Cool News
Capone gets political! He has seen LIONS FOR LAMBS!!!
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
The latest work from director Robert Redford (QUIZ SHOW; A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT; ORDINARY PEOPLE) is part acting workshop, part debate and part conversation instigator. On all three levels, the film succeeds, although not always in equal measure. Telling three loosely interconnected stories, Redford targets not the politicians and corporate giants that have long been the target in many films about the current war in the Middle East. Instead his mission is, in many ways, more interesting: he's going after those who are doing absolutely nothing (in his eyes) to stop the war they allegedly are against. Redford calls to task the media and young people (particularly college students) to rise up the way they did when he was a younger man during the Vietnam War. He has no use or reason for hiding his agenda, but he still manages to avoid preaching to his audience about right and wrong. If anything, the lines are even more blurred as a result of this film.
My favorite story is the most deceptively simple. A young, rising star senator in the Republican party (Tom Cruise) invites a journalist (Meryl Streep) to his office for the day to give her an exclusive story about the next stage in the war. She was helpful to him early in his career, and he is returning the favor in spades. The scene is well written, to be sure, but putting these two powerhouse actors in a room together and watching them navigate is a rare treat. Streep is a master of mannerisms and under-the-breath comments; Cruise is earnest and so certain what he's doing is the right thing that the answers to her questions flow from his lips like gospel. This is the best work like this I've seen Cruise do since Magnolia, and it reminds us that he should focus more on dramatic acting and less on being a major action hero. The scenes between Cruise and Streep are a dance that become a dare for her not to run the story. More than that, the storyline is a bigger dare for the media to dig deeper every time the administration or the military issues a press release or has a new conference. Don't simply take their word for it just to get your story on the air faster. Confirm, verify and investigate, is the message.
The second story is also largely about two people in a room. Redford plays a political science professor, while Andrew Garfield plays a one-time prize student whose interest in the class and in making a difference is waning. Redford grills the poor kid for what seems like hours (although I'm fairly certain the three storylines are supposed to take place in the same time frame, about 90 minutes), digging for what exactly in this boy's mind has changed. This intriguing back-and-forth is perhaps the most damming of its intended target: young people who don't see how this war influences their lives in any way since there's no draft. Somewhere in them, they know the war is wrong, but they aren't driven to protest against it. Redford wants to know why. Performance wise, the segment isn't quite as strong as the Cruise-Streep one, but it will probably provoke the most discussion among the younger people who see this movie.
The least interesting sequence involves two former students of Redford's (Derek Luke and Michael Pena), who have decided to change the system from within by enlisting in the war. It just so happens they are in the first wave of soldiers carrying out the very plan that Cruise is briefing Streep on. When their plane is hit, the two men bail out and land in the thick of it. Luke's leg is embedded in the Afghani snow, while Pena's body is so broken, he can barely roll over to shoot oncoming enemies. This race to see who will get to them first — the rescue team or the evildoers — just isn't handled very well. I never felt the sense of urgency or suspense I know I was supposed to, perhaps because the entire sequence is handled so conventionally. Flashbacks showing the two men in Redford's classroom are more vital to the overall theme of the film, but the battle scenes aren't nearly as compelling as the war of words in the other two sequences.
Of all the current films about the war in the Middle East, LIONS FOR LAMBS does the best job of asking the most important questions as directly as possible. It's an interesting, if not entirely convincing, snapshot of America today, and I hope it does succeed in its mission to spark discussion and debate among those that agree with each other as well as with those that don't. What works in this film, works very well. What doesn't can easily be pushed aside to make room for the far more thought-provoking ideas at work here.
Capone
capone@aintitcoolmail.com
-
+ Expand All
-
Perhaps I will one day rent this, but I do agree with Capone that Tom Cruise should stick with drama roles for a bit.
-
I elude the WHITE SCREEN OF DOOM?
-
it never stops.
-
Seriously, if I want to get preahced to, I'll go to church.
-
but GOD that sounds boring!
-
But the movie still sounds like a major yawn fest.
-
Probably has a small wiener.
-
I cant believe there is a positive review for this movie. I have never seen the critics united against an "important" film. Im not still not sure what capone sees in it.
-
Um....No....That's not right is it? Um....Yes?....Did I get the answer right Mr Tom Cruise Redford?
-
Always shouting about how wicked and cynical we Gen X&Y kids are... You know what? We didn't vote to go to Iraq, the Congress gave Bush that authority, A BABY BOOMER Congress. A BABY BOOMER Congress thought that it was okay to take away our right to government grants for college education (grants they utilized by the way to stay home from Viet Nam.) Baby Boomers gave the reins to the Reagan administration to start the process of sending our jobs overseas. And Baby Boomers are the heads of the old media and the corporate monstrosities that lobbied to get us into this mess in the first place. And here's the punchline, "When we voted to put a Democratic Congress in office to stop the war, THE BABY BOOMERS WE ELECTED DID NOTHING!" But it's our fault. ALL OUR FAULT! We listened to Metal and played D&D, so, naturally, you had to get rid of Halloween. Our education and jobs were taken away, so you had make sure we couldn't get health insurance either. And now that people aren't marching in the streets, because they feel helpless, the war is our fault too. Robert Redford needs to watch the BIG CHILL again. Then he'll know why we aren't doing anything. Maybe because our parents were hypocrites who sold everything they believed down the neo-conservative river and blamed their children for it, and that's the example we have. Meh... I'm gonna go play Guitar Hero.
-
"More than that, the storyline is a bigger dare for the media to dig deeper every time the administration or the military issues a press release or has a new conference. Don't simply take their word for it just to get your story on the air faster. Confirm, verify and investigate, is the message."
Ummm...don't we hear from the press every fucking day about how bad this war is? Everything Capone says in that quote is factually wrong. The mainstream news media is overwhelmingly left-of-center and are going to be against any war if a Republican is in the White House. True, they don't "dig deep". That's because they are guided by their liberal ideology and not intersted in anything except taking down this or any conservative administration. So to "confirm, verify and investigate" is foriegn to them. -
I trust their opinion, although I'm still kind of curious to see it.
-
its easier to shit on the "important" films, especially when they are made by big, successful people. so i think that's part of the reason this film is getting such hate.
viewed without the baggage that all those behind and in front of the camera bring to the table, there's a not bad movie in there. it's not a great movie and although there's not much new information, the acting is strong and extremely engaging. and it has the good sense to keep it to 90 minutes, which is a plus for those of you like me who are starting to feel their life being sucked away by all of the bloated films during awards season (no country for old men, into the wild, lust, caution, jesse james, american gangster, etc.) -
Some reviewers suggested that this, should have been put on in a theatre. an operating theatre.....
-
How 'bout the next time one of these aging hippies decides to pontificate about why we're not doing anything, and interrogating us on how could we allow our apathy to destroy our principles, we just throw one of THEIR OWN anti-drug propaganda lines back their in puffy, sagging faces, "I learned it by watching you, alright! I learned it by watching you!"
-
Unfortunately most people are at the at most uninformed and/or misinformed or worse thoroughly ignorant. A movie like this or similar steaming turds will be seen as factual instead of a scripted story with only tacit references to reality. Reality never follows a script. Truly evil people never announce their intentions. Dangerous people never take responsibility for their mistakes and make every attempt to shift blame to someone else.
-
All these comments from posters condemning a film they haven't even seen is EXACTLY the point the movie is trying to make. People are content to bitch and moan about half truths and suggestions rather than make an effort and become informed about the very subject they're bitching and moaning about. I saw the film today. I liked it. I thought it raised some really interesting questions and didn't hammer me on the head with pontificated answers. I've also been thinking a lot, since I left the theatre, about what I believe, what I stand for, what my responsibility is as a citizen of a free country, etc... That's certainly more than Transformers or another standard hollywood film has managed to to. My advice -- go see the film. If you hate, fine. If you love it, fine. But I guarantee you, you will be confronted with questions after, and it will force you to think -- but God forbid anyone do that, right? Let's go blow some more stuff up...
-
The movie doesn't pretend to be factual. it's about fictional characters and a fictional new strategy in the war. Only the setting (USA, today), and the ideas are mirrors of real life. Form an opinion yourselves -- screw critics -- they are not your mind, they do not represent you. Their opinions are perfectly valid for THEM. Stop being lazy...engage.
-
Accept it.
-
In the name of the father and he says himself that there is alot about the he would change namely toning down the anti-english aspect of the movie and despite Neill Jordans The Crying game and Greengrasses Bloody sunday and Omagh. Most films about what happened in Northern Ireland are terrible. They were mostly one sided affairs. Most Uk based ones were made through thatcherite eyes, namely lets blame the Ira and lets leave our loyalist brethern alone. Films made in Ireland about northern Ireland tended to say lets blame The brits its thier fault. nobody made films which said look these are a bunch of pyschos and secterian bigots and they have them on both sides. Middletown is a new film set in Northern Ireland in 1960's. I havent seen but I have heard that the acting is supposed be very good. Libya bankrolled the Ira in the 1980s. America did too by having lavish corporate dinners in which people in like Kennedy would hear stories or brit bashing propoganda from people like adams. then 9/11 came and the scales fell from there eyes and the democrats stopped bankrolling the Ira. I find films like Magadelene sisters or a Song for a raggy boy boring. Doesnt make what happened any less terrible, they are not my choice for a night out in the Cineplex.
-
...capone delviers again. I did not really care for the film, but that doesn't stop this from being a good review. No tehsarus abuse and no drawn out fat boy sex fantasies: FTW.
-
Nov 09, 2007 6:48:10 PM CST
It took the british govt 40 years to leave Northern Ireland
by emeraldboy
Operation Banner it was called. That last troops left in August 2007. disaster captalists are turning the US into a corporate utopia. So says Noami Klein. These disaster Captalists believe that in new orleans god did them a favour. These rich guys believe that god is there side and that the poor are goodless and they deserve to suffer.......
-
Has anyone seen a recent photo of Tom Cruise's new haircut? He looks like he is trying to take away Jack McBrayer's job as Kenneth the NBC Page on "30 Rock"!
-
If most older college graduates are honest with themselves, then they would admit that they were naive and know shit about world politics and war at the time.
-
Thanks Rob, got the message, I'll save my $10 for I AM LEGEND.
-
And 99% of the writers are raging ex-hippies hell-bent on fighting the same stupid battles they were whining about back in the 60s and 70s, whether it applies to the present, or not. The news and entertainment media are PAINFULLY biased towards liberalism and sees EVERYTHING in the world through the lens of Vietnam and/or Watergate. It's really incredibly sick to see how much information is twisted and fed to "the masses" in order to fit into their disturbed and screwed-up view of the world.
-
FFFD-FDFFD-etc.I guess hating one's country DOESN'T pay off at the box office... :)
-
Nov 09, 2007 8:47:19 PM CST
Harry unloaded gallons of steaming diarrhea in your mouth
by bob of the shire
That's what watching this film is like.
-
But you can tell when Owen is reviewing a movie on how well it leans left. He laments that there aren't more movies like this, but I think the box office will show that Tom Cruise yelling and Meryl Streep and praise from sometimes questionable critics ain't necessarily going to get people to the theater. I'm not going to see this. I don't think I'm ever going to rent this. Unless I have a lot of trouble sleeping.
-
Not the review, the movie. It's not even 100 minutes. I hate that. Otherwise, yeah everything you said. But I think these aged hippies going around telling kids to get involved and do something while they sit on their wrinkled asses takes the cake. And it actually pissed me off. You can't protest anymore. That was obvious even before the war started. It comes to nothing now. There are marches all the time, so what do these people expect the kids to do? Write their Congressman? That's a complete waste. They are in a position of power as old folks with connections. They should be doing something. Start it and the kids will follow. But tell them just to get involved as if they aren't is really kinda rude and it pissed me off. Redford sends me emails all the time about saving polar bears and whatnot and I send my emails but that's the sum total of what anyone can do right now. I think those hippies were so high for so long that they think they actually did something besides having random sex and OD-ing. This war is going to end when the old folks do something about it. You know, the ones who can afford to make contributions. Or those who are actually pals with people like the Clintons. *nudge nudge* *wink wink*
-
Worth the price of admission alone
-
Look at Paul Newman, he prolly has many of the same political views as redford. Instead of making crappy movies and mouthing off at crappy festivals he actually takes action. He actually helps people instead of laying around enjoying the smell of his own farts.
-
It's hollywood! It's "IMPORTANT"! Actually, "fart" is probably a good description.
-
Fuck, that's shorter than Shrek The Third...
-
The liberal dick sucking that goes on at this site is sickening. It makes me vomit that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan die to protect people like Robert Redford and their brownshirt accomplices here at aint-it-liberal-propaganda.com
-
What planet are you living on? Cause it sure ain't this one.
-
The RNC somehow runs the media now, people. Yup... 90% of all programming has a pinko slant but the republicans are in control. Riiiight.
-
they're purposely making these shitty films to make the liberals look bad! it's all coming together muahaaha! the culprit behind all of this, believe it or not, i shit you not, DR. EVIL, and i'm not fucking with you (well i am, only somewhat) he exists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my dick itches!!!!!!
-
You revealed the truth....
Homeland security will be knocking down your door any minute, and you will never be heard from again. The only thing they will want to know is how you found out about the GOP's control of the media, but they will get that info through waterboarding...
haHA! -
you know they fucked it up even on the level of propaganda.
-
Yes, its true on Bizzaro-world every nightly newscast has at least one purely nationalistic God-loves the U.S. segment. I remember when Bizzaro-Dan Rather interviewed Imadinnerjacket of Iran and told him to go to hell. Oh, yes, the Bizzaro-GOP controls mass media in a land where Hillary Clinton is a waitress at a diner and is getting stiffed on tips. But here, on planet Earth, the mass media does not work quite that way.
-
He is a master of carefully channeled personal charisma. That is not acting; that is just force. The day he plays a man who is a gibbering, contemptible cowardly wreck; a real loser: the day he stops being Tom Cruise, I will concede that he can act.
Plus, for all you liberal conservative media people: the media will always follw the money; it will alwasy deliver dividends to it's corporate sponsors; that is conservative; that maintains the status quo, that will mot admit of radicalism or any kind of revolution or change; conservatism. If the people want STORIES about radicalism, about gays and anarchists and protest and revolution, then the conservative media will deliver; whether it be Fight Club or V for Vendetta or Rendition or this; thie product, the stories are liberal but they are being made for armchair anarchists to deliver money into the hands of a VERY CONSERVATIVE system.
Money is conservative, money men are always conservative. The product is of no consequence; did V for Vendetta start a revolution? Or Fight Club? Of course not. -
Spot on! Spot on!
-
dog feces
-
Well said!
-
and Canada, yet refuse to move there.
Please, Robert, just move to France or something where your weak, self-righteous snootiness will fit right in.
I think it is hilarious that Liberals won't fight terrorists who are actually flying planes full of people into buildings full of people but would rather fight the weather. "Ooooh, if I change my lightbulb I can cool the earth." Talk about deliberately putting your head in the sand.
The left is loony. Fortunately, they will abort themselves into extinction and we won't have to worry about them much longer.
I'm feeling cranky, better get some coffee.
-
Nov 10, 2007 10:53:34 AM CST
Fuck the right and fuck anybody who still supports this bullshit
by stifler's mom
What's it gonna take to realize you've been wrong all this time? Maybe when nuclear war breaks out because of our own greedy meddling? Or maybe after the oncoming climate disaster floods you out of your fucking red state fantasy worlds?
-
for accusing any liberals of hating America. You CAN still love the Yankees if you hate George Steinbrenner.
-
"Money is conservative, money men are always conservative." Hmm. Never heard of George Soros, have you? How about Warren Buffett? No? Perhaps you've heard of Bill Gates? Oh, I see, you were talking about Hollywood and television. So let's talk Weinstein brothers. Oh, you think the financiers of "Fahrenheit 9/11" were conservative? Wow. I suppose it's a waste of time to ask about Ted Turner. Yeah, that's what I thought. So money men are always conservative, are they?
-
True, but it's kind of hard to love the Yankees if you hate baseball. Similarly, it's kind of hard to love America when you hate how it works. And by the way, if the climate disaster that people have been promising in "the next twenty years" ever since 1960 finally does come about, it won't hurt me. That's the beautiful thing about being in a red state in the center...blue states are right next to the blue ocean. Enjoy your backyard pool, with my compliments.
-
Holding our leaders to task is patriotic. Opposing an UNJUST war is patriotic. Impeachment is patriotic.
WillowFan, if you think being in the geographical center of this country somehow excuses you from worldwide climate disaster, then keep on truckin, big guy. -
It's called historical perspective. I'm not going to get freaked out by something that's supposed to be coming in the next twenty years when, according to earlier predictions, it's already twenty-five years overdue. If you want to quail in fear at the latest long-range predictions from the environmental lobby, fine. If you want to spooge all over "An Inconvenient Truth," be my guest. Just have the decency to leave me out of your millenarian society.
-
say "I love America. Period." You will get booed out of the room. Don't tell me liberals love America. I don't see evidence of that anywhere.
I don't know a single liberal who can say they love America without adding some loony caveat that completely negates their professed love. -
Which candidate do you want me to vote for next year. ANY of them, just please for the love of god get out of my movies and television.
-
is if they themselves felt insecure. I hear cons go on and on about elitism and pretentiousness more than any other political issue when it comes to liberals. It's not our fault we are cooler, better looking, more open minded, and aactually have a point when we speak. We were born this way, don't hate us because we're beautiful.
-
Nov 10, 2007 12:58:16 PM CST
And guys if you don't like politics in movies then....
by industrykiller!
find a different hobby. Art is supposed to be dissenting, especially in a time when if you think everything is ok, no matter your political bent, you are inarguably a bafoon. Movies are doing what they are supposed to be doing, be topical. I can't vouch for their success, but the effort is a good sign.
-
Quote of the talkback right there ladies and gentleman. Now the question is is that just an innocent statement from one of this country's not too sharp average filmgoers? Or a sad sad social commentary of our times?
-
I've had to endure many chickenhawk accusations. It's nice to see someone on the left doing the equivalent with the folks on his side of the aisle.That said, what are *you* doing? Or is Redford's latest work lost upon you? Wouldn't that also count as a sad commentary of our times? And happy Veterans Day!
-
Actually I consider myself an open-minded filmgoer who wants to see a movie and not get preached to. I already understand the pro's and con's of the freaking war. I'm tired of liberal activism in Hollywood. I am not going to financially support those movies. Movies are supposed to be escapist enclaves where I don't need to worry about shit. I don't share the masochistic liberal mindset that states I am required to be either living in self-loathing misery or a frothing at the mouth activist. So I guess the answer to your question is sad social commentary. People don't give shit about the opinions of aging 60's radicals that maybe sad for you, but that's a breath of fresh air for me. I hope the film crashes and burns. I'm not saying don't see it. If you want to go be preached at by all means go.
-
Nov 10, 2007 2:31:48 PM CST
Holding our leaders to task is NOT patriotic. Opposing an "unjus
by shagdrum
Any one of those actions may well be justified, necessary and noble in certian circumstances, but none of them are patriotic! To try and say they are is to try and redefine what patriotism is. Sorry, but liberals don't have a monopoly on patriotism and get to redefine it to whatever they believe. Support of the party over the interests of the country is in no way patriotic, but it is socialist in nature. As to the specific circumstances; trying to "hold our leaders to task" for unfounded accusations thrown at them for purely political reasons is not patriotic in any way. Claiming a war is "unjust" just so you can oppose it for ultimately partisan political reasons and never justifying the "unjust" claim is in no way patriotic. Calling for impeachment purely because you don't like the guy in office, without any grounds for that impeachment, is not patriotic. In fact all three of those actions, while not being patriotic, are purely partisan politics ment to tear down the party in power for the benifit of another party. While none of the acts are in any way patriotic, due to the true sentiment behind them, they do border on treasonous.
-
I'm afraid you've mistaken nationalism for patriotism. They are not the same thing. In a constitutional democracy, sovereignty is manifest in a document, and fidelity to that document is the only method of demonstrating patriotism. When the actions of a president are clearly unconstitutional, patriotism demands that citizens stand up against him. In other words, Shagdrum, it's not a fucking sports team.
-
BRAINZ.
-
Nov 10, 2007 3:38:41 PM CST
"Movies are supposed to be escapist enclaves where I don't need
by industrykiller!
Wrong! Do not pass go or collect 200 dollars Justy. Movies aren't "supposed" to be anything. From the so insane it makes a weird sort of sense of David Lynch to the almost voyeuristic reality of Mike Leigh films are whatever the artist feels like conveying. i'm not sure where you got such a simplistic mindview on art. It's like saying paintings are supposed to be of pretty farmhouse landscapes, it's just pure uncut ignorance. If YOU only watch films as pure popcorn escapism fine, Michael Bay is gonna be around for a while, but you are robbing yourself of the best cinema has to offer. And you might not want to be reminded that Americans are dying half a world away, but you owe it to them to fight that sense of apathy. You should feel at least a little self loathing considering they are giving their lives for you. i'm not saying seeing a Robert Redford film is the key tot hat, but film certainly has a lot of enlightenment to offer. Seeing your post reminds me though why the term "conservative artist" is an oxymoron.
-
Nov 10, 2007 3:39:23 PM CST
"Movies are supposed to be escapist enclaves where I don't need
by industrykiller!
Wrong! Do not pass go or collect 200 dollars Justy. Movies aren't "supposed" to be anything. From the so insane it makes a weird sort of sense of David Lynch to the almost voyeuristic reality of Mike Leigh films are whatever the artist feels like conveying. i'm not sure where you got such a simplistic mindview on art. It's like saying paintings are supposed to be of pretty farmhouse landscapes, it's just pure uncut ignorance. If YOU only watch films as pure popcorn escapism fine, Michael Bay is gonna be around for a while, but you are robbing yourself of the best cinema has to offer. And you might not want to be reminded that Americans are dying half a world away, but you owe it to them to fight that sense of apathy. You should feel at least a little self loathing considering they are giving their lives for you. i'm not saying seeing a Robert Redford film is the key tot hat, but film certainly has a lot of enlightenment to offer. Seeing your post reminds me though why the term "conservative artist" is an oxymoron.
-
My computer hates me. Also Shagdrum if you think people say the war is unjust simply because of some weird allegiance to the Democratic party then you are deaf, dumb, and blind. If you truly believe that then you have shut yourself off to information on the subject and there isn't a point in further drilling you with the obvious because it's clearly not in line with the world you've dreamed up in your head. All we can hope to do is phase nationalist hard liner like yourself out, which it looks like we may be on track to do in the coming years. And you act like people want Bush impeached because he fucked their girlfriend or something. There are reasons why people don't "like" him and feel his actions have been criminal not just ideologically, but constitutionally. I think you're smart enough that I don't have to sit here and reiterate them for you. or maybe I'm wrong and you are a 16 year old kid spouting his daddy's invective. Either or.
-
Nov 10, 2007 4:01:35 PM CST
"Art is supposed to be dissenting", says IndustryKiller!
by willowfan2001
Umm...no! Not necessarily, dipshit. Don't slam JustyHabuki for saying what art should and shouldn't be...saying yourself that "Movies aren't 'supposed' to be anything"...when you've already offered up a definition of what art is supposed to be. The logical disconnect is staggering. So, "art" that supports the party in power isn't really art? "Art" that doesn't necessarily dissent isn't art? Wow, and you're the one accusing Shagdrum of having shut himself off to information. As far as this film goes, whatever else it may be, it certainly isn't good, or so says the consensus of critics. The fact that most conservative critics are pissing all over this film tells me it isn't something I want to see. The fact that a not-small number of liberal critics are joining them tells me it doesn't even have much to recommend it as art. Maybe you can pick a better film from which to launch your attacks next time.
-
I'm fully willing to admit my choice in words previously was erroneous. I should have said "art will always be dissenting" and personally I think it should be. And no when I say that I don't mean every piece of art that gets made will dissent as I think you know damn well I wasn't trying to imply before (way to run with the generality), but a certain amount of it always will inevitably. There I fixed it, let's see if justy will do the same. It;s sad though willow that you imply if a piece of art doesn't agree with your conservative philosophy you dismiss it. It's sad not only because you will miss out on alot but that from now until the end of time filmmakers will be making films that are less than kind to conservatives, must be tough.
-
As far as picking a better film to launch my attacks, I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't once tried to defend the content of this film, merely it's right to exist and possibly thrive. I haven't seen it and neither have you, maybe it sucks, maybe it's great. It certainly has an excellent pedigree, or is Redford's entire body of work dismissable simply because of his beliefs?
-
Nice name, BTW. No all these extreme critiques of Bush I sighted and based purely on an irrational hatred for Bush and all things conservative. There are no justifiable grounds for impeachment.Luv how you tactic is to make broad claims then mainly focus on trying to marginalize me, instead of arguing substance. What grounds are there for impeachment? And stop trying to play word games ("nationalist, not patriot"), haven't disproven a single thing there, just tryed to spin it. "phase nationalist hardliners like yourself out"?! Ok Big Bro! Obviously only ignorant elitist who have bought into the groupthink liberal Kool-aid should be allowed to contribute to the debate. Your level of arogance is stunning. Prove to me this is an "unjust" war, and what grounds are there for impeachment? abd BTW, "art" is supposed to be entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.
-
seemed like the right talkback for it ;D
...every time I see that Resident Evil banner, I think it says PRESIDENT Evil, only the picture's not who I expect to see there... -
Lil over 2 mil last night, good enough for fourth behind a gangster, a bee, and a santa. I really thought that this would be the "political" movie to succeed even though it has gotten bad reviews, its got fricken tom cruise and robert redford to go along with the streep. Maybe Hollywood will start paying attention and know we don't want to see war films WHILE the war is going on.
-
In the thread connected to Capone's interview with Redford, you told me to be specific regarding my quote. To BobX: I was quoting YOU. Otherwise, I've had my say on these issues.
-
you will know exactly why student Andrew Garfield keeps skipping Professor Robert Redford's lectures.*Yaaaawn*And AnimalStructure, I don't think wearing or not wearing a lapel pin has any affect on a person's patriotism. I'm not making a statement about Obama but I think it's kind of silly to look at a person's lapel as some sort of litmus test for patriotism.Not everyone with a driver's license is a good driver. If that makes any sense.And as for the people that say every other country is better and this one is full of imperialist, racist pigs, that's the ultra left fringe minority anyway and they don't matter. It would be a lot more productive to engage the moderate left that has a little bit of reason and logic to them.
-
I am very pleased to see movies such as this continually tanking at the box office. What's amusing is listening to the liberals pontificate that this is because the American people are "out of touch."
No, it's because the American people, unlike the Commie International ANSWER and moveon.org crowd, don't HATE America and everything it stands for.
Just because a majority of the people think the Iraq War was handled badly doesn't mean they think we shouldn't be fighting the war on terror, and it's only the smug stupidity of socialist morons like Redford that make them assume this is true.
Fuck Redford, fuck Harry and fuck everyone of the liberal idiots that keep putting out shit like this. I hope they lose their shirts. -
Nov 10, 2007 9:08:52 PM CST
""art" is supposed to be entertainment, nothing more, nothing le
by industrykiller!
By that token I guess the mona lisa is an artistic failure since, while technically impressive, isn't what one might consider thrilling. C'mon you know better than that. I dunno maybe you don't. But the wrongness of that statement is staggering and a little bit frightening. Are you saying that artistic endeavors should never attempt to enlighten? Because really that is when art is at its peak. Even the most foolish of people understand this. As for "proving" to you why the war is unjust and why bush deserves to be impeached, what good would an epic tome on a subject we both should know all the talking points on do us? I'm not going to sit here for an hour and write out obvious statements on wiretapping, torture, religion, environmental causes, gay rights, trainwreck wars that you have no interest in listening to, besides that isn't what we were really talking about. Neither you nor I made any specific point on those topics, I was simply stating that you were oversimplifying a very complicated matter, which is a fact. Not everyones political point of view comes down to the party they belong to. people, occasionally at least, look at a situation and judge it regardless of any ideology. Maybe its hard for you to understand being a conservative, there are certain things you have to believe in, but I don't have that problem and if I come to a conclusion about something it has nothing to do with the democratic party. So now you know.
-
I wish I could call this movie anything but a "waste" of the United Artists name. And yes, the gift bag I got after AFI opened their Fest with Lions for Lambs was excellent - with 12 Angry Men and West Side Story DVDs. But this movie fucking sucked.
The blame lies squarely at the feet of Matthew Michael Carnahan. This is a movie without a script. Redford's hammy enough on his own, but the blustery, didactic scenes in this film DON'T ADD UP TO A STORY. There are no characters in this film except for Meryl Streep, who elevates shit to sunshine for her role only. She can't carry Tom Cruise, who hacks his way through scenery and GOP talking points just as blithely and passionlessly as actual GOP politicians. But Cruise isn't given anything to do. He's also apparently omniscient or in charge of the military, but that's neither here nor there.
Without a subtle hand at the helm, this ship sinks and sinks pretty damn fast. I was so disappointed that the people behind this couldn't use these crucial issues - literally the most crucial issues of my generation - to form coherent, intelligent characters with opinions they fight for. These actors are playing types, though, and mostly stereotypes. Art is supposed to be dissenting. I'd say this movie falls well short of the mantle of "art," though. Don't knock it until you've seen it. I had hopes for this film, but not high ones - and even those were dashed as I was talked to like a third grader. If this is the best example of a socially conscious film Hollywood can drum up, as opposed to something like Coming Home, or Apocalypse Now, or All the President's Men... we really may be fucked. I hope, again, that UA earns the right in its future projects to call itself United ARTISTS. But this isn't a good start. -
In my opinion, the most basic thing you can boil it down to is this: "Art" tries to capture an idea. That could be an observation, an opinion, a thought that's really funny or just a good old fashioned dick joke. But, high or low, classy or crass, art exists as a vessel in which we poop out whatever we're thinking and hope other people dig the smell.
Again, though, in the filmic art I consider high quality, ideas are conveyed through characters with their own minds, opinions, hearts, and wishes. The cardboard cutouts in this movie lacked any of those qualities. -
Let me ask you guys a question. As conservatives why do you come to this site? I ask because this site covers movies, movies that are made by liberals, and if not expressly liberals then at least people who find conservatives distasteful. Seriously there are no conservatives, even the guys how don't make political movies. Even the guys who make those apolotical "entertainment" films you guys love cannot stand your ideology. Even probably Michael Bay, who charms you people like a snake with his explosions and feux patriotic imagery. Moreover they are artists, who are almost never conservative in any capacity. Its amazing you guys can make such bold statements about what art should be trying to accomplish since you and your ilk are responsible for so little of the creative output of this country. Anyway, as film fans how do you reconcile this? By the words and names you've spewed in this talkback it obviously bother you. The funny thing is this fact is never going to change. Artists love to smash status quos while conservatives love to uphold them, futilely I might add. After all one mans liberal is a conservative 50 years later, which just goes to show you how well your political agendas work. hell even Pat Roberson is voting for a pro-choice pro-gay candidate.
-
One mans conservative is a liberal 50 years later. Thought I would fix that before you start howling about how a typo negates anything I say
-
I never mentioned Bill or Hillary Clinton anywhere, STOP equating me with the Democratic party. In fact I hope to Holy God that Hillary doesn't get the nomination.
-
Trailer alone has more preaching than a Baptist church on Easter Sunday. I'll be skipping this one.
-
Why do I come to this site? Hmmm... a difficult question... maybe its because I ENJOY movies and like reading about them. Wow Industrykiller for a self-righteous snob you really are a moron. This is where you as a liberal fail to see beyond your own blinders. Not everyone who is into movies is an Dennis Kucinich loving nutjob like you. Not every movie made is deeply politically motivated movie. Not every movie evangelizes Fundamentalist Liberalism. Therefor there is plenty for me to enjoy.
-
Nov 10, 2007 10:16:25 PM CST
Michael Bay sucks, IndustryKiller, and you're not much better
by willowfan2001
First, I have to do some housecleaning from earlier, since apparently you've been a busy little beaver. So, you say "art will always be dissenting," and then amend that statement to something like "of course, not all art, but much art, will be dissenting." So what was the problem with saying that in the first place? Do you have some mental hangup that causes you to overstate everything? Also, where did you get that I "imply if a piece of art doesn't agree with [my] conservative philosophy [I] dismiss it"? Because if it's from what I said about most conservative critics pissing all over this movie, then you need a few lessons in logic. (Not surprising, BTW.) "V for Vendetta," as an example, cannot be described as a conservative film in any way, and yet I enjoyed it...as did many critics of all political stripes. Of course, that movie had style, action, and many other things that (if all the reviews are to be believed) Redford's latest effort lacks. What I don't need is the aggravation of watching a movie that's nothing more than a list of talking points I don't agree with, and that's what we have here. Do you regularly sit down to Fox News, or the O'Reilly Factor--or whichever TV programs you happen to disagree with, whether these or others? No? Somehow I thought not. And to answer another one of your earlier objections, no one's body of work can be dismissed on the basis of their political beliefs. But any individual film can be dismissed if the vast majority of critics and moviegoers say that, as a piece of art, it sucks balls. Guess what basis I'm using to dismiss "Lions for Lambs"? Now, onto your newer stuff. So, if artistic endeavors are at their peak when they attempt to enlighten, how DO you explain the Mona Lisa (to use an example you brought up)? The Iliad and the Odyssey? Michelangelo's David? Oh, or is it just films that you mean? Okay, how about "City Lights"? "Citizen Kane"? "Solaris" (your pick for which version)? "Rocky"? How do these films enlighten us? On what real-world subjects do they educate us? (By "enlighten" I am of course assuming that you mean politically. You may now attempt to reformulate your definition so that I can find more errors in your reasoning...which I must admit I am finding immensely entertaining, far more so than I should.) As for your "query," allow me to answer by seconding JustyHabuki. I love movies, and I love reading about them. I don't give a shit, if you are an artist, what your political beliefs are. I ask only that you make a good piece of art, and if you make it, I don't care whose pockets I'm lining with my patronage. (In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that once upon a time I did care. No more. Too many disagreements, too little time.) If you insist on making a political piece of art, especially one that opposes my point of view, I will still "forgive" all--not that it really needs to be forgiven, and not that anybody gives a shit about my forgiveness--as long as the politics serve the piece. When the piece starts to serve the politics, however, that's when I cry foul. When I put down money to see a film, I don't want to see a political polemic, and I don't want to be subjected to rants. I could get that just by walking down to my workplace and saying "You know, Bush isn't really a bad guy." (Or "Gore," depending on the room I want to set ablaze.) Films that I can equate to the kind of rhetoric those conversations produce...well, I don't call them art. I call them lectures. And again, when I want lectures I can get them for free at my local university. One last thing. I am going to hit you on your amended statement...simply because you got it right the first time. Wow, the one time you say something I could unequivocally agree with and then you change it. Also, our political agendas work just fine...considering that our job in the march of history is to keep asshats like you from just marching over tradition without thinking about it first. We keep you from swinging your scythe so mercilessly that you weed the good from the garden along with the bad, and that's a role I'm comfortable playing. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "The fatal metaphor of progress, which means leaving things behind us, has utterly obscured the real idea of growth, which means leaving things inside us."
-
STAR TREK has finally started filming. Thank God. Screw Redford and frankly screw Iraq---don't care. Just want a rebooted Star Trek and my cocoa puffs. We now return you to your so called life.
-
But then again, doing it this way will either result in IndustryKiller! giving up entirely, or scanning over a few important points which I can then "helpfully point out." So maybe it's just as well.
-
Captain Pike, did you like Lions for Lambs?
BEEP BEEP -
American, meet rabbit hole.
Rabbit hole, America. -
You try to turn the critic around on me, but you are the one who started making claims that are absurd but so general and without facts given that it is impossible to respond with specifics. I want to be specific and make points, but to do in response to you claims, I need specifics to respond to. The only thing I have found is this list; "wiretapping, torture, religion, environmental causes, gay rights" none of which in reguards to Bush constitute an "impeachable offense". The burden of proof here is on you and your absurd claims, thus, you are the one needing to cite specifics. To not do so shows the weakness in your argument. You say I am oversimplifying a complicated issue, but keep making general claims with no specifics as if you don't understand these "complicated issues". It is pretty obivous that you are trying to pull the "more enlightened" card on that one. In fact, nothing has been oversimplfied by me, but by you trying to sin my responses. Projection is a bitch.
-
and spin I take what you said; "Its amazing you guys can make such bold statements about what art should be trying to accomplish since you and your ilk are responsible for so little of the creative output of this country." You try to imply that we are not creative. I will have you know that I am both an accomplished, formally trained musician, as well as an artist on the side. It seems that your whole argument is based more on ostracising those you disagree with then it is arguing anyhing of substance. Pretty shallow arguing strategy (though typically liberal).
-
Art is ment to appeal to emotion, period. To say it is to do more is to project what you want it to do or think is should do, not what it acctually does. It can occasionally go beyond that and convey an intelligent point, but usually doesn't. To be a good artist in any field (music, print, film) it doesn't take brains (defined as "critical thinking") so much as taste and talent. That is why most in artistic communities tend to be rather emotionally drivien, it is what makes them sucessful in their field. It is also what makes them liberal. Emotions are used to make desicions instead of logic. That's why most anyone with a brain doesn't look to art to inform their views on important issues of the day. Art may better express an idea, but don't expect much logical thought behind that idea.
-
Industrykiller was specific when he cited Bush's wiretapping program as an impeachable offense. You see, Bush admitted to secretly ordering the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without ever seeking constitutionally-required court approved warrants.
The key phrase is "constitutionally-required". The law overseeing this is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which he personally violated.
You may remember hearing that, under FISA, the time it takes to obtain a court-ordered warrant to wiretap citizens is within minutes. Yes, minutes. So even Bush could not argue against a time of the essense factor. All it took was for a judge to see reasonable cause for spying on American citizens. And under FISA, in its 30 year history, warrants were denied in only 4 instances.
So Bush did commit an impeachable offense, and Industry was correct. -
I wish he wouldn't have wasted his time on this movie and started his jackie robinson project before the writers strike.
-
"Constitutionally-required" is an exageration. The fourth amendment says. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So you would read that to mean that you would need a warrant to search for and seize things - including electronic mail messages, right? Wrong. You see, there are two independent clauses there - no unreasonable searches and seizures, and a necessity for warrants. Warrentless searches are fine as long as they are reasonable. In fact, there are probably more searches and seizures without warrants than with them. a White House spokesman told The New York Times on December 27, "[t]his is a limited program. . . . These [intercepts] are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." It would be irresponsible for wiretapping not to be done on people with a history of terrorism calling from in the United States to outside the US; very reasonable. A letter written by U.S. Dept. of Justice Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, William Moschella, said, "the President determined that it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system..." A story in USA Today reported, "Privacy rules [FISA] forced intelligence agencies to wait about 12 hours to tap an Iraqi phone number believed to be connected to the kidnappers of three U.S. soldiers in Iraq this spring, intelligence officials have told members of Congress. By the time officials obtained the legal permission for the tap, it was no longer useful, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told the House Intelligence Committee. The officials had to show that the target likely was a foreign agent and get the attorney general's approval, which is why it took so long, he said...."It took time (to begin the tap)," McConnell said, because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required intelligence agents to first demonstrate to the U.S. attorney general that the target was likely an agent of a foreign power." This waiting resulted in the deaths of the soliders, Spc. Alex Jimenez, Pfc. Byron Fouty and Pfc. Joseph Anzack. Time is definately of essense here. And any wiretapping could easily be argued to be "reasonable", and not constitutionally requiring a warrent. FISA is not constitutonal law, and the constitution only applies to U.S. Citizens. There is no constitutional issue here.
-
FISA has always been constitutionally dubious, at least at the margins. The Constitution reposes the power to repel foreign threats in the president, not the courts, which are ill suited to the task. A statute, moreover, cannot limit or override a constitutional power. To the extent FISA purports to tie the president's hands in dealing with true national-security threats, FISA must yield
-
No, FISA does not have to yield to the President, or anyone else who knowlingly violates the written law. They can do so, but must face the consequences of violating the law - such as through the process of impeachment - and face prosecution or exoneration, as the case may be. They're subject to due process, just like anyone who violates the law. Your opinion that FISA is "constitutionally dubious" is, simply, your opinion. But having an opposing opinion does not exempt one from the rule of law.
The incident you cited from USA Today involved an Iraqi national, not an American citizen. As was cited in that same article, those seeking the wiretap could have also went ahead and performed the wiretap - provided they seek authorization after the fact, which is allowed. The purpose of FISA is to provide for lawful wiretapping, and to disallow secret wiretapping, which is what Bush has ordered.
What Bush has done is order a program of secret wiretapping not just on foreigners, but on American citizens at large, and seemingly at random.
A recent disclosure by an AT&T technician, in a related lawsuit directed at the NSA, revealed that AT&T gave NSA officials access to all voice calls, e-mails, credit card transactions and other data. They are wiretapping millions of American citizens, at random, at will, without cause. Hence the reason why this is a secret program with no details given by the Administration.
There's your Constitutional issue right there. When the White House spokesman called it "a limited program", did you really believe that? -
This movie is about ideas. It's about standing for something, not being ambivalent. So congrats to all you who are standing for something on this site -- although, a lot of you who are vehemently against this movie (irrationally, I might add. It's a movie, not a manifesto), you have successfully aligned yourself with the point the film is trying to make. Well done.
PS - don't judge a book by it's cover. Don't judge a movie by it's trailer.
PPS -- I love my wife. i also recognize that she has flaws. Those two acts are not in conflict with one another. The same is true for America. Just because "liberals" (which I would not count myself among) recognize flaws with America, does not mean they don't love their country. I'm sure "conservatives" see problems here as well. C'mon guys, let's be rational here... -
Besides NOT working as a film (27%) on RT, it betrays it's own premise, which is to take a stand. The film does just the opposite. Also, they picked the wrong war. Except for Michael Moore's rabid anti-Americanism, it's hard to find ANY Libs who oppose the US in Afghanistan. The Taliban, through harboring Al Queda, attacked US. Even NATO is there in force to defend by treaty an attacked member. Of course I shouldn't expect Redford to recognize that there's EVER a good time to defend his country. Oh and BTW, in case you only watch CNN or read the NYCrimes (page 19a), we are WINNING in Iraq. Al Queda no longer has a significant presence in Baghdad and we're kicking their ass and uniting the country everywhere else. Except for occasional token opposition for continued SOROS money, the Dems have already given up attempts to surrender and before long will be on board for the Big Win. Don't ever sell them short when it comes to political opportunism and hypocrisy. They hold nothing to heart except power. Maybe Redford should have started with them instead of aiming at ignorant youth to proselytize. In an election year, 2008, expect even more desperate diatribes from Hollywood passing itself off as 'balanced' or even as entertainment, instead of propaganda. The public, as with this and RENDITION, will I suppose, stay away in droves, despite efforts here and from Far Left sock puppets like Roeper. While the Weinsteins of the world block distribution of opposing views like MANUFACTURING DISSENT.
-
I don't need Robert Redford to tell me to care about my country's future. That's silly. And the goal isn't just to care, that's SOOOO typical Lib utopism. That won't solve ANYTHING, and could actually make things much worse. The goal is to do what works, what's right, and what's in our best interest. An uninformed or propagandized Democracy just doesn't succeed much, no matter how much folks "care".
-
Look man I never said I personally thought Bush could be legally impeached, I said the people who do have more than shallow reasons to do so. Anyway it isn't going to happen, more for people like you with a shady interpretation of what the constitution could mayyyyyybe possibly be saying than any other reason. it isn't going to happen and therefore Im not going to sit in front of my computer for an hour reiterating points we have all already heard for a moot point and and argument that wasn't the crux of what I was saying anyway. It's not an argument that has any relevance to this thread and has been argued a thousand times before on this very site add nauseum. Besides BSB seems to be doing a tidy job of making you look naive thus far. What I was saying is that your view of your opponents is oversimplified, not everyone just tows the party line as you portrayed them, thats a fact. Anyway what I will argue is your point of view on art, which at this point is just completely ridiculous. Artistic communities are simply emotionally driven? Oh give me a fucking break, I live in an artistic community and I can tell you point blank that that is the case no more than any other reason, such as logic or even money, might be. By making such a statement you've completely lost the right from here on out to call anyone out on oversimplification. Now im pretty sure you've never made a movie before, if you had you would know that you need a lot more than emotion on your side to bring it to fruition. You need TONS of intelligence alongside passion, responsibility, discipline, and the ability to work with people of every denomination under extremely difficult conditions. If you think it doesn't take brains then try it and I guarantee you will think differently. I mean for christ sake you claim to be a musician, if that true and you don't think music takes brains then you probably arent a very good one. Talent is as much hard work as it is God given. Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius and therefore a good artist, not the other way around. Same goes for Mikail Barishnakov or Steven Spielberg or John Steinbeck or whatever great artist you feel like drudging up. In order to truly be a good artist you must recognize and analyze your surroundings, your society, the people and things around you. Stupid people cannot do that. Insane maybe, but not stupid. Not a single artist that I have ever respected in my life, and its something I've dedicated my life to, has ever been an idiot. As for taste, taste takes brains. You can't have taste if you arent capable of thinking critically and analytically about something. I don't know a single person with great taste who is a moron, those two pieces don't fit. If you don't think art informs then taste is obviously something you lack. Art informs if only as a reflection of where our society is at any given moment. For instance Stephen Colbert is an artist who, by way of mocking the ridiculousness of the current political landscape, informs. Often more reliably then many news stations. And just to quell your shit fit accusing me of watching nothing but the Daily Show and The Colbert Report, no those are not my only sources of news, in fact I don't even own a cable box.
-
2007 was the deadliest year thus far in the Iraq War for the US military. How you can reconcile that with a statement like "Al Queda no longer has a significant presence in Baghdad and we're kicking their ass and uniting the country everywhere else." is just beyond me. WHat you just said isn't true, its a blatant lie in fact. Its the very definition of negligence. i mean seriously dude, one of those two things MUST be incorrect, they simply cannot co-exist, at least not with the words you used. And since one of them is a fact I dont think the other can possibly be true. I really would like to hear what your definition of winning is and around what time you think that we can safely reduce our troop level in that country. You know since you obviously have your finger on the pulse of this war in which we are "kicking ass".
-
like to think. Moore is no nitwit. Moore is as skilled an editor as you will find. for Roger and Me he interviwed Roger Smith three times and over three hour periods. They all ended up on the cutting room floor.moore knew that if he had released the full thing it would have eneded up on PBS. Moore is a member of the right wing NRA, which is a very patrotic organisation. Moore it is said felt embarrased after grilling Chuck Heston. What rings very hollow in that movie is when tries and fails to inerview Dick Clark about the appalling why he treats the workers in his businesses. Moore did very well out of Bowling for Columbine and equally well out of Fahrenheit 9/11 financially. his riles against disney boosted the propagand for the movie. Moore Blasted Random House in the paperback edition of Stupid white men but how many weeks did that book stay at no 1. Moore is a publicist at heart but he understands the business. When railed against bush when he got the Oscar for Fahrenhelt 9/11 that had the desired effect in that it boost the attendence for the movie. Moore is more complex then people actually realise. He is at heart a very patriotic american. He doesnt do interviews about his films. He hates the press. Moore is the in control all the time and Moore, ever the savy operator. gave out yards about hilary clinton who has we all know is in hock to the lobbies. If moore gets sick, he sure as hell wont be going to Cuba! Moore wears a sad sack personae. But it is all an illusion. Be under no illusions moore is about a cynical operator as any in Hollywood. HIs books sell, his films are successful, his tv shows were ratings winners, he sells out theatres. He knows his message. Moore is a businessman.
-
moore does not toe the line. Moore is conservative with a small c. He even thought that passion of the Christ was a very good film. He sends his children to private school. He was educated by the Nuns. If he gets sick he well go for private care. and can afford that. Moore is a liberal conservative. Moore is a member of the NRA. Bush and the Neocons hate the liberal conservatives and that is why Arnie will never be pres. The govt is run by ideologicals.
-
First of all, and this goes out to you and your friends. Stating that you have successfully refuted a point immediately after every retort you make does not make that retort a good one. Just putting that out there. Anywho, when I brought up the conservative critics angle I did so only because you said "The fact that most conservative critics are pissing all over this film tells me it isn't something I want to see.". That implies that if specifically conservatives dont like the film that you, also, would not like the film. its safe to assume this because of your shared political beliefs. This implies the work is dismissable on that point alone. As for not seeing the film because it could be a bunch of talking points of which you don't agree, fair enough, I can totally dig that, but you didn't say that before. None of this changes the fact that you haven't seen the movie and therefore it cannot yet be put in the category of political agenda that serves the politics and rants rather than aspiring to be something that qualifies as good art, the definition thereof being vague in your post. As for how the art you listed enlightens, well in a myriad of ways, some more overt than others. Something like David can make one appreciate the ornate beauty of the human body in a way they may never have before, Citizen Kane can make a (rumored) murderous, manipulative monster like William Randolph Hurst seem human, fragile, and worthy of empathy and show how unchecked ambition can rob one of their greatness and ultimately leave the man with everything with absolutely nothing, The Illiad allows the mind to create it's own landscape of heroes and villains that can stimulate the imagination and further creativity as well as (offhandedly) serve as a historical tome. Or a film you didn't mention, Brokeback Mountain, which forces people to see two men who happen to be in love (rather than a typical gay relationship) allow society and their own self hatred and fear destroy them instead of allow themselves to embrace something beautiful. Never before had a film showcased how ones love for a member of the same sex is no less valid than something more traditional. City of Lights, you're right not enlightening, but damned if it isn't cool to see a guy do that crazy shit. The Great Dictator on the other hand was a highly successful critical damnation of Hitlers Germany well before we knew the true depth of the horror that was the Third Reich. You could go on forever the multitude of ways that art enriches society every bit as much, and in many cases more so than religion. In fact art really is the worlds only pure religion. I certainly know more people that have been better guided and more enriched by art than religion, Republicans included. That statement should win me some friends. As for your place in history, I agree and even appreciate the mitigating factor conservatives often play in politics, its just that as of late asshats like you seem to have forgotten that place. No worries though, I think it will be correcting itself somewhere around November of 2008. BTW whenever I am in front of a cable box at either 8 or 11 oclock I DO in fact watch Bill O'Reilly's show. I watch because other than his typically noble stance on child protection, he's so laughably out of control and wrong that it makes for some excellent entertainment and I like to see where the conservative mindset is at, predictable as it may be. This is why Conservatives thrive in talk media and liberals fail, we already know what we think, we kind of like to see what you guys have going on.
-
in the very beginning of your last post you talk about when I said "art will always be dissenting" and then amend it with "not all art, but...." I wrote the first statement pondering "Since I'm talking to an adult, surely I don't need to hold his hand and qualify everything I say to the degree of ridiculousness. I'm sure he's more than capable of understanding the intention that when I say art, I mean certain important factions thereof and not literally the entirety of every little piece of art that ever gets made anywhere right on down to a pre-school finger painting lesson. After all I think we can rise above the petty levels of our politicians and their hyperbolic twisting of even the smallest statements." So that is what I did. Then I thought better of it, and apparently I was right.
-
I think that you are getting a bit confused. You're mixing up the idea of LIBERAL with the idea of socialist. Liberals donate to Democrats, they may like gays, they may have open views about sexuality and other issues. They may also be extremely rich, heavily invested in oil and communications, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. they may have absolutely NO INTEREST in changing the basis of the Status Quo. I would consider Hilary Clinton to be a deeply conservative woman, as I would Ted Turner a conservative man. Just because they don't scream about Jesus and have a few gay friends doesn't negate the fact that they are BIG MONEY built on olf investments, cynical power and shabby, often criminal dealings. I am always amazed at how right wing the US 'left' is. There is no leftist establishment in the USA; NONE.
-
...that's all you need to know about this film.
-
I don't know what day, because I heard someone else quote from it, the NYTimes itself reported shamefilly on page 19a last week that Al Queda is "no longer a significant presence in Baghdad". Just now at the 9:30 am EST news break of a 50,000 watt sports show I was listening to, they just said (probably from wire services) that Al Queda operatives are FLEEING Iraq to other countries and suicide bombings are down 75%. Sorry to disappoint y'all that your country might win, but you need to turn off AIr Amerika and get out of your left wing cocoons a bit more..... And the couple who made MANUFACTURING DISSENT, the critical, objective, honest, and real documentary on Michael Moore said that Weinstein had threatened potential distributors of their work with never getting another film from him if they marketed theirs. They were blacklisted mainly to protect his investment in Moore from being compromised as lies. I have no idea what Mr. Weinstein's politics are and didn't say so, but he is part of the HW establishment that fronts these Left Wing films and blocks at least this one in opposition. Back atcha. The 'debate' on Liberal/Conservative semantics is destructive to communicating and makes our words mean less. If involved at all politically, you know it when you see it. B. Clinton and W. Bush kind of defy labels, because in too many areas they tried to be pragmatists. Bush isn't much of a conservative, Clinton was not all that Liberal. Hillary tries to be pragamtic and straddle msny positions at once, but her left wing leanings keep coming through. Her mentor, who she recently went out of her way to admire, and subject of her senior thesis was far FAR left philosopher Saul Alinsky (RULES FOR RADICALS) who in turn chose Machavelli as his mentor. His princept was the end justifies any means and democracy is useful in that it can be easily corrupted to produce radical change. So Hillary is NOT a conservative, a Conservative, or even a Konservative. Power first, then radical socialism. And.... Michael Moore was a huge supporter of The Sandanista communists in Nicaragua, lobbied on their behalf AGAINST a democratically elected government, is a big fan of Fidel, and strongly opposes our presence in Afghanistan which nary the most Left wing of Dems will agree with. Democrats have nothing to do with him now because he is too big an embarrassment. While hacks like Roeper can't get enough of his propaganda.
-
Sorry, i just cannot get past Cruise's personal life to the point where i can relax and take in a film (starring him) objectively. I'm sure that anyone who has seen South Park's 'Trapped In The Closet' would feel the same despite the quality of the movie. How Redford could work with him is beyond me. Maybe Cruise was financing the pic.
-
remember this is first film Cruise has made since he and Paula wagner took over UA.
There is an article in today's observer in the UK about her. This is one film which will feature in the upcoming awards season. despite the fact that everyone seems to hate it. Best actor oscar is his to lose. Everyone from Empire magazine(its funny how this site hates other reviewers, anyhoo) to the observer seems to think tom is in with a shot. hmmm -
I wouldn’t let 99% of these dimwits (including Redford who’ IQ would be stretching mightily to hit 91) run my personal budget let alone global strategy and policy. Let’s face it the average guy who becomes and Actor or Musician gets a lot of mouth time because of popularity when these tend to be less than the average among us in general intellect…. And the fact that they live in a Hollywood Echo Chamber for their stupid views doesn’t help much….its almost sad to see how blindsided they are in not understanding the rest of us…its like watching an over-sheltered retarded kid getting all confused when he’s released into public for the first time. College kids today sans the drug induced counter culture (and a draft) are already left-wing enough by being indoctrinated by the Professor version of these twits…imagine how upset guys like Redford would be with the results if half the teachers were actually conservative and gave these young minds some balanced perspective…now THAT would be a real hoot to watch.
-
How much more difficult would it have been for you to write a qualified statement from the beginning? A few extra seconds? It's not juvenile to point out exaggerations and overstatements, regardless of what you apparently think. Overgeneralized phrases, especially those used by politicians, are having serious denigrative repercussions on the efficacy of our already-hampered political dialogue in this country--or haven't you noticed that? "Mission accomplished," anyone? "Bush just likes to blow things up," anyone? Don't trash me because you can't be bothered to put in qualifying words and phrases like "most," "some," "the best," and others. And especially don't toss off as an excuse, Oh, I thought I was dealing with an adult and those weren't needed...s/he would know what I really meant. In my experience, educated people GENERALLY use qualifiers when something needs to be qualified...it's the bright but naive kids that normally don't. When conversing on the Internet in a forum like this, all the other person sees of you is your words. So use 'em, artard! I'll respond to your other post after a late breakfast, once I feel I have the strength to brave the breach again.
-
The film didn't just die at the boxoffice...it suffered a cancerous, horrible death. Accoding to the trades (and scandal sheets), it's kindled a war within the cast. Redford hates Cuise, Streep hates Cruise, Cruise hates Redford, the public gauges Cruise as annoying, et al. Hey guys, how about adhering to your "Give peace a chance" bromide? One insider said, "A Bowery Boys movie would have had a better opening."
-
They hate the US of A. Hate it. That is why they want it changed. They hate capitalism. They hate state rights. They hate the Electoral College. They hate that the country is not a socialist haven where people are handed everything by the government, should they have no personal drive to succeed. Liberals HATE, HATE, HATE America. They just hate Canada even more so they refuse to move there because THAT is the country they want the US of A to become.
-
>>>.
- Name ONE impeachable issue in detail and the proof to support it (There is not one let alone “many”)
=======
Oh and incidentally when you listed a few generalizations regarding impeachment in a debate with others and were called on it (Someone noted Bill was guilty of the same stuff). I note your reply was that you do not represent the Democrats – but your reply totally missed his point- which is that unless you were out there beating the drum to impeach Clinton too – you are being hypocritical and purely driven by the political partisanship- incidentally all the issues you note have been broached to FAR FAR greater degrees by the most iconic Liberal presidents- yet their memories ate not slandered, and they were not impeached…why? Because the offenses you deem “impeachable” are quite simply and irrefutably- not so…and are many times quite necessary, justifiable, and within the scope of presidential power (believe it or not the president does have powers- its not hjust the Courts- who incidentally are the branch BY FAR most guilty of overstepping their constitutional boundaries)
-
- If you think All art is liberal, always has been and always will be perhaps you should take a look at WWII era films…most are bastions of conservatism.
-
You are simply confused. A) FISA is not a “Constitutionally Required Act” Thus your ENTIRE argument is incorrect. FISA is a law-DO you not understand the difference?
***Incidentally Liberal presidents have also Wiretapped- and it has not been found unconstitutional in the past cases either.
****Finally you do not even understand the basics of why Bush needs to avoid court orders. He is wiretapping based on the external sources (known terrorists) not the internal recipients (may or may not be citizens). Thus effectively netting all calls – you could NEVER get that many warrants especially since these calls are not even all vetted within the FSA required timeframes- indeed it was one of these Tapped calls that could NOT have logistically obtained a timely warrant that discovered the attempt to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in time. You quite simply do not understand this issue.
-
Good job my man- I didn’t want to start quoting the actual constitution and law- you did. (it never ceases to amaze me at how leftists who incessantly quote “Constitutional Rights and rules” actually seem to never have actually read the document when you are reading what it actually says next to what they are claiming it says).
-
I didn't call FISA a Contitutionally-required Act. Where did I say that? I said that the obtaining of warrants is Constitutionally required, and enforced under FISA. Please read more carefully; it may save you time from typing out an irrelevant post.
If you could cite your source for details on the NSA program where it specifically vets calls from external sources ONLY, then I'll agree to re-examine the matter. However, it's been disclosed in a 2006 court case (still pending) that the NSA is tapping the information of millions of American citizens at random. This is quite different from the scenario you presented. The full details of the program are still secret, so what you're telling me is partly the official record, but very far from the full scope of the truth.
I do understand the issue, better than you do. -
I think you owe Ann Coulter some royalties for using her "Liberals hate USA" rant.
-
I'm gonna come clean here so just bear with me, but you are all staggeringly, horrifyingly correct about liberals. I myself have been trying to smuggle terrorists into the country for years. Moreover there is a plot in the works as we speak to turn the entire country to atheism, or at least a mild form of satanism. This is of course while enforcing the strictest form of communism the world has ever seen. Me and my comrades will erect gulags that will make Russia look like a bunch of pussies. You Razorback will work as a gas station attendant, you have no choice as that is what will be serve the state. Don't worry, the work will set you free. Oh and all war will be abolished and all weapons will be thrown in the ocean. We are simply too scared and cowardly to fight. think a military more based on the French system, that's what im advocating. Oh and another thing, THERE WILL NO LONGER BE ANY HETEROSEXUAL POLITICIANS. I want to make that abundantly clear. All liberals are gay anyway so that shouldn't be a problem.
-
is not limited to the Left. Look to the right and you'll find plenty of celeb-political punditry. Not as much as the Left, but that's probably because most (especially those near the mainstream) would find themselves in a precarious position of defending some indefensible and unpopular positions. Look at Reba MacIntyre, Britney Spears and Ron Silver as examples. Not exactly the shining stars of celebdom, but you take what you can get.
-
Guys like him went out of fashion 2 years ago. Even Ann Coulter has gone into hiding. He's just a dead-ender in the last throes of a right-wingnut insurgency.
-
That shagdrum made a convincing case with the shadiest interpretation of the constitution I have ever seen then you are off your tree. he basically said 2+2=5. His "interpretation" is contrary to how we have been reading the fourth amendment since the inception of the United States. The amendement is making two seperate statements. FIRST that people are protected from unreasonable searches, SECOND that any search that does take place, requires a warrant of why it is taking place. He takes it all as one statement that would essentially mean that only unreasonable searches would need a warrant. So for the past 200 years we've just been wasting our time with these silly warrants in reasonable cases. His interpretation would allow for just about anyone to make a search or raid with no warrant with a reasonable cause. An awfully slippery slope if you ask me. We actually have a precedent for this in the case of Katz vs. the United States in 1967, read up on the case, it makes things pretty god damn clear. Shag also forgets to mention that a warrant can be obtained after a search has taken place. Shag makes hte whole thing sound terribly innocent and that only our most evil and well known of terrorists could ever be the subject of such an investigation, well since the whole thing has been secretive at best Im not so sure. Thus far any guesses as to who are being monitored are speculative at best. Because suddenly a President claims that he has had these powers all along and no one directly challenges him because of political reprisal does not actually make it true, it just means our political landscape is sick.
-
are astoundingly stupid. Just mind-boggling pathetic, platitudinous, poelmic, children. Good lord. What has happened to our culture when it's human artifacts are ferociously shallow in their thinking and so utterly lost that they howl desperately "Bush is the Devil!" or "Liberals hate America!" without any concern over rational process or human wisdom just to make the fluorescent sign of their identity flicker on for a few more seconds. My country of charity, generosity, conversation, freedom, and intelligence is either dying or already dead, and you douchebags are the virus. One last plea before I sign off from this cynical/absurdist community for the forseeable future: please, PLEASE stop being assholes. Holy Hell, out.
-
Nov 11, 2007 2:41:14 PM CST
900 as far as your interpretation about the lives of actors
by industrykiller!
and musicians. let me turn the tables around on conservatives using your ignorant ass beliefs and assumption. Conservatives have lower IQ's than liberals. Moreover they spend their whole lives in a religious zealotry haze where their beliefs are encouraged and preached to them over and over again by fox news talking heads. The oversimplified delivery makes their world view as such, thus they are more prone to racism and intolerance. The latest administrations spending and mismanagement is indicative of all conservative fiscal responsibility. I wouldn't let guys like Bill O'Reilly balance my checking account let alone give me political advice................ok now think of how silly that all sounded when you read it. that is exactly how you sound. Something tells me you don't know a whole lot of actors or musicians. I live in LA right outside of Hollywood proper. I can assure you is not more a political vacuum than anywhere else on Earth. We don't sit around shouting out liberal diatribe while passerbys overhear us and chime in to agree completely with everything we are saying. My best friend out here is a Republican in fact. I know mind blowing. You also speak as if everyone outside of Hollywood is some raging conservative and that liberals are outnumbered 800 to 1. Last I checked we just overwhelmingly won a huge election and are on track to win another one even if a jackass like Hillary Clinton gets the nomination *shudders*. Im not sure what conservative utopia you think you will be living in but I assure you if it exists it will be somewhere in the middle east, not America. I dont think it will be some liberal utopia either for that matter, I think we have to live with the cultural mess we have now for a bit before things figure themselves out.
-
I share your lamentation of the passing of civil discourse in this country. Sadly, it's the likes of Fox's pundits and their adherents (some of whom are in this Talkback) who have defined the tone of discourse. It's up to us to stay focused on the topics and issues that affect our lives, our country and future, and not allow blind hatred such as Razorback's and AnimalStructure's to derail the dialogue.
-
And if you're a Marine, then happy birthday too!
-
While I refuse to be so naive as to claim that all art is liberal, I certainly will attest readily how art certainly leans liberal. It stems from the whole "buck the system" attitude that is a bastion of art to begin with (which, the Democratic party has skillfully parlayed in recent years).There is no better means of example than submitting current events (despite the MSM as it were). For but one example -- The demonification of Tony Stark and the death of Steve Rogers. Pr, summarily, the poo-poo-ing of 3rd party government contractors along with the death of the physical embodiment of America.
-
More people have responded to this talkback than have actually seen this film... Box office bomb.
-
Jesus Christ man! I agree with your post but that headline was hideously misleading. I read it and for a second thought you meant that every piece of art ever made ever in existence on the planet earth and the cosmos and beyond is pushing a liberal agenda. it frightened me to my core. All I could think of was little children in art class paper macheing statues of Bill Clinton and senior citizens watercoloring pro-abortion posters. Thank God you amended it. You see many of us on this talkback seem to be incapable of thinking in even the slightest of abstract terms and see only in the literal. Say it with me Immortal: Qualifiers. Qualifiers all the time, every time. Think as if you are talking to a four year old and stop overstating everything you overstating bastard!
-
Instead I have been playing Halo 3. When George Carlin wants to do a lecture movie I will watch it. Other then that, back to the corpse humping baby..
-
FISA is not applicable law. The legislature can't write law dictating foreign policy (except for declaring war, funding, approving treaties and a few other specific areas spelled out in the constitution). This is a constitutional issue only in the sense that FISA is an unconstitutional law! Read the Constitution! Foreign policy is purview of the executive. Any constitutional scholar will confirm this. A good case to read on this would be "United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. [299 U.S. 304 (1936)]". In Justice Sutherland's words the president is the "sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations". You can say that FISA is applicable all you want, but if it were to be challenged in the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds it would be shot down as unconstitutional. There is no impeachable offense here. The FISA Court said itself in 2002, "We take for granted that the President does have [inherent authority to conduct warantless searches to obtain foreign intel] and, assuming that is so, FISA coult not encroach on the President's constitutional power." A panel of former FISA judges, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee said that the prez clearly has "constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under an executive order," which is not overridden by FISA. Judge Allan Kornblum, one of the authors of FISA said, "If a court refuses a FISA application...the President can under executive order act unilaterally." While you may not want to accept it, the warrantless wiretap issue is a non-issue and not an impeachable offense. If anyone is in the wrong here, it is the legislature for trying to overstep its authority into the authority of the executive branch by passing an unconstitutional law.
-
Your sarcasm is entirely wasted. If you want to keep exaggerating and then slamming me for taking you to task, that's fine with me. "Oh, my God, I didn't mean what I said, what I really meant was something else, but we'll just pretend that what I meant was what I actually said, and if you point out that what I said was wrong, I'll thumb my nose at you and make fun of you 'cause you're a mean bastard and you're trying to make me, like, argue and think and stuff!" Wipe your tears away, you dick. You too can learn to say something that's not obviously wrong on its face, but I won't be the one to teach it to you. I wouldn't waste my time. Come to think of it, why have I wasted this much of my time with you? Jesus Christ, I really HAVE been talking to a four-year-old! Pfft. Screw this. You'll never learn, and I wash my hands of you. You're a perfect fit to debate some of the other conservatives on this thread. They have roughly your brain power. Take a look at Razorback's post. Liberals hate the U.S., capitalism, state's rights, and so forth--see the overstatements? Doesn't that seem like your kind of guy? See all that redneck patriotism earlier on the thread, you numbskull? Go to it, boy! Sniff it out, and engage in battle! I'll just sit back and watch the fun. If God exists, hopefully you won't say anything so dumb that I feel compelled to comment. Why do I get the feeling He won't be that merciful?
-
No, not likely; any admission to a non-Democrat alliance prompts excommunication. It's the "zombie/declining IQ" patriarchy of "liberal" Hollywood: conform or be banished. Hillary Clinton has drawn a free pass on talk shows: no questions will deviate from a prepared list (shown, in advance, to Clinton). Audiences have no options: they're obliged to "laugh in the 'right places'", cheer/applaud, anyone booing will be ejectd. Her "Letterman" appearance was dictated with a Nazi panache. And now she's admitting (no other choice) that questions are planted in advance of her televised community visits. NO, c'mon, didn't see that coming. She's an idiot, a puppet--her entire existence is rehearsed. I'm a registered Democrat but I'm disgusted with both parties. And I'm sick of the hyprocrisy of Hollywood and its fascist tactics: the town's politics encourage censorship--in fact, they ENFORCE censorship(kindling McCarthy-liscensed threats). But, honestly, the U.S. doesn't give a shit about Hollywood and its "I Love Gore" platitudes: LIONS AND LAMBS is another "not so subliminal" message film to tank at the boxoffice (the others bombed but LIONS died a horrible death. Tom Cruise's agent is screaming, "It's not Tom's picture, it's not his fault." Tool). As for the next election, I'm coming-up on empty. Anyway, I once thought of myself as a libby--now I prefer to distance myelf from the hyprocisy, corruption and censorship (Dems, Pubs, what's the difference?).
-
I think the argument of impeachment is just a total nonstarter and a completely pointless argument for us to be having. A much more interesting argument is whether or not the wiretapping is the correct thing to do. So let's start on that instead of all this impeachment nonsense. I personally am not willing to go down a slippery slope of freedom for safety that could be achieved by other means. Nor do I trust this administration, who at best have a propensity for not telling the while truth, to use it in a way that is constitutional or kept in check. Your use of The United States vs. Curtiss-Wright Export is misleading, that case has absolutely nothing to do with wiretapping American citizens. If we were talking about the Presidents right to declare war on Iraq without congress behind him then you might have a case here, but that isn't what we are talking about. What we are talking about here is not a foreign affair, we are talking about the power the president has on American soil as it relates to American citizens. That case has absolutely no bearing on wiretapping US citizens while the case I stated in an above post Katz vs. the United States clearly does and clearly sets the precedent. In your quoting of the FISA hearing in which five judges testified you forget to mention that they said "they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it." They have no briefing on what exactly Bush is doing with these wiretappings or whom he is doing it to, which sort of puts the whole affair in a different light. In your quoting of Allan Kornblum you fail to mention that Kornblum statements were interpreted other way boy other journalists and that he also made hte remark "I am very wary of inherent authority . . . It sounds very much like King George." and that his fellow FISA judge Harold baker said that the President was was bound by the law "like everyone else." and that "the President ignores it by the presidents peril" because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security". So in other words they said that while the President CAN in fact to the wiretapping he could in fact still have to answer to other authorities, basically confirming what we all already knew. Im a bit weary of that story given that the only place I could find it was on conservative blogs, who routinely edit things in their favor and leave out crucial facts. By giving quotes you may make yourself sound official, but dig deeper and you havent made any point whatsoever. With that I will leave you with a quote by one Benjamin Franklin, a man I think we can all admire "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And certainly there has never been a more egregious example of this in my lifetime than Bush's wiretappings. Ahh its good to know that there is only one more year of this horseshit to go.
-
One quick request, please separate posts between the "what art is and isn't" issue, and the "FISA/Impeachment, ect.. issues", at least when responding to me.I would appriciate it as it makes it easier to follow and quicker to respond to. Thanks. Now on to FISA...
You say that my intertpretation is "shady", again a blatant attempt to mischaracterize and ostricise here. My previous post To "BringingSexyBack" showed that this interpretation is hardly out of the mainstream, but to recap: The FISA Court said itself in 2002, "We take for granted that the President does have [inherent authority to conduct warantless searches to obtain foreign intel] and, assuming that is so, FISA coult not encroach on the President's constitutional power." A panel of former FISA judges, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee said that the prez clearly has "constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under an executive order," which is not overridden by FISA. Judge Allan Kornblum, one of the authors of FISA said, "If a court refuses a FISA application...the President can under executive order act unilaterally." This view is not "out of the mainstream" as you try to imply, but is the view that FISA itself subscribes to. You cite the Katz case but that only applies to American citizens in this country making purely domestic calls and in the conduct of an ivestigation of a crime, not in the conduct of a war. Either way though, I assume you are referencing the precendent set by Katz, I.E. the "Katz Rule"; basically a warrant is required if in a communication a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Of course, it is well known that phone and Internet traffic is monitored in many countries (particularly where regimes are authoritarian, and even in many places where they are not). It is, moreover, equally well known that the United States and other nations are at war with al Qaeda, and that efforts to penetrate al Qaeda's communications are global and energetic. How could an American citizen who chooses to call, or accept calls from, an al Qaeda operative overseas reasonably expect that those conversations would not be monitored by American or other authorities? You also seem to be trying to say that we have been requiring warrants for 200+ years for unreasonable searches; wrong. Go back to Katz, one of the other big precedents (for the time) was that the 4 amendment protected people not just property (if you think this is a "shady" interpretation then I will have you know that I am paraphrasing my constitutional law textbook on this one). Up until then, unreasonable searches of people was rather common place. You also try to imply that warrants are required for reasonable searches; again, wrong. You can read appliciable parts on the constitution ("against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...") to see the fallacy in you claims. Reasonable searches do not require a warrant under the constitution.
-
What I'm talking about is apples.
FISA *is* applicable law. FISA governs domestic intelligence gathering, and the secret program Bush authorized pertains exactly to that. Spying on American citizens. Did you read my above posts before you wrote yours?
You're talking about foreign policy, where the topic at hand is about domestic wiretapping and spying on American citizens - at random, en masse. Again, read my 1:30AM post above which was directed at you. Bush did indeed commit an impeachable offense under FISA.
You also quoted the following: "Judge Allan Kornblum, one of the authors of FISA said, "If a court refuses a FISA application...the President can under executive order act unilaterally.""
What you said is true. However, if you're versed in some of the revelations of the secret program, you'd know that Bush bypasses FISA entirely. There is no refusal of any warrant applications before they don't submit them. They are conducting surveillance on millions of American citizens' private information without probable cause on anyone. Clearly and unequivocably a violation of law, and ... yes, an impeachable offense.
Please focus on the apples. -
Easy big fella. All Im saying is that if you didn't gleam that when one refers to art he doesn't necessarily mean every piece of art ever created by human hands, then you are the one who needs help, not me. Im not joking when I say those are the kinds of things you have to explain to a child who only thinks in the literal. I'm well aware of the importance of qualifiers and in that particular instance I didn't think I needed one considering you seem like a fairly intelligent guy, but you saw an opportunity to pounce and you did and I think that you cheapen the conversation by doing so. I'm merely pointing out the ridiculousness of it through the beautiful language of mockery. And btw I didn't see you freak on Immortal Fish for doing the same thing. Why? because you knew damn well what he was saying and you didn't need it spelled out for you.
-
After sept. 11, the wiretapping was purely foreign (calls made to or from outside the US to questionable individuals). The Justice Department did apply for warrants when it sought to expand its eavesdropping to include purely domestic communications. While DNC leaders feigned outrage that they had been kept in the dark about the program, the administration had briefed congressional leaders and alerted a principal judge of the FISA Court about it.Cheney, NSA director Hayden and CIA director George Tenet briefed Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on the program in Cheney's White House office shortly after the program begain.
-
It's vastly domestic. Here is a disclosure from one of several dozen lawsuits pending on the matter:
"The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines."
If you're an AT&T customer in any way (directly or via a third party vendor of its communication services), you're under surveillance. -
Nov 11, 2007 7:32:06 PM CST
SHAGDRUM: THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU'RE QUOTING SOURCES ON THE RECO
by bringingsexyback
but I'm addressing the heart of the issue with information that his not been disclosed by the mainstream media. You need to look beyond White House press statements to really know what the truth is.
-
Despite the fact that Bush committed an impeachable offense, for reasons of practicality, I do not support an impeachment. The reason is one you'd like - of logic.
An successful impeachment of Bush would mean Cheney becomes President. That, Shagdrum, is the last thing ANYONE - you, me, the world - needs. I've never called Bush a warmonger. But Cheney is. He is dangerous and reckless in that regard.
It is my opinion that Congress needs to curb Bush's massive secret domestic spying program, but not pursue impeachment, if only to avoid the greater evil of having Cheney at the wheel. -
At least in some areas. It is the reason I cited the Curtiss-Wright case. The courts have upheld that except in very specific circumstances, foreign policy (which includes foreign intellegence gathering) is the purview of the executive branch. The legislature has no say. There is a definate separation of powers issue here. FISA was signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1978. it created a statutory scheme for monitoring communications inside the U.S. involving agents of foreign powers (including international terrorist organizations). Henceforth, the government (usually, the FBI) would be required to satisfy a secret court, created for the purpose of hearing the government's case, that there was probable cause that both the person and the communications device it wished to monitor were facilitating the activities of a foreign country or an international terrorist organization. Again, The Constitution reposes the power to repel foreign threats in the president, not the courts, which are ill suited to the task. A statute, moreover, cannot limit or override a constitutional power. To the extent FISA purports to tie the president's hands in dealing with true national-security threats, FISA must yield. To put a different spin on the much-discussed "ticking bomb" scenario, if there were reason to believe a communication between two al Qaeda operatives would reveal details of an imminent bombing attempt in New York City, it would be suicidal to conclude that the president was powerless to order monitoring simply because a judge refused to authorize it. The president's constitutional responsibility to protect the American people from foreign attacks would plainly trump FISA. For the purposes of accquiring foreign intellegence, the prez can override FISA with an executive order, as has every president sense Carter (who signed FISA into law). You say Bush can't bypass FISA, But FISA is unconstitutional. So what you are implying is that FISA overrides the constitution, which is patently absurd. Besides, as I pointed out, every president sense FISA was created has bypassed it. When it comes to the domestic wiretapping, I have shown that the admin. has it's ducks in a row on that one too (previous post).
-
the fact that you are taking the 4th amendment as one whole as opposed to the two different statements it is meant to be. Second of all you have absolutely no idea who is being wiretapped under this provision, only people being called by members of Al Queda? Who knows? Not you or I. The whole thing is a complete mystery. Their abuse of power could literally be to any degree. Some reports say its pretty high. You fail to address that its possible to obtain a warrant AFTER you have already done the wiretapping if time is of the essence. You also misunderstand what I was saying about warrants and their history in this country. I said according YOUR logic there has been no need to obtain a warrant for any reasonable cause and that apparently doing so has all along been completely unnecessary, once again by the logic you use, ergo the only warrants that one even need obtain are those for unreasonable searches. You said it, not me and its the only conclusion one can reach if interpreting the 4th amendment in the way you lay out. . You say that reasonable searches dont require warrants...ummmm...last I checked police officers still have to obtain a warrant before searching someones property even if they have reasonable cause to do so. And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make when you say that unreasonable searches was commonplace, well I can tell you I don't like that it happened then and I don't like it happening now. As for the FISA quotes you give read my post above yours and BSB's below where we both address the topic.
-
Nov 11, 2007 7:43:30 PM CST
SHAGDRUM: HERE IS MARK KLEIN'S PERSONAL STATEMENT ON WIRED.COM
by bringingsexyback
He describes the AT&T operations that feed *all* its customer voice & electronic data to the NSA.
http://tinyurl.com/2xt5ab -
were working inside the United states and we knew about them then Im sure a warrant would already be in place. If that wasnt the case and NSA simply stumbled upon two operatives hatching a plot to be carried out shortly ala 24 then get the warrant after you do the tapping. That simple. We have provisions in place for that sort of thing through the pre-Bush system. Your use of Curtiss-Wright still makes no sense as it applies to foreign policy which the domestic wiretapping that Bush practices may have nothing to do with. Its not happening on foreign soil. It has no application in this argument. I also dont see how you have conclusively shown that in the case of domestic wiretapping the admin. has its "ducks in a row."
-
when your "foreign policy" argument has been made irrelevant?
Sorry, but FISA is not un-Constitutional. That, once again, is simply your opinion and has nothing to do with the law at hand. Bush is on your side, and that's why he's trying to *amend* the law. That doesn't change the fact he violated it. -
We are talking about reasonablity and reasonable excuses for encroaching on ones rights. This whole argument of reasonable vs. unreasonable is what we have the courts to decide, not the NSA. This is why we have a warrant system in place.
-
Short and to the point. I agree totally, and so do the Constitutional lawyers.
-
"The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines."
If you're an AT&T customer in any way (directly or via a third party vendor of its communication services), you're under surveillance.
Hence no reasonable expectation of privacy!! hehe, seriously, as to the email thing, if a business can easdrop on you email there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, hence no need for a warrant. This is a tech who "connected" the device, he didn't design it. He was most likely told what it does, as opposed to using it long enough to finding out all its inner workings. In other words, not a very credible source. Even if the device can record every call, doesn't mean it does. We don't know what is and isn't flagged in what that device reads. It would also be very easy for Mr. Klien to have been paid off by the lawyers to say what they want him to in this case. Your argument has devolved from "it's a proven fact that Bush is conducting illegal warrantless domestic wiretaps", "someone is claiming in a case (that hasn't been decided) that he hooked up a device that as far as he knew could monitor everyone in the network". Pretty far removed. I would say you are reaching now. You even said yourself that this wasn't reported in the mainstream media. A media which is highly liberal. That they aren't not jumping on (what you seem to characterize as) a golden opportunity to put egg on Bush's face should tell you something.
-
"I agree totally, and so do the Constitutional lawyers."
Maybe, or at least that is what they try to argue. But the Judges who decide these things as well as wrote the law dont agree. -
Nov 11, 2007 8:03:42 PM CST
SHAGDRUM: NOW YOU'RE SHOWING SIGNS OF SEVERE DESPERATION
by bringingsexyback
"It would also be very easy for Mr. Klien to have been paid off by the lawyers to say what they want him to in this case. "
Right. He and the lawyers would commit a conspiracy to commit perjury and risk prison and getting dis-barred? You are so reaching, Shagdrum. Now it's embarassing. -
I really hope you were joking about the "no reasonable expectation of privacy" thing. i mean it kind of sounds like you are but...I dunno. It's one of those off color jokes that gives one pause. As for the article, about hte time when someone starts accusing everyone else of reaching is when they themselves have begun to reach. You are trying to discredit a guy who knows exactly what he is talking about and gives clear concise points. And it doesn't matter if the device does record every phone call that comes through, you are right it probably doesn't that would take an awful lot of storage. The scary thing is that it CAN and that any call is available to them right then and there and since there is no warrant documenting who they are listening to and none will ever exist, what is to stop them from recording anyone they want? Its all very reminiscent of the East German Stazi. The fact that a mainstream media hasn't jumped on it is meaningless, the media isnt liberal or conservative, its purely capitalist. it goes where the money is and since this isnt the kind of story they an harp on for days while adding new information OF COURSE they havent jumped on it. As for another point on this reaching thing, saying the guy was probably paid to say what he said is the very definition of reaching. Well then I guess anyone you have quoted in your defense could have been paid by conservatives to say what they said? You see how ridiculous that sounds.
-
"We are talking about reasonablity and reasonable excuses for encroaching on ones rights. This whole argument of reasonable vs. unreasonable is what we have the courts to decide, not the NSA. This is why we have a warrant system in place."
There is no "right" against a reasonable search and seizure (at least that has been recognized in the constitution), Only against unreasonable search and seizure. Don't start re-interpreting the constitution to mean something it doesn't. We are at a point here where specific wording is important. Are you guys just wanting to gloss over the whole separation of powers issue here? There is a definate issue here that you guys seem to be wanting to avoid. I have tried to adress both. -
its called a warrant. If the police suspect me of killing someone or robbing a bank they must obtain a warrant before entering my house or anything they find is not going to be admissable in a court of law. That is a fact Shag. It's right there in the 4th "and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-
There is nothing but broad accusations (from less then credible sources) about warrantless domestic wiretaps. Nothing has ever been proven, but I'm the one reaching?! where is you proof?
-
is reasonable? The courts. The police don't get to decide this. A search is deemed reasonable because it has a warrant backing up its reasonability. Do you think the title of reasonability is just so obvious all the time that law enforcement just gets to up and decide it? Sorry buddy but it aint the way it works, at least it shouldnt be.
-
No one know a god damn thing about how they are using the information they gather or what information they have even been gather. There is no one watching the watchdog. If its all so innocuous they they should get warrants like everyone else. Until then we have been given every reason to assume the worst and it is within our rights as citizens to demand answers. I can see you shrinking like a cold dick Shagdrum.
-
You are purposely taking part of the 4th amendment out of context. I have quoted the full part numerous times here, and you try and take it out of context? talk about intellectual dishonesty!! What you just quoted only applies to unreasonable searches and siezures. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed". How does that apply at all to reasonable searches?
-
So, any accusation, no matter how absurd must be considered real?! Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to the government, I guess. I can make whatever accusation I want against the government and it should be taken seriously? Ok, President Bush is an Alien from Mars, and thus not qualified to be president. Geez! Get a clue. You can't take every absured accusation seriously. You have effectively admitted there is no proof of domestic warrantless wiretap, only foriegn (which is constitutional) yet because some people with Bush Derangement Syndrome make some sensational accusations that get echoed in the liberal media, we need to investigate?! Wonder if you would say the same if it were Clinton in office (doubt it).
-
dude, your becoming self parody. Who decides if the cases are reasonable or unreasonable? the courts. A case can only be deemed one or the other after a warrant has been obtained...or not. What the amendment is saying is that if a case is deemed, by the courts mind you, UNreasonable, then no warrant will be given out. If the case is REASONABLE then a warrant will be given out in such a case. hence a case can only be considered reasonable after a warrant has entitled it so. At this point what you are saying is just a joke as you are clearly getting hung up on the "olde" language it is written in. I mean how else did you think a case was deemed reasonable or unreasonable? You see that part about the probable cause "supported by oath or affirmation" yeah thats what Im talking about genius. Study up as there will be a pop quiz in class tomorrow.
-
You admit there is no proof of warrantless domestic wiretapping. At what point will you admit that it is purely a made up accusation (based on hyperbolye and distortion of the truth) to attack Bush?
-
then why wont they get warrants for it? That is all anyone is saying. getting rid of the warrant system is frightening and dangerous. Thats just good sense. When someone does it and then wont tell anyone why, thats even more frightening. What we dont know Shag is a very legitimate thing to rally against when it comes to ones own government. Especially when there is not a single god damn reason to stick with the old system.
-
While the constitution is vauge as to what is and isn't reasonable, what is and isn't probable cause. The courts through presedent have given the standard they use to judge what is and isn't reasonable. Namely the Katz rule. The ONLY court that could apply a different standard is the Supreme Court. The law on this is rather settled and it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will change that.
-
When Bush starts seeking warrants for his wiretaps again and reveals who he has been spying on all this time.
-
And since I have 200 years of history that has only been changed since George W. Bush became president, I think history is on my side. Especially if this Katz rule is based on the case in which the court ruled you cannot wiretap american citizens without a warrant. Reasonable vs. Unreasonable doesnt appear out of thin air. You are the only one here who finds the 4th amendment vague, it's pretty clear to me.
-
Domestic of Foriegn? Claims of domestic wiretapping are grossly exagerated. I already pointed out that he Justice Dept. did apply for warrants when it sought to expand the wiretapping to include purely domestic communications. But many of these claims of "domestic" spying are pure spi. If a call originates in America and goes overseas (or vise versa), it isn't domestic and falls outside of FISA, as well as Katz and 4th amendment protections.
-
and thats how we will end this. i feel pretty confident that this has gone as far as it will go so Im going to take off now. You arent going to change your mind about anything I know that and since you've just chosen to stand your ground on "well I dont think the domestic spying has been all that bad" then what else can I say? I think you are being naive, but that is neither here nor there. I feel confident that between BSB and I we've hit the root of this issue and effectively spelled out why its a danger to civil rights. See you on another talkback Shag, its been real.
-
since 1936? again an exageration, but beside the point. you don't have to run to a court to decide it a search is unreasonable. By saying you do, you are implying that the 4th IS vauge, though you then say it isn't (can't have it both ways). It is pretty simple to apply the katz test and decide about a "reasonable expectation of privacy", and if situation falls into one of the exceptions. In fact, law enforcement is trained on that. If they deem it unreasonable then they go to a judge. What you are saying is that only a court can decide what is reasonable and unreasonable. So if a cop is in hot pursit (or any other exception is applicable), according to you he must go to a court to decide if a search would be reasonable. Nope, doesn't work like that. The people doin' the search are capable of makin that distinction (necessarily so). When a search would be considered unreasonable, they go to a judge (not a court) to determine of there is probable cause. That is how the constitution spells it out.
-
This one certainly did. Not even the crazy liberals like it.
-
the top story on cnn.com right now. Oddly enough it seems that if you speak the devil he shall, in fact, appear. I would actually, without debating this issue further, really like to hear your thoughts on the situation. Would you be willing to redefine privacy as something other than anonymity? You certainly cant say I wasn't right about the slippery slope. We are seriously getting into some very dangerous ground as a nation. Very dangerous indeed.
-
Without the immediacy of being in a theater or some sort of spectacular set pieces, this sounds like something to see on DVD rather than in the cinema. I hope to check it out because it sounds interesting enough, but in no way is it very high on my wishlist.
-
Nov 11, 2007 10:30:57 PM CST
INDUSTRY - I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
by bringingsexyback
being posed to America today. I'm afraid I already know Shagdrum's answer, as he has made himself clear that he is willing to forfeit his own Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to privacy to the discretion of a roomful of faceless NSA operators.
But we don't have to. -
Don't bother with the rest.
-
FISA doesn't apply to foreign spying unless the Prez chooses to subscribe. You can't ignore the that. On the domestic spying (spying on purely domestic originating and ending calls), all reliable info is that warrants are being obtained. "Democrats have repeatedly mischaracterized the monitoring of these communications as "domestic spying," though the administration says that with such calls, it is targeting the overseas terrorists, not Americans. The administration insists Americans are never targeted without warrants and that it has already obtained some 100 warrants this year where Americans were targeted. New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson said, "If I'm targeting you, I don't know who you're going to call next." Wilson argues that under the Democratic proposal, the government would need a warrant for every call because there's always a chance that the international caller could contact someone inside the United States. For the first time in our history, we'd have to get warrants to eavesdrop on terrorist calls or Internet transmissions coming from outside the United States into this country." There is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in recieving calls in America that originate in America (or vice versa). Calls goin out of the country or coming from another country are another issue, and any legal scholar, lawyer and or judge who is worth anything will tell you that. The Legislature can't say anything about monitoring those calls, and there is no contitutional rights here at issue. As to "constitutionally guaranteed rights to privacy", where in the constitution does it explicitly say that? I will save time for you , it doesn't. Scoff all you want, but it isn't in there. You can make an argument that it is implied through sustantive due process (a somewhat questionable theory), but it is not said anywhere in the constitution.
-
Don't argue with him anymore, when he starts taking George W. Bush at his word you know there is no where else for the conversation to go, that and just the complete inability to understand the 4th amendment. You could explain it until you are blue in the face and he would keep switching his argument back and forth until you realize you are refuting the same things over and over just in a different order. Apparently we also don't have the right to privacy now. What can you say when someone is willing to give up their right to call whomever they want and read any website they deem fit without government involvement? We've made our point abundently clear while legally backing him into a corner to the point where he falls back on imaginary payoffs from lawyers, taking Bush and his cronies at their word (imagine!), and now no constitutional right to privacy, which he can't understand is implicit in the wording of amendments like the 4th, rather than having some all encompassing privacy amendment. Guys like him will continue to abuse the wording of the constitution like a terrorist does the Quran. Take solace in that in a year we will be rid of this brand of conservatism hopefully forever and that conservative values never stick for long anyway. Good work my friend, our job here is done.
-
First it is said that I am oversimplifying this issue, then I start bringing in specifics and destroying generalized claims that have no foundation, and you guys turn to typical liberal arrogance, attempts to ostricise and flat out distortion to try and confuse and distract from the fact the you can't or won't confront the complexities of this issue. You can't or don't want to see the true constitutional issue of separation of power here. You arrogantly claim that any "in the know", would view this issue how you view it, in the face of direct quotes by the people who judge law in question and/or wrote the law in question. Every president has ignored FISA as bad law, yet you refuse to acknowledge that. You say I'm the one who imply I can't grasp the complexities of the issue, yet I am the only one talking about them. Typical liberal projection. I am " abusing the wording of the constitution" and making "shady" interpretations by directlly quoting the constitution in context. I am not the one taking sections out of context and trying to reinterpret the constitution to protect rights it doesn't.
-
Deary me, what a dull argument (leaving aside the rabid drooling of Animal Structure. In this case: sartorial decisions= I HATE AMERICA). Not unlike the film I bet.
-
what did I miss?
-
I agree. It's pointless to debate someone who is this intellectually dishonest, and a waste of time.
Frankly, I think it's the shock of being handed some previously unknown (to him) information regarding the secret NSA wiretapping program that threw him off completely. His whole mindset is based on his 100% faith in every word uttered by the Bush Administration. I mean, who in the world quotes White House press secretaries for facts? Even Animal doesn't do that.
Anyway, there are rules to the proper conduct of a debate and clearly he's not following them. But at least now he knows something he didn't 2 days ago. Which is a step forward, for what it's worth.
I'd like to think that he would be just as adamant about forfeiting his rights if Gore or Clinton were President instead of Bush. Somehow I don't think we would've had the same conversation if they were. Good work too, Industry - it was fun while it lasted. -
there's no way in fuck Animal would quote that commie pinko George W Bush. He'd dig up an old quote from Goebbles to substantiate his spurious claims.
-
Nov 12, 2007 11:13:39 AM CST
You "blame gen(fill-in-blank)" people need to get over yourselve
by tinfang
Evey generation always blames those that came before/after for every ill-conceived notion and event that occurs. "Those zoot-suit punks will never win this war!" May as well blame the Neanderthals for apathy amongst the Cromagnons. If (ALL)you mooks don't like the direction this country (or world) has gone then go yell at that asshole you see in the mirror for starters. Waahhh, it's all the liberals/conservatives fault. So what if Redford calls you pansy assed whiners on your own bullshit?
-
I couldn't give a shit about all this racket one way or the other anymore. It no longer has anything to do with what's going on in the world anyway. I also don't give a shit what anyone with some political angle thinks about me (this isn't about you and me anyway). I do care about truth and honor though. Honor has but one color and it is simply truth. I fear for truth as no one simply listens anymore....people just shout and yell and glare at each other angrily with raised fists and closed minds. Everybody comes to the discussion with their minds made up and their belief system fully in-check and immutable. Why talk at all then? Unless for dropping "argument winning zingers!" and falsely 'one-upping' our conversational adversaries, why debate at all anymore? Why not, like children, we get a bunch of tape, demarcate the whole planet, claim sides, and then crap in our hands throw shit at each other? I think it might actually accomplish more! And before you question me with "What's your answer then jackass?!!" I don't have one...never professed such wisdom...but I do have enough observational skills to recognize pointless shit throwing when I see it. Pardon me while I get an umbrella.
-
Pretty cheap arguing tactic. Ostricise and play the "elitist" card. Not convincing anyone there
-
sayzoom - heh heh so if I decide to not go and see this movie I want to blow stuff up? Golly. And if the movie isn't factual, what exactly is thought provoking about it? Stifler's Mom & BringingSexyBack - when you decide to actually talk to people instead of imaginary stereotypes you might actually get somewhere. IndustryKiller! - art is actually a very personal experience that means a lot of different things to every individual. A very artistically taken photo, say the photo of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima, can actually be interpreted to be very pro-war, pro-American, pro-Military. Why do conservatives come to this site? Er, because we're people who like movies and read movie reviews? And why are you complaining about blanket statements while you keep dishing them out? BringingSexyBack - obviously your arguments are based on opinion of law as much as Shagdrum's, otherwise Bush would have been impeached already. What it seems you'd like to avoid is that there is obviously a very complicated legal issue here that is not as black and white as you may paint it. Your paranoia of our government goes beyond healthy skepticism in my opinion. Proof of that is your obvious freedom to say whatever you'd like about the President and our government without recrimination. Industrykiller! - there are reports that the situation in Baghdad is improving, and citing American soldier deaths doesn't automatically disprove that. We lost more than 8,000 soldiers in Iwo Jima, but we won. So did the situation improve for our army or didn't it? All you are pointing out is that we lost people in the process of improving the situation. "A search is deemed reasonable because it has a warrant backing up its reasonability." Not so. When I was a police officer, I could search a vehicle if I saw something suspicious inside the vehicle - with no warrant. If an officer is passing a house and hears something (like a woman screaming for help) they can enter and search that house without a warrant. These are a few small examples of reasonable reasons to do a warrant-free search. INDUSTRYKILLER & BringingSexyBack - you may want to reconsider disbelieving something just because President Bush said it. Painting the opposition as a villain may hamper your ability to consider all sides of an issue. The awesome part of the whole debate is that the government will not stop us from having it, or from disagreeing with it (the government).
-
Got your attention. Good.
(Why the hell no line breaks?)
Let me anticipate. Most of you hate the movie, the critics hate the movie. It's a good flick, but people will stay away in droves. Why? Because it tells people they are behaving wrongly. Americans don't believe they do things wrongly. They don't want to believe they were conned into a conquest. Attempted conquested. Won't believe their own actions or inactions cause the events around them, ie thinking politics is for losers and ignoring what their army is doing. As for you kids complaining that everyone is blaming you - well, those of you in the Army are taking Fox News straight into your veins daily, so you are the problem if you believe what you are told. Sorry. Those of you who won't be bothered to drop the game controller and protest -- you are killing your own generation in Iraq and Afghanistan. You feel no responsibility for letting the boat drift. You think you are somehow clever for this? And as for you spewing the Fox News and rightwing radio bile: Join the god damned Army, you vacuous little jackasses. Otherwise, shut up. -
Since it looks like this post is about to be taken off the main page, im not going to write a retort to your points which you probably wont have time to respond to, although if you should so choose to bring them up again I will respond to them in a story with longer shelf life. I am responding because I've always wanted to say this, and it is in no way relevant to this story but purely on a personal level, to someone who has at one point in their lives given out a speeding ticket.....Go fuck yourself, I hope you enjoyed stealing from the public.
-
You gotta understand, people like BSB and IndustryKiller can't look past their own arrogance. Their opinions are fact, and any fact that contradicts their worldview is to be ignored, because they can't defend their own opinons in the face of real criticism. Instead, they try to marginalize and distort and misrepresent, then claim victory. You can tell the maturity level here by industrykiller's "go fuck yourself" comment.
-
we seriously just had a bajillion post argument about one subject in which pretty much every facet was breached, there is simply no point in going on. Why would I continue to argue the same point over and over but worded differently or acknowledge your and 5 by 5's nonsensical point about not needing a warrant int he case of imminent danger, which has nothing whatsoever to do with these wiretaps, and especially since you guys are increasingly using Bush's word as if it is a point of contention. It got to the point where we were going around and around in circles, so I've moved on from that argument...for the most part at least considering you've partially sucked me back in. If you percieve me as arrogant its simply because you are insecure about yourself, not because of my words, which throughout this argument have been no more heated, passionate, or self righteous than your own. As for the go fuck yourself comment, I just wanted to tell a cop to go fuck himself after years of bullshit tickets while I had the chance, nothing in the world more American than a healthy distrust for authority. But then again I suppose conservatives kind of like big brother.
-
You really can't trust Bush at his word? You really think he and the administration have been dishonest? There are plenty of reasons I could understand for not liking Bush and disagreeing with him, but the man has integrity. Where has he been proven to lie?! There is nothing "nonsensical" about any issue I raise, you just don't wanna confront those issues, so you try to marginalize them and/or me. It seems like you should be smarter then that, but maybe I am giving you too much credit. I don't recall every bringing up the distinction of "imminent danger", but I could very easily go into a discussion of wartime power if you like. The distinction I have made is the very important one of foreign v. domestic. The admin. has used warrantless spying in foreign communications. All hard evidence is that he is getting warrants for domestic communication. His political enemies have tried to confuse the issue and either ignore the distinction or claim that foreign spying is domestic spying. There is no credibility to those claims, and you have to give whoever is in power the benefit of the doubt (DNC or GOP) until there starts to be credibility to those claims. If the government is to investigate very obsurd unfounded accusation coming down the pike, they will spend too much time and resources chasing ghosts instead of governing. Let the media research it as the watchdog. If you do respond to any argument by me, make sure it is my arguement and not some distortion of the argument.
-
The man has integrity? Moreover but because you have deemed him to have said integrity we should all automatically take him at his word? How old are you shagdrum? I'm not kidding at this point I just gotta know. You clearly admire this laughably stupid man. Which is sad considering in 10 years you are going to have to read over and over how he is the worst President in American history, something many historians are already tagging him with and even more saying its at least a distinct possibility. This will of course be after we've gotten rid of the wiretapping, pulled our troops out of Iraq, enacted stem cell research, green initiatives are a simple fact of life, continued a womens right to choose, gotten rid of faith based initiatives, the list goes on. I'm not even saying that this will occur because I agree with it, but anyone with forsight can see what is coming.
-
How dare I not hold you unfounded liberal assumption!!
-
arogant libs who couldn't get over themselves like you were saying very similar things about Reagan "history will record his as worst prez ever and so on". As to the wiretapping, every prez has done it since FDR! It won't be gone anytime soon. We will pull are troops out after we accomplish our goals, which is happens (not that we have recently pushed Al Queda out of Iraq and all but about 13% of Iraq). The argument is turning against the shame that is global warming, their is no right to choose guaranteed in the constitution, and the Supreme Court can't just make up rights (abortion should be but to a constitutional amendment vote, IMHO). "Anyone with forsight" does not mean anyone making liberal assumptions, as you want to imply. You have really demonstrated a problem here. I have strong views like you, but I can back mine up, while you simply assert yours are true and that mine aren't with out offering any proof other then the self-serving elitist argument ("anyone in the know agrees") ment purely to ostricise. If you can't respond to my argument you just ignore it and think that somehow counters it. You still haven't talked about the foreign v. domestic distinction or the separation of powers issue I have brought up.
-
*(Note that we have already pushed Al Queda out of Bagdad and out of about all but 13% of Iraq)*
-
Half this talkback is dedicated the the argument of foreign wiretapping and the difference between it and what Bush is doing and the secrecy involved and separation of powers and on and on and on. Also when you say that its not domestic spying what you used to back your argument up was the administrations own musing, which its been established here hold absolutely no water. Before you use anything the administration claims is reality int he future, whether it be the current situation in Iraq (sectarian violence is the problem more than Al Queda by the way) or what is really going on with warrantless wiretapping, just know that no one but hardcore conservatives are going to take it seriously. You havent brought up any new issues yet. That is what Im talking about with we keep bringing up the same issues but wording them differently. The argument is turning against the shame that is global warming?? How the fuck exactly are you weighing that one? Do I that everyone is passionate about the issue? no. But green initiatives are certainly ALOT more prevalent now than they were say two years ago. Hybrids are more popular and the scientific community is, as it always was, highly skewed toward the liberal side. It will take time since it actually involves Americans making some changes but sorry dude it aint goin anywhere. AS for the wiretapping, you might be right in a sense. The government has always done thing that could be considered unsavory without the knowledge of the public. I mean jesus just watch the Good Shepherd. But what Bush is doing is taking something unsavory from the underground and attempting to give it legitimacy and make it more widespread. Now whether we continue down this path depends on a few things. Now I dont think a Republican is going to win the next pres election but it may not matter. Hillary Clinton, while a liberal, has displayed a thirst for power that I find pretty disturbing. if she ends up getting the dem nomination, and I think we can both root against that, I could see her keeping alot of those big brother techniques. But if an Edwards or Obama wins I think we definitely could be saying goodbye to things like warrantless wiretapping, torture, and maybe even a continued presence in Iraq. There is no right to choose in the constitution, and that will never change, because there will never be anything written about abortion in the constitution. Its not important enough an issue. Its just ingrained in the fabric of America and civilized Western nations at this point. Rock and roll will never die, and neither will abortion. Its simply something to many people want the option of having and will continue to want throughout the history of time. Take it away and the only result is little girls getting unsafe abortion on the black market. No one has the stomach for that and only the most religious of maniacs would rather see their child scarred forever than do something they were going to do anyway safely. Alot of Liberals get worked up about the issue and worry. I don't because its so far off from becoming a reality that Its the stuff of comedy conservatives even try. I swear the right wing powers that be know this but still rile people up with it to keep their heads full with bullshit non issues. The only people that really care enough to yell about it are the incredibly religious, but then again they also think gay people can be "cured". As for Reagan, people didn't like him, but no one but totally reactionaries who know nothing whatsoever about history would have said he is the worst president of all time. I actually think he was pretty good. He wasn't a genius, but he had a certain charisma that he could actually turn into a tangible asset and bend people to his will. I think thats pretty valuable. Now there is the contention that he ignored AIDS in its early stages, this is true. but back in the early 80's when it really blew up I think it was so taboo that its pretty speculative as to whether any President would have handled it any differently. it's unfortunate and awful but its the reality of the time. There was also the fall of Russian communism, which while maybe not COMPLETELY Reagan's doing as some say, was certainly not hurt by his presence. The wall came down at the end of his watch and he deserves some credit for that. I certainly think he could handle the current situation alot more competently than George W. Bush, who is a violently stupid man who at the end of the day will have accomplished nothing and who only hardcore conservatives in the republican party still stand behind. Many prominent historians have already said its very possible he will be remembered as the worst President in history. Although Hoover was pretty god damn bad. By the way I told my Republican cousin about your "George Bush couldn't lie he's got too much integrity!" comment and he thought it was hilarious. Also, you keep calling me arrogant and harping on it, there is so much insecurity in those words that I'm really starting to think you hate yourself Shag, you shouldn't cause Im sure you are a great guy who has a lot to offer.
-
I never said Bush couldn't lie, you are distorting, again. I said, please provide proof that he has lied. He does have integrety though, if you disagree, provide examples. The arogance and elitist claims I make keep getting proven here when you keep making assertions and not backing them up, but just assuming they are so and claiming that anyone "in the know" agrees with you. While you may not like the Bush admin. You are claiming that he has less credibility then the main stream media, that is patently absurd. Cite some of his "lies". You keep failing to do so. I think you can argue substance, but are just falling back on propaganda and talking points that you don't want to defend (or can't defend). The administration has said that they are getting warrants for purely domestic wiretaps, and no one has prove that they aren't, but we are to assume they are? how does that work? Most of these people throwing these accusations around are doin it for purely political reasons and can't back anything up. You can't go chasing ghosts due to every unfounded accusation against a political enemy. Many republicans threw the idea out there that the Clintons had something to do with the death of Vince Foster. This claim is a helluva lot more serious then warrantless domestic wiretapping. There wasn't anything to suggest that it was more then idle speculation, and it wasn't checked out. It seems to me that you are more conserned about the seriousness of the charge then the truth of the charge.
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