Cool News
Moriarty Considers Kim Peirce’s STOP-LOSS!
Hey, everyone. “Moriarty” here.
This is a hard film to defend.
It’s also a hard film to shake.
It’s a mess in a lot of ways, yet there’s an insistent sincerity to it that cuts right through my problems with the narrative. It feels both undercooked and overwritten, but there’s an honesty to it that manages to overcome that. Kim Peirce is a real filmmaker, and when she gets control of her subject and her cast, as she does in many places in STOP-LOSS, the result packs an indisputable punch.
Peirce was originally planning to make a documentary about young soldiers in Iraq, motivated in no small part by her own brother’s decision to join the Army after the events of 9/11. The further she got into her research, though, the more she realized that there was a particular story she wanted to tell dramatically, and her documentary became a work of fiction, the story of a group of friends from a small town in Texas who all went to Iraq together. Brandon (Ryan Phillippe), Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and Steve (Channing Tatum) served together, and the opening of the film takes place in Iraq. It’s fairly well-shot, and Pierce captures the fear and confusion of combat well. I don’t think she’s going to be first on the list for the next DIE HARD, but she acquits herself on the action.
When Brandon returns to the States, finally done with his tour, he’s excited about picking up with his life. Tommy’s going to be with his wife Jeanie (Mamie Gummer), while Steve’s finally going to marry his fiancée Michelle (Abbie Cornish). Only problem is that Tommy is a hopeless alcoholic now, and Steve’s so traumatized from the things he’s done that he has violent blackout episodes.
Oh... and the government also decides that they’re not finished with these guys yet, and they get stop-lossed.
There seems to be some confusion about what that means in the talkbacks we’ve had on this film so far. As it’s explained in the movie, Brandon signed up for a certain number of tours. His contract is up. He’s finished. But there’s a clause in that contract that says that in times of war or emergency, the government can extend the contract at their own discretion. That’s a really fucked-up clause in the first place, in my opinion, and sort of negates the point of a contract with an out-date. However, any soldier who signs up for active duty knows that clause is there, and there’s always that possibility. The thing that Brandon can’t get past is that there’s not a war or an emergency on. He’s been there. And he believes that whatever that encounter is, it’s not a “war,” and it’s not an “emergency.”
Interestingly, the film doesn’t necessarily agree with Brandon. And you don’t have to, either, to be affected by it. Brandon’s written as a good kid with a real crisis of conscience. He wants to do the right thing, but he also wants to have a life he was promised, the thing he held onto as he was surviving those tours. His moral journey in the film is, more than anything, a way for Peirce to introduce all these difference voices and viewpoints. He goes AWOL and decides he’s going to drive to Washington to talk to a senator he knows and try to talk him into helping out in some way.
That’s the part of the film I have the most trouble with... Brandon is painted at the start of the film as a person of true moral strength, and going AWOL seems to be profoundly out of character for him. One thing I know for sure about myself... I am a giant chickenshit when it comes to the thought of putting myself in harm’s way for any ideal. I have boundless respect for the men and women of the armed forces because I KNOW that I could not do what they do. You will never find me writing negative things about our soldiers, and I have little respect for those who do. I think Peirce respects soldiers as individuals, but I also think her film demonstrates her own personal inability to understand making that sacrifice, and considering how much of a personal stake she has in the situation, I can’t fault her for that finding its way into the film.
What STOP-LOSS ultimately wants to do is ignite a sense of moral outrage in the viewer, and it may do that with some audiences. Where it fails is in its inability to offer up any way to deal with that moral outrage short of going AWOL and breaking a serviceman’s contract with the Army, something that film eventually acknowledges is not an option. As a political argument or as a piece of polemic, STOP-LOSS is not very good. But even so... I found myself thinking about moments in the film days later, and I think that’s where Peirce is good at what she does. She’s great with actors, and the things that connect here are because she manages to get something real and true out of Channing Tatum or Ryan Phillippe or Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It’s because of the haunting image of Victor Rasuk as Rico Rodriguez, blinded and missing his limbs but already talking of his return to service so his mother will get her citizenship when he dies. It’s because of the quiet non-verbal work between Gordon-Levitt and Gummer as their marriage implodes, or because of the way Linda Emond seems to cave in on herself as she watches her son ride away on a bus that’s taking him back to active duty. Those are the things that Peirce gets right, and in those moments, it’s obvious that we need to see more from her as a director. The nine years off between BOYS DON’T CRY and this one may have left her a little rusty on the narrative side, but there’s no denying the quiet thunder she’s able to summon at times, and I hope her next time out, she has a stronger script to work from and nowhere near this much time off.
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
-
+ Expand All
-
This film should have been shown on Lifetime or something, like all the rest of 'em.
-
No, there's no confusion. The events in this movie could not and would not happen. You're not going to be sent back to Iraq after months of being home with signs of trauma. It doesn't happen. Stop-Losses happen all the time. And it's never a surprise when it happens. You're in the military, you're prepared for the eventuality. And if you go awol, then you deserve to be shot. You're a traitor.
And nobody wants to see a fucking preachy movie about how horrible the war is and how it's a good idea for someone to 'fight back' by going awol and leaving. Yes, the war sucks, but the kid in this movie and irl knew that before he signed up. You signed a contract, now pay the price. -
"And if you go awol, then you deserve to be shot. You're a traitor." Okaaay. You are kind of creepy.
-
will be "Generation Kill." I just do not see how the creators of "The Wire" will fall in the same narrative traps that others have done in "Rendition" or "In the Valley of Elah". Actually, I like "In the Valley of Elah" more than you did, Moriarty, because I thought Tommy Lee Jones's performance elevated mediocre material. So far, the best film so far on the Iraq conflict/war on terrorism has been Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs" because it really expressed the confusion that we have right now about this time in our history.
-
Unnecessary and useless, I'm afraid. Maybe if it had been posted a week or so ago.Yes, I did bother to post even though I thought this review was unnecessary and irrelevant at this point.
-
And it couldn't happen soon enough. It's not like he's (or the real life soldiers who fought Stop-loss orders) deserting the battlefield and putting his fellow soldiers in danger, you fuck. And this war has produced a large number of AWOLs - and guess what? These guys were all court-martialed. They faced it because they did sign a contract and face the consequences of breaking it. But for some of them, they had a fit of conscience (ever heard of conscientious objectors?) or maybe didn't want their shit blown off for no good reason. Maybe they saw some horrible shit and can't take it anymore. The guys who continue to serve regardless of personal beliefs, pro or against? More power to them and I hope they come home safe. But not everybody is programmed that way.
-
Those guys who are going AWOL to avoid going back to Iraq have one thing in common that makes them less deserving of a bullet than critch- they actually went to Iraq in the first place. They've done more for their country than your average angry talkbacker.
-
On the one hand you bend ass backwards to defend the Administration like blind mice, who put troops in insane situations, and then even to the extent of defending those scumbag contractors KBR and Halliburton (really because you can't stand Libs, for no other reason) - companies that treat the war like a profit center and serve sewage-infested water to the troops. Then comes word that - surprise! - soldiers can't take it and drop out, and you're first to say "shoot them, they're traitors". You are so mental I doubt you'd get in the military even if you did drum up the balls to join up.
-
... are becoming as frequent as Hollywood's "remakes" and "reimaginings."
-
This is an article (with solid figures and rates) from the AP via The Albuquerque Tribune. It should dispel a lot of misinformation about Stop-Loss and AWOLs and put the proverbial bullet in Critch's dumbfuck skull. And I'll start off with a choice quote for those morons who need reminding that soldiers are human beings and fellow citizens and not fucking killer robots on a fucking PS3:
"We're asking a lot of soldiers these days," said Roy Wallace, director of plans and resources for Army personnel. "They're humans. They have all sorts of issues back home and other places like that. So, I'm sure it has to do with the stress of being a soldier."
Here's the article:
http://tinyurl.com/yosg6k
Soldiers going AWOL at high rate
Desertion is up 80 percent since start of Iraq war
Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press
Saturday, November 17, 2007
WASHINGTON — The weight of the war has proven to be too heavy for a growing number of soldiers.
Faced with difficult and repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, deployments that stretch for 15 months, and signs of lingering stress disorders, more soldiers are finding a way out: desertion.
According to the Army, soldiers are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
While the totals are still far lower than they were during the Vietnam War, when the draft was in effect, they show a steady increase over the past four years and a 42 percent jump since last year.
"We're asking a lot of soldiers these days," said Roy Wallace, director of plans and resources for Army personnel. "They're humans. They have all sorts of issues back home and other places like that. So, I'm sure it has to do with the stress of being a soldier."
The Army defines a deserter as someone who has been absent without leave for longer than 30 days. The soldier is then discharged as a deserter.
According to the Army, about nine in every 1,000 soldiers deserted in fiscal year 2007, which ended Sept. 30, compared to nearly seven per 1,000 a year earlier. Overall, 4,698 soldiers deserted this year, compared to 3,301 last year.
The increase comes as the Army continues to bear the brunt of the war demands with many soldiers serving repeated, lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military leaders - including Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey - have acknowledged that the Army has been stretched nearly to the breaking point by the combat. Efforts are under way to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to lessen the burden and give troops more time off between deployments.
"We have been concentrating on this," Wallace said. "The Army can't afford to throw away good people. We have got to work with those individuals and try to help them become good soldiers."
Still, he noted that "the military is not for everybody, not everybody can be a soldier." And those who want to leave the service will find a way to do it, he said.
While the Army does not have an up-to-date profile of deserters, more than 75 percent of them are soldiers in their first term of enlistment. And most are male.
Soldiers can sign on initially for two to six years. Wallace said he did not know whether deserters were more likely to be those who enlisted for a short or long tour.
At the same time, he said that even as desertions have increased, the Army has seen some overall success in keeping first-term soldiers in the service.
• There are four main ways that soldiers can leave the Army before their first enlistment contract is up:
• They are determined unable to meet physical fitness requirements.
• They are found to be unable to adapt to the military.
• They say they are gay and are required to leave under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
• They go AWOL.
According to Wallace, in the summer of 2005, more than 18 percent of the soldiers in their first six months of service left under one of those four provisions. In June 2007, that number had dropped to about 7 percent.
The decline, he said, is largely due to a drop in the number of soldiers who leave due to physical fitness or health reasons.
Army desertion rates have fluctuated since the Vietnam War - when they peaked at 5 percent. In the 1970s they hovered between 1 and 3 percent, which is up to three out of every 100 soldiers. Those rates plunged in the 1980s and early 1990s to between 2 and 3 out of every 1,000 soldiers.
Desertions began to creep up in the late 1990s into the turn of the century, when the U.S. conducted an air war in Kosovo and later sent peacekeeping troops there.
The numbers declined in 2003 and 2004, in the early years of the Iraq war, but then began to increase steadily.
In contrast, the Navy has seen a steady decline in deserters since 2001, going from 3,665 that year to 1,129 in 2007.
The Marine Corps, meanwhile, has seen the number of deserters stay fairly stable over that timeframe - with about 1,000 deserters a year. During 2003 and 2004 - the first two years of the Iraq war - the number of deserters fell to 877 and 744, respectively.
The Air Force can tout the fewest number of deserters - with no more than 56 bolting in each of the past five years. The low was in fiscal 2007, with just 16 deserters.
Despite the continued increase in Army desertions, however, an Associated Press examination of Pentagon figures earlier this year showed that the military does little to find those who bolt, and rarely prosecutes the ones they find. Some are allowed to simply return to their units, while most are given less-than-honorable discharges.
"My personal opinion is the only way to stop desertions is to change the climate . . . how they are living and doing what they need to do," said Wallace, adding that good officers and more attention from Army leaders could "go a long way to stemming desertions."
Unlike those in the Vietnam era, deserters from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars might not find Canada a safe haven.
Just this week, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of two Army deserters who sought refugee status to avoid the war in Iraq. The ruling left them without a legal basis to stay in Canada and dealt a blow to other Americans in similar circumstances.
The court, as is usual, did not provide a reason for the decision.
-
I have no problem treating AWOL soldiers very harshly. It _is_ traitorous. I don't think the death penalty would be the appropriate penalty for it, every time... although deserting in a battlefield situation should earn you a bullet in the head from your commander.
-
It's been THREE DAYS since the biggest news to ever hit the comic book world broke. DC comics has lost half ownership in Superman! In 2013, they'll lose the other half! DC COMICS IS LOSING SUPERMAN!
Every other entertainment site on the internet is talking about it. Why doesn't AICN have a talkback on this? Are they covering Time Warner's ass? What the fuck is going on here? -
... your guess is as good as mine. I'd certainly love to hear what Harry has to say on it, since he's a comic nerd since birth and a Superman fan in particular.
-
I'm still pissed about your BD problems. Seriously. That shit would have pissed me off so badly! And I've worked in customer service, so I know what it's like at the other end of that phone.
-
How about a president who orders the outing of a CIA operative - during time of war - to get back at her husband, who refused to LIE about the fictional selling of yellow cake materials in support of an illegal war. Now THAT's a high crime.
-
first before you say people that haul ass from war should be shot or executed. Me, I'm no solgier. Never been in the service. But I can relate to them after going over to that hell hole for whatever period of time. And not wanting to go back and risk their lives. Like SExy stated these people are actual human beings w/ human problems. Whether it be money, women, men, drugs, gambling, food, hell whatever addictions or real problems 99% of people face. It's hard enough for me living day to day and I don't have to worry about getting my head blown off. Or stabbed in the middle of the night. Or step or drive over a landmine and get maimed for life at 20 yrs old. These really are fucked up times we live in. Our we the bad guys? I don't think so but our people we put and keep in power have not made the smartest moves for this place we live. And yes when it comes to war. It hardly ever goes smoothly but damn the men in charge have really not made our situation improve. How long ago was it when W. stoop on that aircraft carrier w/ the sign above that said, "misson accomplished." Two years ago? I can't remember but thats just one of a thousand mistakes these people have made. Imagine the thought process that we were going to go over there and change their way of living life. When they live in the prehistic times. And it was foolish to think that they would want to live like us. These people are fucking cavemen over there. They don't want democracy. They liked it the way it was having Sadam telling them how to live. It's complete anararky over there and we're going to have to wait this out on our fucking dime to attempt to put this place back to half-way decent living conditions. That could take 100 years or 200 years. Think about it: we'll all be dead. I'm 33 and dont think this will ever be fixed in my life time. I just wish more of us, and maybe this is selfish on my part, but I wish that we would try more things on our land to improve living conditions in the U.S. Look at all the fucking tormoil thats apon us right now. I said it in another talkback regarding this film. It was $1.43 for gas in 2000 when Bush and co. took office. Where I live right now, it's around $3.12 or so and going up w/ a bullit. And I realize that w/ inflation that type of shit will go up. But it's amazing that when you put in: An oilman = W. Bush. And another oilman = Chaney. 1+1 = Gas and Oil reach record profits! What a coincidence.
-
sorry sean
-
Mar 31, 2008 3:27:04 AM CDT
a magnet ribbon on the ass-end of your car is NOT supporting the
by ommadawn1959
Let's bring the boys (and girls) back home. My own son has done three tours in Iraq. This shit is never-ending. and we don't even get cheaper gas as a result of this war.
-
GQtaste?
-
"The thing that Brandon can’t get past is that there’s not a war or an emergency on."
Gee, what does he think is going in in Iraq and Afganistan? A picnic? Another stupid, sucky anti Iraq War film that's tanking at the box office. When will Hollywood learn? -
By the way, for the chuckle head who is getting all wound up about a desertion rate of 9 per 1000 (which, by the way, is not true--the article he cites is for AWOL, which is different than desertion), he ought to know that the desertion rate in 1944, in the middle of World War II, was 63 per thousand. That's the Greatest Generation. Also desertion rates for the years 2000, 2001, and 2003 were were higher than during the midst of the subsequent Iraq War. (Source, American Thinker, Military Desertion Rates and the Associated Press, by Alan Fraser, November 18th, 2007)
-
This film, like every other piece of liberal propaganda Hollywood pumps out about the Iraq war, has failed at the box office.
How much more crap will Hollywood spew before it realizes that at this point, Americans don't care about Hollywood's take? We're sick and tired of Iraq and we want out and we're not going to spend $15 - $20 bucks a person (when you include food and drinks) to be reminded about it. Especially when we know before we go into the theater what kind of unoriginal take on the war we'll get.
Perhaps if Hollywood could come up with something original you'd get people to show up, but most people know what they're going to get with crap like Stop Loss and In the Valley of Ellah as soon as you see a triler for it. -
The article I cited was also from AP, same as yours. The difference is that desertion rates would presumed to be higher today if we had a draft, not just an all-volunteer force. And I have and do support a draft for any protracted conflict. If the war is worth fighting, it's worth fighting for everyone, don't you agree?
-
Try reading it. And the 9 out of 1,000 is for fiscal 2007 and only for the Army, not the whole of the military.
-
But I've read your posts in these Stop-Loss TBs. Nothing in the way of 'honesty', facts or 'knowledge'. You're careful to straddle the line of hyperbole and not stray into actual facts. Just the garden-variety vitriol targeting the "Leftists". So you say that "80%" rise is a joke. Don't be so mysterious, Morbid. What makes it a joke?
-
With an opening weeking of $4.5 million of a production budget of $25 million, it make approach break-even . . . it's domestic take will easily best In The Valley of Elah $6.7 million total domestic gross . . . if there is commisserate world-wide box office, it should turn a tidy profit, plus DVD, etc.Still looks like a snore fest, to me.
-
You sure don't disappoint, I'll say that about you.
-
Soldiers should self-select. Market at work. I support the military, but I could not do that job, and could not have done the job when I was twenty, and would have (intelligently) never have selected myself for it. I don't think we've ever had a better military than our current volunteer forces, and any one who wants to bring back the draft, for any reason, is wrong. And that's all I've got to say about that.
-
She's really undercutting the competition. She seriously needs to do an indepth market analysis, as she's leaving a lot of money on the table.
-
I'm hoping someone with expertise in the drafting process will clarify further but a draft does not automatically put you in a combat situation. In fact, you may not even end up serving. You're put in a lottery, and if selected, you're evaluated for physical and mental readiness. If you don't qualify, you don't get sent for combat. But if this war were worth fighting, don't you want to share in the sacrifice? Even in a non-combat role? That's what I and many find so wrong about this war. The Administration had even ordered a plan for a draft but stood on it because of the political ramifications and loss of support for the war. Hence necessitating longer tours for the volunteer force, while those cheerleading the war get to do so from the comfort of their home.
-
Mar 31, 2008 9:51:51 AM CDT
Stop Loss took only 4.5 mill in it's North American opening week
by greg7007
-
would selectees have time to put on, say, 8 stone before going for evaluation? nonstop big macs?
-
I understand how a draft (or, most various types of draft) work. They still suck. Although I signed up with selective service when I turned eighteen. It was quick, easy, and it was the law. And I was a little worried during Gulf War I . . . I didn't want to end up shooting things in the desert. Or being shot at. Self-selection is a superior system, in more ways than one. Better for the soldiers, better for the military . . . As far as a war being worth fighting, I may have noted before than I'm not a big fan of pre-emptive wars. I don't think we should have gone to war in Iraq; I think we should have spent the time building up our military, getting more military into the middle-east or near, making a show and having a presence and flexing our big giant military muscles--carrying a big stick, in other words--but the Iraq war was not "speaking softly". But even if I was all for the Iraq war, I wouldn't want to share in the sacrifice--that's the job of the U.S. military, who are, generally, much better people than me. I'd want to stay at home making more money typing into a computer to better support my family.BTW, I may have also mentioned, I'm against stop-loss as a policy. if they may stop-loss optional, with an attached $20k bonus--go back right now and you'll get an extra $20k!--or something, then that would be different.
-
And America's military strength. It's why liberals are so keen on having them, now. They aren't afraid a draft is coming, they are afraid that it won't.
BTW, as far as I know, every administration has had a plan for implementing a draft--bureaucracy is all about having infinite file folders of plans your never going to implement (but you might!). Besides, I understand the Bush plan for a new draft was very long, and Bush explained: "I was elected to lead, not read!"Love me some Simpson's. -
Would indicate that it may turn a profit. Most of the movies have performed better internationally than domestically, then there's cable rights and DVD, and the production budget was only $25 million. Even Lions for Lambs turned a profit. Assuming it wasn't all eaten up by back-end deals.
-
demanding facts, yet giving none himself. And saying that you don't trust an AP reporter is not the kind of fact I'm talking about. [Insert middle school worthy mother/blowjob joke here]
-
One thing about initial military enlistment contracts that people do not know is that when you first enlist, your total obligation is 8 years. Whether you sign up for 3, 4, 5 or 6 years- those years are considered "Active Duty" years. The remaining balance of the 8 year contract is to be either active reserve or inactive reserve. Active reserve means that you do the 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer until your 8 years are up. Most people who enlist for active duty usually finish out the balance on inactive reserve. On inactive reserve, you don't have to do anything but let the military know where you are and how they can contact you. This is where they can pull you back in "against your will". After they have called up all of the Active Reserve units, They can order inactive reserve personnel back to active duty.
-
Did you say that liberals support the draft because it "undercut[s] the military and America's military strenght?" Where did you get that? Why exactly would a liberal want that? Just because Fox News says something doesn't make it true.
-
You could write a book of those! Nothing funnier than incest and gay jokes!
-
And where do I act offended? Thinking that your jokes are fucking lame doesn't necessarily make me offended. I read AICN talkbacks. If I was that easily offended, I would be reading CBN.com.
-
I tried to enlist when I was 18 (years ago), and they told me I wouldn't make it with my shitty knees. Those people (even the ones who wash out) deserve all the respect in the world for at least trying. I heard a General discussing the draft and he said they hate it because it brings in people who don't want to be there, aren't necessarily qualified to be there, and puts themselves and everyone else in danger. Most of the time people bring it up, it's because they're trying to forward their political agenda. It's a bunch of crap and they know it. We need to offer more incentive to the people who are out there putting their ass on the line for us (and that means more at home too).
-
I wish people would stop the bull-shit of trying to link the war and gas prices. Oil is up because the dollar is down. The dollar is down because greedy fucks in the mortgage industry fucked everyone to make a quick "signing bonus" profit on loans they knew were bogus. Then you have the morons who took out loans they knew they couldn't repay (some of them even getting cash back on their home purchase, then walking away). Now the dollar is worth shit, so it costs more to buy a barrel of oil. It's not rocket science. Besides, we only get 11% of oil from there to begin with. If this shit keeps up, my mother's going to have to go back to giving blowjobs. I'm not going to let her take less than $5 though. I had a snaggle-tooth hooker offer me one for $5 once, and my mom's teeth are good.
-
Okay, I'm going to give you an adult reply. I'm not going to argue with you for a few reasons. There are other Conservatives here I'd rather spend time debating, and have, because they're actually interested in a discussion. I'm not completely close-minded, which is a prerequisite for a rational discussion. You're just in it for a pissing match and if it were about some throwaway topic like Star Wars, I'd be game. But I'm not doing that on this topic. Sorry you wasted your bait. If for a moment I knew you were a reasonable guy, then sure we can talk. But someone picking a solitary word out of an article that actually contained solid figures from the military is not debating. It's the poor man's way of debating. Worth the time? Maybe to you but doubtful to anyone else.
-
I should be more specific: liberal politicians want to bring back a draft in order to undercut the military and American military strength. And some, but surely not all, run-of-the-mill liberals want that, too. If not that, then they are 100% wrong about what they think a draft will accomplish. In either case, I'd have to find myself on the opposite side of the argument.On the other hand, Super Nintendo Chalmers is a frickin' awesome handle. One of the better ones I've seen, no doubt.
-
I was going to comment on what you said, but I don't feel like it anymore. kevinwillis, I consider myself progressive, do NOT support the draft, and come from a family that has had several voluntary enlistees. This doesn't really make any difference to anything, it's just background. The point I want to make is that those politicians that want to impose the draft, whether right or horribly fucking wrong, are not doing it because they WANT to undercut the military. I see your opinion, that this will be the outcome, as a valid one, but not that this is these people's intent. I have a hard time as both a progressive and a liberal when conservatives tell me what my opinion of the military is. I have a friend in the Navy on a nuclear sub right fucking now. I have a friend in the Marines. My uncle was in Vietnam and my mother served during Desert Storm. The list goes on. Again, I don't support the draft, I just need to point out that liberals don't want a weak military anymore than conservatives do. And thanks, I like my handle as well. It was almost "I Bent My Wookie," but I liked this better.
-
Anchovy you make some salient points that I'd love to discuss but I have to tell you Talkbacking on a Blackberry sucks balls and can't even do paragraphs. ... SNARKY: I think you missed a huge factor in oil pricing, which is basic supply and demand, theprime component of any price. Speculators have been driving barrel prices through the roof, and if you ask them the reasoning I can tell you the war, production levels and presumed supplies have much to do with it. I hope they can keep inflation in check but already consumer gas prices are rising high and will affect every sector of the economy. I'd love to be an optimist about our ability to rebound but sometimes you gotta be a realist.
-
I agree that part of the draft talk does have more to do with making a point than actually getting a draft started. Good point, that.
-
That'd be a good one, too. God bless Ralph Wiggum.
-
As noted above, this one (barely) opened at #8. Next stop: a 3AM slot on cable. However the war negotiates your personal convictions, here's the bottom line: the public isn't buying into Hollywood propaganda (pro- or anti-; in retrospect, I haven't seen any "pro").
-
Have you seen the movie? If not, where exactly do you get off calling it propaganda? Have you actually read anything about it other than the talkbacks? It seems to me like most reviews, as tepid as they may be towards it, have made sure to note that it isn't a propaganda film. Remember several years back when Dogma came out and the big line here was that everyone protesting against it hadn't actually saw it? Same thing here. Anyway, the news is depressing enough as it is, so I'll probably skip this. The best thing about this movie, in the end, will have been its talkback.
-
Seen it, saw it... whatever.
-
Does the word "petulent" mean anything to you?
-
You're a stickler for details when it suits you, but that's not a bad trait. BTW, that post has nothing to do with projection. You really are a sickening person to me. You can't be surprised by that.
-
I DID see the movie; entirely bereft of two points of view, it narrowed down to "anti". It's undeniably a good movie and the screenwriter/director had every right to opine about the war: Christ, it's called "freedom of choice". But Hollywood has turned a political polemic into predictable propaganda. And a buddy who's been stuck in the mire for a couple of years wrote me, "Phyllis [his wife] told me all the movies are negative--and I'm relieved that they're all bombing. I believe we're making progress. So how come there's absolutely nothing that's positive?" By the way, I loved DOGMA--in fact, I recommended the film to my parish priest.
-
Other than your ability to spell, why do you think that is?
-
Gotcha. Thanks for the reasoned response, even if I was a bit incredulous.
-
Mar 31, 2008 8:45:59 PM CDT
Anchorite- I agree that there hasn't been serious talk of a draf
by samsquanch
But, the leap from that point to the implication that there isn't any good reason to be against this war is manipulative, and only impresses stupid people. You do know that liberals aren't the only ones against the war, right?
-
Way to dodge the question, but you know it wasn't about anyone else but you. We know you're trying to put on a show for everyone but the misfit act has gotten tedious and repetitive. And if you think I'm here acting tough behind some made up screenname, then not only are you the one projecting but you have a strange definition of what tough means. At least I can express my political beliefs in real life without censoring. You? You only have the Net and a real need for that anonymity to voice yours. Keep up the show.
-
Yeah, that misfit act.
-
That's some progress, misfit.
-
It's just you and me in here.
-
I never looked at talkbacks as rooms, but then again I don't spend much time in chatrooms. Tell me what that's like one of these days. Night, misfit.
-
Apr 01, 2008 1:12:16 AM CDT
If you kids don't settle down I'm going to stop this car...
by samsquanch
I mean it.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 383 total posts 380 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 111 total posts 111 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 75 total posts 73 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 71 total posts 68 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 77 total posts 55 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. -- 54 total posts 48 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 165 total posts 41 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 500 total posts 35 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 28 total posts 28 posts