more for the freedom of the peoples of the world than anyone else. Their message rings hallow with people who have not already been indoctornated. Movies like this get made while stories of American heros are ignored, storied of the subjugation of women in the islamic world are ignored, stories of the 200,000 people in North Korean gulags who are there because their grandparents tried to stand up against communism are ignored.
-
Hey TheGhostWhoLurks, just because a film criticises a country's (i.e. government's) actions doesn't mean that it criticises the country. The greatest countries can fuck up. Its up to the people to say when they think the direction is the wrong one. I fucking hate the situation that seems to have developed where criticising the actions of a corrupt government means that someone hates their country. They probably love their country and don't want to see it dragged into hell. You can't stand for free speech and not listen when people stand up to what their governments are doing if they believe it's wrong.
-
...I do think some hollywood types are so self righteous that they love the smell of thier own farts.
-
Yeah, that'll help. They're trying hard to quietly sneak it through, but I'm sure we can count on the major media companies to provide us with detailed, unbiased and timely coverage, despite their economic stake in the issue. If instead they spend the time on more coverage of Brittany's snatch (that means you Olbermann), well it'll just be our own fault, because that's what we as media consumers demand. Never mind that corporate media are increasingly losing the people's trust & sending them looking for alternative news sources, e.g. http://democracynow.org/
-
Your right. No one addresses the Jihad ideology that made this all possible. And the same people who nod their heads in unison in the theatre like sheep are the same ones who get their news from CNN and the Today show who dont roll out the dozen stories a day about a jihad horror show taking place from the mid east to Africa. Ive read stories in papers around the world that I would never see here in the states.
-
"just because a film criticises a country's (i.e. government's) actions doesn't mean that it criticises the country. The greatest countries can fuck up. Its up to the people to say when they think the direction is the wrong one. I fucking hate the situation that seems to have developed where criticising the actions of a corrupt government means that someone hates their country. They probably love their country and don't want to see it dragged into hell. You can't stand for free speech and not listen when people stand up to what their governments are doing if they believe it's wrong." Quoted for emphasis. It's funny how those who bitch about liberals being anti-American are the same ones who shit all over the FIRST amendment. It was first for a reason. The most patriotic thing a person can do is call out their elected officials for doing things that hurt our country. You want to blindly follow your party/religion and ignore the terrible things they do in the name of patriotism/faith than maybe you have more in common with the Jihadists than you think.
-
And before I'm derided for criticizing conservatives, I would like to say that I'm from that great big group of people in the middle that Massawyrm was talking about. In my opinion both parties have been trying their best to NOT get my vote.
-
You really ought to watch some of these movies before making blanket statements. They DO portray and criticize the radical Jihadists who recruit and brainwash people to turn out terrorists. Even in The Kingdom there was a shootout that ended with a bullet in the leader's head. Obviously you haven't seen it, or any of the other related movies, so your post is way out of line.
-
Im talking about the media...not the movies. Unless of course you get your news via Hollywood films. Out of line? pfffft.
-
"While the democratic contenders all try to prove who's more liberal than the other without being Kucinich"
Possibly the worst assessment of the current political stage I've ever read. -
I suppose this post is long since dead. Thank God. I actually complemented the level of civility and, dare I say, open-minded rationality on display earlier in the talkback. Most of it has vanished.
1- Don't cry "liberal propoganda" until you've seen it. Mock the bullshit promos all you want; you've seen them. You haven't seen the film. This is the most basic of rules in the laws of human conversation. If only our earliest statesmen had the forsight to add "intelligent" to the first ammendment. Some people talk to hear themselves. Others talk to rationalize a position with which they identify far too childishly. The only decent talk is talk aimed at discovery.
2-Nevermind.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts