Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Hooper to be a Dick in Oliver Stone's DUBYA!

Hey folks, Harry here... I'm fascinated by the emerging image of Oliver Stone's DUBYA - it seems that what Stone is setting out to do - is to give us the ultimate satiric riff on the President and his esteemed history. The Hollywood Reporter broke today that Richard Dreyfuss has been cast as the shotgun wielding maniac, Dick Cheney. There's probably never been a Veep with the Dick's gaze of evil incarnate. Can Mr Holland capture this Sith Lord's air of pitbullishness? We'll have to see, but I think it is an amazing choice of casting. What say ye?

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 22, 2008, 11 a.m. CST

    Oh Boy

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    Here it goes again. F Bush

  • May 22, 2008, 11 a.m. CST

    Happy B-day moriarty

    by Diagnostic

    Happy bday

  • May 22, 2008, 11:02 a.m. CST

    this project is just odd.

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    could be funny, but it just seems like an overblown SNL sketch.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Is that all Hooper can do anymore?

    by Flaggg


  • May 22, 2008, 11:04 a.m. CST


    by harrisonfnord

    shorely there is a chip thats tallented that could play bush

  • May 22, 2008, 11:04 a.m. CST

    I disapprove of this new Bustedtees girl....

    by FlickaPoo

    ...the old one was much better. Much, much better....

  • May 22, 2008, 11:05 a.m. CST


    by harrisonfnord

    chimp, sorry was trying to be cleaver

  • May 22, 2008, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Oh, Dreyfuss?....I can see him pulling it off....

    by FlickaPoo

  • May 22, 2008, 11:07 a.m. CST

    He already played this kind of role.

    by Mosquito March

    I thought of him for the part after reading the EW article, but then I dismissed it because of the sinister, Machiavellian politican character he played in THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:07 a.m. CST

    I don't know what to expect, but I'm hoping to laugh.

    by beastie

    This does sound like a comedy, based on the leaked script pages. Oliver Stone sounds like he's trying to be interesting again. I look foward to this flick. </p><p>Had to get my movie opinion out before the TB erupts with political bullshit from both sides.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:08 a.m. CST


    by greigy just wanted to say

    Bit of fluff from Rob Reiner but damn that was a good cast...!!!

  • May 22, 2008, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Sharks of Mass Destruction

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Let's plead our case to the UN!

  • May 22, 2008, 11:09 a.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius


  • May 22, 2008, 11:09 a.m. CST

    I hope he include the

    by Diagnostic

  • May 22, 2008, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Me neither, Diagnostic.

    by beastie

  • May 22, 2008, 11:11 a.m. CST

    I hate the

    by beastie

  • May 22, 2008, 11:11 a.m. CST


    by greigy just wanted to say

    Been a long time since he had his teeth into a good role... and please don't mention that Syrupfest the was Mr Holland.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Good casting decision

    by Mullah Omar

    I approve. Sure, he has already played characters like this, but I suspect people will remember this one more clearly.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Wait, he's actually calling it DUBYA?

    by I Dunno

    or are you being whimsical? It's hard to tell on the internet.<p>Dreyfuss is a good actor but he doesn't come off as having an evil bone in his body (I'm sure someone will remind me of a movie where he played a bastard). And he doesn't have the voice. He's going to have to shove something very large in his rectum to pull it off.</p>

  • May 22, 2008, 11:13 a.m. CST

    TB SHITSTORM IN 3-2-1....

    by Lost Jarv

  • May 22, 2008, 11:17 a.m. CST

    fucking liberals!

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    just kidding. that was for you, Jarv.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Good choice, but I would have preferred...

    by Leafar the Lost

    ...Anthony Hopkins. Dick Cheney is one of the most evil "living" men in the world today, and he should be played that way. Richard Dreyfuss is a good choice, and I think he will do a good job as the "shotgun wielding maniac, Dick Cheney."

  • May 22, 2008, 11:20 a.m. CST

    what this movie needs....

    by just pillow talk

    1)A hungry, angry bear<p>Warwick Davis to play the first lady <p>3)Blonde midget whores <p> 4)Bruce Campbell playing 14 different roles

  • May 22, 2008, 11:21 a.m. CST

    hmmm...forgot 2)

    by just pillow talk


  • May 22, 2008, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Remember Al Haig

    by JML9999

    In the Reagan thing

  • ....uh, I'm familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this particular problem until it shoves a WMD straight up your ass! <p>Now there are two ways to deal with this problem. You can either kill this animal Saddam or you can cut off his food supply. We tried the latter for 15 years. Now I want you to take a long hard look at this statue. Those proportions are correct."</p><p>"I could pump some 12 gauge buckshot into him"</p>"You're going to get these little pellets through his skin?"</p><p>"No, I can't do that. But maybe if I can get him into a quail hunt I can shoot him in the face...."</p>

  • May 22, 2008, 11:25 a.m. CST


    by Franklin T Marmoset

    Clearly, you are avoiding the giant Indy talkback. Fair enough. Enjoy the film, whenever you see it. I just got back - it's kind of a mess but enjoyable enough if you can overlook the flaws.<p>I have no opinion on this Dick business. Unless it's Rob Lowe's dick, of course...

  • May 22, 2008, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Doggie Bag?

    by canadien666

    What does our current VP have to do with "pitbulls"??? -proudpitbull(s)owner!

  • May 22, 2008, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Frankie - you are correct!

    by just pillow talk

    I'm avoiding it like it's Kathy Bates panties.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:29 a.m. CST

    What a terrible fucking president!

    by Sithdan

    Fuel prices are at an all-time high. OPEC said there is no increased demand, and that the demand stems from our own country. This means domestic oil barons are driving the prices higher and higher while the Bush administration sits back and does nothing about it. High gas prices is the catalyst that plummeted our nation into economic ruin. It set off a chain reaction that has shaken the foundations of the housing market, food prices and airline businesses. Those who vote for another Republican in 2008 need to have their heads examined.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Don't forget "just pillow talk"

    by JML9999

    The Dancing Penguins

  • May 22, 2008, 11:30 a.m. CST

    "This was not a blimp accident"

    by I Dunno

    It wasn't a giant bird, it wasn't a cruise missile and it wasn't Jack the Ripper. It was a muslum."

  • May 22, 2008, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Agree with the extended SNL skit comment

    by lsleelee

    worst. script. ever.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:36 a.m. CST

    "This was no boating accident!"

    by MCVamp

    "It was a WMD. A big one."

  • May 22, 2008, 11:36 a.m. CST

    The American President

    by Curious_Jorge

    No doubt he'll play the same overbearing, vapid, two-dimensional stereotype he played when he almost sunk The American President.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:37 a.m. CST


    by just pillow talk

    No need to put my handle into quotes.<p>The penguins can only be in it IF they are fully armored and have rockets on their backs like Batman Returns. And they must be on steroids and have giant fangs. And if by dancing you mean attacking, then yes, we can have dancing penguins.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:43 a.m. CST


    by Sithdan

    It doesn’t take an economist to know that domestic oil corporations like ExxonMobil are raking in record profits.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:46 a.m. CST


    by just pillow talk

    That is not the only reason why oil is going up. They are discovering less oil with each passing year, and the size of the oil fields they do discover has been shrinking. With the huge economic growth by China (mainly), that has further put pressure on supply. The U.S. has also not brought on-line any new oil refineries in decades I think, so there's only so much oil that can be refined at once.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Yay, this again...

    by NeoMyers

  • May 22, 2008, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Very nice

    by krushjudgement

    I hadn't even thought of him.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:52 a.m. CST

    I'm laughing my ass off...

    by Brians Life

    I don't know why everyone is so bitter and angry.<br><br> I think the last 7 year have been the FUNNIEST of my life! <br><br>And yeah, I'm including in that hilarity the 3,000 plus dead in Iraq, the destruction of two beautiful towers and symbols of American commerce, the pathetic opinion most of the world has of my home country, the restrictions of civil liberties in the face of invisible threats, the arrogance of a prince that never should've been king, the ignorance of an ancient administration that should have known better, the inexperience of those chosen for likability rather than policy making-ability, the laughable notion that George W. Bush believes God talks to him and told him to invade Iraq, and bring peace to Israel and Palestine (good luck with that)....<br><br>Seriously, this movie should be fucking hysterical.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:53 a.m. CST

    But not 400 percent!

    by Sithdan

    The discovery of less oil each year and increased demand in China and India didn't make the oil prices jump 400 percent in a span of four years. Did everyone in India start buying cars last year? Please. The market is being manipulated domestically by traders/oil corporations while Bush and his cronies stand by and do nothing. Oil barons throw their arms in the air and say the prices are hurting them as well, yet they reap record profits. Of course I do my part. I no longer drive to work (I live less than a mile away) and only fill up my gas tank once every two weeks.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Shit, I was hoping it would be the other Hooper.

    by Nordling

    Burt Reynolds as Dick Cheney! "They call him the Bandit..."

  • May 22, 2008, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Coughlins Laws

    by just pillow talk

    You're my hero.<p>"Environmentalist Mafia"....classic. Since gas prices have been rising in Bush's term, does that mean he wants us to have high gas prices too? Does that make him part of the "Environmentalist Mafia" as well?

  • May 22, 2008, 11:56 a.m. CST


    by BurgerTime

    He needs to be if Stone is going to portray Darth Cheney with any credibility.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Who was in office when we WERE attacked?

    by Sithdan

    The last time I checked, it was under Shrub's watch when we did get attacked. Bin Laden, the so-called mastermind of the attacks, is still at large, and terrorism is at an all-time high. Hell, World War II was won in six years, and we haven't even put a dent into the terrorist threat. Bush is a failure and a pitiful excuse of a president.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:59 a.m. CST're not paying attention...

    by Brians Life

    You've obviously created this perfect little argument that makes immaculate sense within your head...why not keep it there, cause to the rest of us it's laughable. <br><br>I don't blame Bush for everything I see wrong with this country, only those things that are extensions of or attributed to his FAILED policies. <br><br>Now I can respect that you may be part of that 13 percent that still thinks he's doing a good job, keep it up. Buuuuuut how is US looking at the failures of the Bush policy and commenting on them worse than you, who is proclaiming failure over an Obama administration that doesn't even exist yet!?!?!<br><br>Also, don't toss around the "7 years with no attacks, bitches"'s proof of NOTHING! September 11th was a tradgedy, but FREE COUNTRIES SUFFER.<br><br>Also, I don't get the fucking HERO worship of Bush and Gulianni after 9/11. I know it's tradition to rally around the flag after a tradgedy, but why was no one like "THIS HAPPENED ON YOUR WATCH!!!!!" Almost every other nation in the world has had to deal with terrorism in droves...we just happen to rather geographically secure here.<br><br>Seriously, I mean I don't have HIV so that must be Bush's doing too.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Gas Prices

    by chuckmc

    No government in the world can do anything directly about oil/gas prices, and any politician who says otherwise is pandering. Its the hand of the free market, plus speculation. China is about to pass the US to become the single largest purchases of oil in the world, India is not far behind, and in the long term the 2 billion people in those two countries growing increasingly wealthy is what is going to keep the price of oil high. Say goodbye to oil under $100 ever again, the 1 billion people in North America/EU/Japan no longer are the only players. As a total tangent, reading all these G.W.Bush political arguments, I am struck by the number of people who do not trust their government to manage something like health care, but trust their government to send them off to some foreign land to die for their country without question, no matter how dubious the cause.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:05 p.m. CST

    i support rising gas prices.

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    anything to make America look into alternative fuels is the right way to go.<p>and this, coupled with the fact that i do ride my bike to work, will label me a hippie.<p>although pot makes me ralf.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Please let's keep fucking politics out of this

    by I Dunno

    This is a Goddamned movie site. Go to to talk politics. That's where the Bush-bots get solidly owned and can't argue for shit. So look at it as a challenge. But for the love of Christ, let's keep it light in here. <p>Anyway, Tripp, the engineer from Enterprise should have played a younger Bush. He looks just like him</p>

  • May 22, 2008, 12:07 p.m. CST


    by The Duke of New York

    I am pleased to hear that Mr. Dreyfuss will be joining the cast.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:08 p.m. CST


    by BurgerTime

    The oil men (and women) are fucking everyone over. And the government won't do anything about it because they either a) make shitloads of tax revenue off higher prices, b) are half staffed by former oil executives anyway or c) recieve buckets of campaign money and support from big oil. <p> So we'd all just better get used to the fact that, until they decide it's time to start using alternate fuels and energy, we're going to have to bend over and yell "please sir, can I have some more" until our asses bleed from the collective raping we're going to take at the pumps. <p> And that won't be for a very long time, because face it, oil's infrastructure is so established and easy, that it's just a license to print money. <p> Bitches.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST

    The Environment

    by chuckmc

    On another note, high energy/water prices are going to do more to make this planet green than any international treaty or political initiative. Global warming is here and is not going to go away for anyone who is alive today. On 60 minutes the US Forestry service projected that in 50 years HALF of all the forests in the western US will be gone, due to drought and wildfires. People are fundamentally greedy, its a hard wired product of human evolution, and despite what they say in public, most will vote with their wallets in private. If we want the worlds environment to improve, we need expensive energy and water.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST more time here...

    by Brians Life

    ...just because I don't think you're getting it. <br><br>When one is trying to argue, it doesn't help to accuse the other person of something and than do nothing but have your argument consist of what you were accusing him of.<br><br>As far as I can tell, I am attempting to do nothing BUT argue points.<br><br>And just to show you what it looks like to make a point...I don't think that Bush is dumb. I think he's HIGHLY inarticulate and more of a "good ole boy" than an intellect. Though, the more troubling aspect to me is that I believe that HE believes he was ordained by Jesus Christ to be President. <br><br>I'm gonna end with the quote you ended with...though to most this is QUITE obvious...."Just remember, your opinion isn't fact." (DA-HOY)

  • May 22, 2008, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Coughlins Laws

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    how can you say "You don't debate. You don't even bother to argue any points any more. Just a laundry list of complaints and name calling," right after you say "foaming at the mouth Liberals"?<p>doesn't sound like you are doing any better a job at debating.<p>whatever. people's minds are set. a talkback slapfight sure as hell won't bring someone around.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:11 p.m. CST

    The conservatives

    by Smoke Monster Loves Kate

    told us that we were making much ado about nothing when Bush took office.<p>Then everything went to hell.<p>Now they're telling us that Obama won't be able to change anything.<p>Fast forward two years and, keeping in line with the pattern, I bet the country's completely reversed course.<p>How does the Republican party continue to survive? Now that the corporations and big business are realizing they can do all the corrupt shit they'd like from within the liberal camp, perhaps it's the beginning of the end for the evangelicals.<p>It's not that liberals are any better imo. It's just that they ARE America. America is the leader of the LIBERAL Western world, of the entire world. It's idealogy is liberal. The constitution is liberal. All our founding father were liberal. The idea of 'relative' 'conservatism' within that is a joke. It was just a phantom movement propped up to hide the actions of those rich interests.<p>The only true conservatives are the evangelical freaks.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:13 p.m. CST


    by just pillow talk

    Nice. I'm a moron. <p>Please tell me in my post where I said that "no new refineries are allowed".<p>I said "The U.S. has also not brought on-line any new oil refineries in decades I think." I did not assign blame to anyone in particular with that sentence as to why there are no new refineries. Nor was I defending the oil companies. <p>Please read more carefully before calling someone a moron. I actually agree with what you said, but you can fuck off all the same.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Smoke Monster Loves Kate....I like you.

    by Brians Life

    Your politics are your own. You be good people.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:15 p.m. CST

    satiric is the correct word

    by mr teaspoon

    Because this is not a movie that is going to contain a whole lot of truth.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Here we go again

    by Craig2574

    Bush sucks Bush does not suck Bush sucks Bush does not suck Bush sucks Bush does not suck Bush sucks Bush does not suck I really should really start a bugs bunny routine in here to make some of you change your mind.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Coughlin....still not paying attention...

    by Brians Life

    Global Warming as a notion has been around since the 50's and has gone through many iterations. Climate Change is climate change...the mere fact that you dispute it in the manner you did ("global cooling")demonstrates your ignorance. (hey, it's your words that damned you, not mine)<br><br>Terminology has changed (green house effect, global warming, climate change, etc) and there WAS a time when rational people thought that the year changing to 2000 would make planes fall out of the sky. This is not an argument about the intelligence of the American people....<br><br>

  • May 22, 2008, 12:22 p.m. CST

    yes, he is a terrible president....

    by emeraldboy

    However, unless obama screws up. McCain will get the republicans a third terms. That for the Republicans was a stroke of genius. slowly bringing in the maverick, short tempered, McCain back into the party. This will leave a united party behind McCain. to slug it out with a less then united Democrats. giving them hope the republicans a third term. god I hope not. that is what I fear.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:22 p.m. CST

    If it's anti-Dubya, it can't be true...

    by Heckles least that's what apologist neo-con's tout at every corner. Anything that paints him as an ineffective boob is either a liberal plot or just a lie. Writing is on the wall.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:23 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    I have worked in the oil industry for ~10 years, and every time some government looks into price fixing in the North American oil industry they find nothing. OPEC is a cartel, but it never worked very well because the various dictatorships who are members invariably cheated. OPEC is no longer relevant because they can no longer have a significant direct impact on world oil prices. They simply cannot produce enough oil to affect the price. Also note that the number 1 supplier of oil to the US is Canada, who is not a member of OPEC.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:24 p.m. CST

    one, two, three...

    by emeraldboy

    Cheney is a nut, he has a rubber butt and everytime he turns around he goes put put....

  • May 22, 2008, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Coughlin..There are some that do see Cheney as "evil"...

    by Brians Life

    ...I'd never use the term since I think it's a human construct and that there REALLY is no "evil"<br><br>But using the same terminology, I certainly don't see him as a force for "good".<br><br>I truly believe he doesn't care at all what the American people think, which is certainly NOT GOOD<br><br>I do think he's pretty much solely out to make sure that him and his is taken care of for as long as is foreseeable. Also, not good.<br><br>Hmmm...Oh, and he shot an old man in the face....Hmmm.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:25 p.m. CST

    gas prices

    by bismarckf

  • May 22, 2008, 12:26 p.m. CST

    I heard that this film was going to be balanced

    by emeraldboy

    stone said that there would be stuff in it for bush's critics and other things that will suprise some people.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Dreyfuss is a little guy...

    by buffywrestling

    who can act ten feet tall. No complaints from me about this bit of casting. After all, it has to be better than Poseidon.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Thinly veiled attempt at influencing an election.

    by sedavis

    I am a conservative who does to like pretty much anything Bush has done. But this movie is not about Bush, it is about trying to influence an election. There is no other reason to push the timetable of shooting, editing and delivering this flick before November than for that reason. Blast Bush all you want but do it after he leaves office. Stone is one of my favorites but he gives a bullshit reason of "Bush is a good story" for doing this movie. What about his idol Kennedy or other historic Presidents? As far as the election goes, we are screwed either way we go as far as I am concerned. I am just hoping that four years will travel by fast for whichever one wins this election between the bullshit artists that are running.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST

    What's with the sudden...

    by kuldan

    What's with this political bashing that suddenly has arisen from the site's owner? I thought this was an entertainment site, and instead we are subjected to one-sided pandering much like an actor who has just won an Oscar, and decides to use the podium as a place to speak their politics...

  • May 22, 2008, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Electric Cars

    by chuckmc

    The Economist recently had an article on electric cars. They are indeed the future, however there are three issues holding them back. 1) Where is all that additional electrical energy going to come from? We will need approximately 4 times the current electrical supply to replace all fossil fuel automobiles. Our collective power grids are already overloaded with the increased demand from air conditioning that global warming is causing, what is going to happen once we all start plugging in our cars? There are long term solutions in wind, solar and tidal but the only practical short term solution is nuclear. It takes at least 10 years to get a new reactor online, so this is not going to happen fast. Coal, natural gas and hydro electrical are not as environmentally friendly as the other options, however with carbon capture technologies coal and gas become friendlier. There is also the NIMBY issue of where to put the additional power lines that will be needed as well. Eventually, waaaay down the road most people might be able to live off grid reducing this problem. 2) Safety issues with batteries. The batteries in the existing hybrids are more of a safety hazard than the automotive manufacturers would like to let on. In an accident there are electrocution issues as well as all that battery acid flying around not being very good for organics in the immediate area. Also the existing batteries do not hold enough charge to run for very long without a gas engine to top them up. The next step up in battery life is Lithium Ion. However, greater energy storage means greater energy release in an accident. Take a look at what can happen with just the energy stored in a single laptop battery: Lithium Ion batteries tend to explode into a fireball whenever they either overheat or have there protective casing punctured, either of which could easily happen in an accident. So we are talking the Ford Pinto on steroids here. Honda and Toyota feel it will be at least 10 years until they can get the safety issues worked out, but GM is rushing there Volt to the market for 2010 out of financial desperation. Fireball on wheels, but I am sure their actuaries have already done the math on the eventual court cases, just as Ford did with the Pinto. Also if you cannot plug in and charge you car in 5 to 10 minutes, people are not going to find the technology very convenient. Currently nothing can compare to fossil fuels for energy storage and recharge time. 3) Bigger upfront cost and maintenance bills for electric/hybrid vehicles than gasoline. Are you going to save the 5 to 10 grand on gas over the lifetime of the vehicle relative to just buying a four banger? Maybe. But the bigger upfront and maintenance cost of going bleeding edge will be something that only the wealthy nations will be able to bear for the first 10, 20, 30 years the new automotive technology will be on the market. Initially while North America and Europe adopts the new electrical vehicles, the rest of the world will still rely on cheaper old tech gasoline engines.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Dreyfus is the man!

    by kafka07

    he can do it. This movie is going to be fucked up. It's going to fuck Bush up. Fuck Bush.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:39 p.m. CST

    First, Poseidon, now this.

    by thebearovingian

    You've lost that lovin' feeling, Richey D!

  • May 22, 2008, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Coughlins Laws, fuck gore and cheney

    by g-ride9000

    They both lie all the time. Gore is a hypocrite. Cheney is playing you and your children. His agenda is to keep you a work and child producing american for his bosses (the fed/worldbank) while they squeeze dollars out of forgin economies, your pocket, and mine. The fact is our money supply is a fabrication as is the need for war. The terrorist all came from Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Osama. Sadam wanted too big a cut of the profits the US could make from Iraq. SADAM SHOOK RUMSFELD'S HAND, you know the picture. I hope you see that people like you and I would never send an american to die for a monetary reason (oil included). i can tell you love america like me, but I see the flaws in leadership going on right now and it totally freaks me out!<P><P>SO CHENEY IS EVIL BECAUSE HE DOESN"T HAVE A SENSE OF THE WORTH OF A HUMAN LIFE. IMHO

  • May 22, 2008, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Coughlin...I believe you...but you're still not gettin it...

    by Brians Life

    And watch the capitals, Sully. I didn't say they DIDN'T call it global cooling...just that you using that as an argument against it was ignorant. Did you even read the rest of my post!?!?<br><br>Now stop Wikipediaing Earth Day and LISTEN...when i was in school in the 1970's an engineer told us that by 1995 we'd be able to fly our cars over traffic. Didn't happen did it? So, is it POSSIBLE that even with you quoting this man from 1969 and examining his findings in todays context..that Climate Change exists? Is it POSSIBLE!?! Just answer that.....Is it possible, even with your AIR TIGHT first Earth Day argument, that SINCE then science has been further perfected? I know the idea of something PROGRESSING as time goes forward must be really tough to grasp...

  • May 22, 2008, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Dreyfus can only do an impression

    by Marillion

    I've met Dick Cheney. Beyond the gruff, pissy exterior we see on TV, he's actually a quiet, introspective man. He says what he feels and that's it..<p> Dreyfus, while an excellant actor, is SO politically wrong for the roll that I expect his Cheney to only embody what we see on TV.. Dreyfus has played the character a hundred times in other movies.. He plays a great asshole.. <p> The problem is that with a real person like Cheney, that kind of portrayal will come off as dishonest and unbelievable. While the haters may relish in that kind of portrayal, true politically-minded people will knock it.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:51 p.m. CST


    by Brians Life

    I agree that we'll probably only see a Dreyfuss riff on the DICK we all know...but this isn't a dramatic biopic.<br><br>I'm looking forward to a farcical black comedy look at King George and his cronies.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:51 p.m. CST

    WeinerPenis and Saudi Arabia

    by chuckmc

    WeinerPenis, should the US government not put pressure on Canada to pump more, not Saudi Arabia, since Canada is the number 1 supplier of oil to the US? And what about Mexico at number 2? The OPEC nations are essentially maxed out. If oil producing countries where to theoretically magically up their production significantly in the short term, this would drop the price of oil which would speed the growth in world demand which will drive prices back up for a finite resource as world reserves dwindle. The world has to get off of fossil fuel dependency, and expensive oil is the best way to promote that. Cheap gasoline is not some American right.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:51 p.m. CST

    This will BOMB

    by Jed Black

    Nobody cares. Everybody hates Bush and the war but guess what N-O-B-O-D-Y C-A-R-E-S! There is no money in making anti bush and anti war movies. It's bad business and it's fucking lame. Oh and everybody complaining about the government like it's all Bush's fault, what about the Democrat controlled HOR and Senate? Things didn't start to go into free fall until that hatchet-faced bitch Pelosi grabbed power. I hope Cindy Sheehan unseats her bony ass and soon.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Coughlins Laws, compression air cars

    by g-ride9000

    with solar pannels/hybrid break system. There is an amazing french company working this shit out. i think the lamest ideas are eletric moter and biodisel. They are trading one problem for another. Compressed air technology is way more advanced than you could imagine....look here:<P><P>

  • May 22, 2008, 12:55 p.m. CST


    by Jed Black

    Dreyfuss doesn't "play a great" asshole, he is an asshole and has lots of practice.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:55 p.m. CST

    I agree the House and Senate have been USELESS since 06

    by Brians Life

    ...but they don't have a democratic president on their side and when it comes to issues on Iraq they don't even have a majority since Leibermann (waaaaaaah) votes with the Repubs. <br><br>

  • May 22, 2008, 12:56 p.m. CST

    by future help

  • May 22, 2008, 12:56 p.m. CST

    No war for oil, saudi or otherwise

    by g-ride9000

    self reliance, sustainability are the traits of America I am most fond of. Not our ability to squeeze resources out of foreign entities that FUCKING HATE US!

  • May 22, 2008, 12:57 p.m. CST


    by dahveed1972

    Hes a good actor and all, but isn't he, um, a Little Person? Cheney's a big guy, and someone who's used his carriage to intimidate at times.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST

    This movie will tank.

    by Luscious.868

    Maybe in 10 or 20 years time it would work, but not now. People are tired of Bush. We've been dealing with this idiot for 8 long years. It won't do any better than the Iraq War movies that are out now and for the same reason. We know how much of an incompetent idiot Bush is. If you watch the nightly news or read the paper, you see it each and every day. I'm not about to pay any money to watch a movie about him. Hell, you couldn't get me to sit though it for $100 bucks.

  • May 22, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST

    futer help go see the movie "Zeitgeist"

    by g-ride9000

    ther's some dumb shit in there but for the most will freak out! This shit is intense!

  • May 22, 2008, 1:01 p.m. CST

    i love it when morons talk World War II

    by ArcadianDS

    and how this 'war on terror' is just like it, or not just like it. Please: since 9/11, we've deposed two tyrannical regimes and instilled regional self-governing, and foiled more international terror strikes than you can count on two hands.<p> Im not saying I agree with Bush's politics or not - Im just saying regardless of your own view, try to base it in something that resembles fact, and if you're going to dig up the corpse of World War II, make sure you know what actually happened. Protip: US forces battled militant uprisings for 3 years after Japan signed its surrender papers, and US military forces deployed during World War II continue to be based in and around Germany TO THIS DAY.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:02 p.m. CST


    by BizarroJerry

    It's funny, but if this movie is in fact a comedy, then it'll be even worse than I thought. Even as a satire, are there any more original ways to mock Bush anymore? What joke hasn't been made, what insult hasn't been hurled? Bush is dumb, Bush is in bed with big oil, Bush thinks God speaks to him, Bush gives people dumb nicknames, Bush was a drunk frat boy. It's all been done. This movie will be a waste of time.<p>And what's this about Cheney? He shot someone? I HADN'T HEARD. Asswipes...

  • May 22, 2008, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Coughlin...I believe you love this country...

    by Brians Life

    ...I hope that you can believe the same from me. I see what America is capable of, yet has never achieved and it makes me SMILE, man. I grew up in New Jersey and moved across country in LA to chase a dream...i KNOW there is no other place in the world with that type of freedome.<br><br>That said even IF it's only a mere possibility that within the next 50 years the temperature will rise 10 degrees...furthermore even if it's ONLY a mere POSSIBILITY the the industrial nations of the world have been having a hand in that for over a hundred years...COULD WE FAIL TO ACT!?!?!?! Even if we KNEW the chances were below 5 percent...if we KNEW that actions taken now could EVEN POSSIBILY save the lives of millions and PERHAPS even stop the extinction of hundreds of species...could you fail to act? <br><br>And, I NEED TO ASK, is there any biblical influence in your decision making?

  • May 22, 2008, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Coughlins Laws, compression air cars

    by g-ride9000

    read about it dipshit. Stop being a moron and read about the <P><P>explosion-proof braided fuel storage (plus air is non-combustible duhhh)<P><P>and they are just as good for trucks as for consumers. Get some info from someone besides Rush or Billy.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:08 p.m. CST

    ArcadianDS...I missed your point...

    by Brians Life

    Maybe because you didn't have one. I dunno...

  • May 22, 2008, 1:08 p.m. CST

    I'm Bob Runson ...

    by captain_kirk

    And I'm running for Vice President! Great choice!

  • May 22, 2008, 1:11 p.m. CST

    I think this sounds rad

    by mattforce7

    I love Dryfuss and i think he can pull it off

  • May 22, 2008, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Brians Life

    by bismarckf

    You're floating a lot of "what ifs" for the next fifty years. The weather system is so complex that you can't be guaranteed that any action we take will make any difference, if not perhaps make the problem worse. Incidentally, what is the relevance of any possible biblical influence of Coughlin's decision-making?

  • May 22, 2008, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Jesus will solve global warming

    by g-ride9000

    I'm walking to lunch, have fun car driving bitches!

  • May 22, 2008, 1:13 p.m. CST

    by Jack_Of_Spades45

    Richard Dreyfus plays a good asshole. I'm sure he'd be perfect as Cheney.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Bush is NOT a republican....fully agreed.

    by Brians Life

    The thing that, from my point of view, that sucks is that traditional republicans support him due to some limited ignorance. He's churchy...but fiscally he's out of control...and what republicans have EVER been for nation building or pre-emptive intervention!?!?

  • May 22, 2008, 1:16 p.m. CST

    To all the idiots bitching about gas prices.

    by Luscious.868

    <p>Oil companies are in the game to make a profit. Don't like it? Use less gas. I just bought a house a mile from where I work and I traded in my gas guzzling SUV three years ago and now drive a smaller, much more fuel efficient vehicle. Gas could double in price and it would have zero effect on me. You are responsible for the fact that you drive a gas guzzling SUV and that you live an hour away from where you work. Oil companies didn't make those decisions. You did because oil was cheap.</p> <p>Oil prices will never be what they were. Rising demand in India and China will only increase as their economies grow and we are running out of places to drill for cheap oil. Due to high taxes, Europeans and Canadians have been living with gas this expensive for 10 plus years. Stop your bitching and whining and put the blame where it belongs. On you for being a fucking idiot and making yourself so dependent on cheap gas.</p> <p>Ditch your hummer and buy a small fuel efficient vehicle and sell you McMansion an hour from where you work and move no further than 15 or 20 minutes away from your place of employment. You will save a shit load of cash, add an extra hour or two of free time to your schedule, help the environment and stick it to the oil companies all at the same time. But why do something that inconveniences you and actually solves the problem when you can do nothing and blame it on others and/or cry to the government to get involved? Americans went from a self sufficient, can do population to a can't do anything but complain and ask the government for help population in 3 generations. Life is so much easier for people today compared to 100 years ago and all you people bitch like it's the end of the world when something fucking stupid like gas prices increases. Thank fucking God that you even have a car in the first place. Billions of people went their entire lives without them. You'll live. Pussies. </p>

  • May 22, 2008, 1:18 p.m. CST


    by Brians Life

    I agree that was not my best argument, friend. Although, it was in the context of attempting to get some one to admit it was a possibility. Hence the enhanced plausibility of it all.<br><br> The relevance of biblical influence is simple...there are those sects that believe that environmental destruction is a necessity for the Rapture. OR conversely there are those that believe that man is incapable of changing the Earth. OR there are those that think climate change is God's punishment.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:20 p.m. CST


    by Brians Life

    What about the farmer that requires a fixed amount of gas everyday!?! What about the millions of deisel trucks on America's highways and bi-ways that are the backbone of our economy? Do we just tell Joe Trucker to move closer to his next drop off?!?!?

  • May 22, 2008, 1:22 p.m. CST

    I agree that there are sects that believe weird things

    by bismarckf

    but I'd propose that there was a sect that followed Erlich's "preachings" back in the day... and perhaps they still do. Conversely, while I believe that we should move to cleaner solutions than oil, I also believe that the whole "green" concept has become a religious movement.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Couglin...I'm not an Al gore zombie...

    by Brians Life

  • May 22, 2008, 1:24 p.m. CST


    by Brians Life

    ...I don't even recycle, dude!

  • May 22, 2008, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Inspired casting but the movie will suck

    by Proman1984

    Just like Dubya? By the way, what does this have to do with Indy 4?

  • May 22, 2008, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Dammit, Coughlin....

    by Brians Life

    Just when I thought we were getting somewhere.<br><br>You're right, I don't need proof. I need evidence. I take the evidence that surrounds me and I come up with the BEST possibly explanation that everything i have tells me at that time. <br><br>You can further use this strange idea to explain all the inaccuracies you've been preaching about. <br><br>I mean, I can understand why Christians have a tough time accepting Global warming. It flies in the face of what they accept as doctrine...

  • May 22, 2008, 1:28 p.m. CST

    TED DASON!?!?!

    by Brians Life

    We are trying to have a serious conversation here and you toss in Ted Danson's ocean obsession!?! Now, I have to accept that you are simply trying to make me laugh.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Hammy acting reflects bias

    by Sword of Damocles

    I've got no love for Cheney, but I have to say that I've seen ol' Hooper do a "portrayal" of Alexander Haig on the History Channel, and he played him like Ming the merciless with the hammy evil laughing. So much for historical accuracy. Dreyfuss sux, but oh, wait! so does Stone!

  • May 22, 2008, 1:30 p.m. CST

    And one told Columbus...

    by Brians Life

    ...that he was gonna sail off the side of the world. At that point, most educated men knew the world was round.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:30 p.m. CST

    electric cars

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    will make their own electricity, just as the hybrids power up their own batteries. there is a huge possibility of then we'll plug them into our houses, stay with me here, and our houses will pull power from our cars.<p>no shit.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:31 p.m. CST


    by BurgerTime

    Asking Canada to open up the spigots isn't actually possible, since nearly all of Canada's oil reserves reside in tar sands. The process for extracting usible oil from tar sands is quite different than simply pumping it out of the ground like the Saudi's do. It's very labour and resource intensive, not to mention much more expensive. So Canada, over time, will probably ramp up production, but it will essentially plateau at a certain point due to the inefficiency of the process. <p> The era of cheap oil is nearly coming to an end, and the only way we'll be able to offset the rising costs will be to begin switching to alternative fuels or power sources.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Bimark...the problem with that comparison

    by Brians Life

    ...climate change is quantifiable. We can make observations and experimentation. I agree that there are just as many secular people "looking for answers" and they even tend to smack of the pulpit a bit. However, science is constantly changing...that's the beauty of it, not the flaw.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:33 p.m. CST

    this MEANS something!

    by TheBaxter

    namely, that this film will STILL be stupid and pointless.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Brians Life

    by Luscious.868

    There's nothing that can be done about that until alternative fuels are mainstream. We'll have to deal with higher prices for goods. Guess what, if you ditch the McMansion and the gas guzzler you'll pay less for your mortgage and you'll save a shitload in gas, you can then use your savings to offset the higher prices.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Can Ash be in this?

    by andrew coleman

    And beat the shit out of all of them at the end? I really hate the administration I don't blame them for everything but they are evil mother fuckers. Also all you blind supporters who are trying to call everyone out even Obama supporters I have one question for you: If you are such a believer why are you not fighting in Bush's war? If you support him so much shouldn't you join up and fight the good fight over there? Because if not you're full of shit because you say all these things through a talk back but you don't have the balls to join up and fight your presidents just war. Pussies. Also who ever said gas prices will never be the same you were right on! It is on our backs to change our life styles, don't drive SUV's and move closer to work.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Fucking Perfect

    by PotSmokinAlien

    Elizabeth Banks is really the only major WTF choice in this so far... this thing ain't gonna be the orgiastic conspiracy bonanza it ought to be, but I'm still real interested.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Brians Life

    by bismarckf

    You're painting most (if not all) Christians with an awfully big brush. I know many Christians who dispute global warming not on religious bounds but because of scientific ones. (cf 31,000 scientists)

  • May 22, 2008, 1:38 p.m. CST

    the issue of gas prices

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    is all about supply and demand, as a few folks have mentioned. if we didn't consume like, one third of the worlds fossil fuels, we wouldn't be in the state we're in. we should have been looking into alternative long long ago. like, circa 1975.<p>but we weren't, we were shortsighted and reactionary, so we need to deal with it now.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Lucious...dude...we agree.

    by Brians Life

    I agree that high gas prices are here for good...sorry, HIGHER and HIGHER.<br><br>I just think that calling people pussies for bitching about high gas isn't really fair. I mean Johnny Tobacco Farmer isn't living in a McMansion, yet there is this liquid that runs all his toys. He NEEDS that liquid until some one comes along iwht another liquid.<br><br>I think that the relative inexpense of gas in this country is the only thing keeping alot of people from just losing their fucking minds.<br><br>Americans only want three things: cold beer, cheap gas, and a place to shit with a door on it.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:41 p.m. CST


    by just pillow talk

    You are assuming that everyone has a McMansion and a gas guzzler. I most assuredly do not.<p>However, I work in a town that is filled with millionaires, and I can tell you that they are not affected by this increase in gas (from what I can see based upon what they are driving). The gas stations in this town have always been $0.30 - 0.40 more a gallon than the surrounding towns, so they could care less how big their car is or how high gas goes. There's a freak'n hummer dealership right across the street from where I work, though it seems those sales have dropped significantly recently.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:42 p.m. CST

    shoulda cast john stewart as cheney

    by bacci40

    he does the best impression of that evil bastard

  • May 22, 2008, 1:42 p.m. CST

    As much as I hate to say it

    by Hawaiian Organ Donor

    High gas prices are good. I don't want those ball washing bastards at the oil companies making more profits (watching those guys testify yesterday made my stomach turn), but the U.S., China and India need a reality check. People in this country are STILL buying SUVs and the government has set fuel efficiency caps so far in the future it's laughable.<p>No permanent change comes without suffering and sacrifice and that's what it's going to take to knock some sense into Americans and Chinese.<p>With regard to the refineries, I read somewhere recently that efficiency upgrades are being performed on our existing refineries to the point where their output is being improved enough that is it the equivalent on building a new refinery every year. So near as I can tell our output isn't the problem, its' that our consumption is WAY TOO GODDAMN MUCH, us and the Chinese and the Indians.<p>And stop complaining about not being allowed to drill in Alaska. Just trade in the Hummer. Cut down the dependence.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:46 p.m. CST


    by Brians Life

    I also know many Christians that dispute global warming on scientific grounds. I also know many that fully accept Global Warming. And those that refuse to accept that it's real. Cool that we're in the same club, huh? <br><br>That SAID, I am an atheist that finds the idea that Christianity has endured as long as it has laughable (hah...see?).

  • May 22, 2008, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Gatsbys West Egg Omlet...nice revisionist bullshit

    by bacci40

    carter passed through an energy policy, that had it not been gutted by both reagan and bush 1, wouldve indeed weened us off of fossil fuels...and the current cost of fuel has nothing to do with supply and demand, and everything to do with a weak dollar and speculators....

  • May 22, 2008, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Alright, enough of this gay banter...

    by Brians Life

    ...gotta go get caffeinated and try to get some fuckin' work done. Good luck changin' the world, fellas. Peace.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:55 p.m. CST

    so scrap the SUVs.

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    everyone saw how well the SmartCar did in crash tests. the (illusion of) safety issue isn't an excuse any more. buy a smaller car, or drive less, or both.

  • May 22, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Should've been James Earl Jones in whiteface!

    by blackmantis

  • May 22, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST

    You're an ATHEIST?!?

    by bismarckf

    Hell, I couldn't tell! ;)

  • May 22, 2008, 2:07 p.m. CST


    by fassbinder79

    If any of you doubt Dreyfuss playing Cheney check out a film called The Day Reagan Was Shot. He was brilliant playing Haig in that film. Stone produced that I believe. Very excited to hear about this casting news. This might turn out strong after all.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:15 p.m. CST


    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    a) i'm not sure how i'm a revisionist. because i mentioned 1975? because i wasn't alive for Carter's presidency?<p>b)i know the weak dollar has to have a lot to do with it, but that doesn't change the fact that we are using more oil than we should, and fighting wars over it that we have no business fighting, and diverting tons of funds away from where it should be: reducing consumption.<p>its pointless to argue over who is the bad guy in this whole oil mess. fact is we've got a fucking mess to deal with. we should be dealing with it, not holding on to an archaic lifestyle that will soon go the way of the dinosaurs (oil pun).

  • May 22, 2008, 2:16 p.m. CST

    I would like everyone to reduce the amount of oil ...

    by Shan

    ... being burned for fuel and replaced with alternatives where possible. Because we also need the oil to make plastics out of. That's not too contentious a statement to make, is it?

  • May 22, 2008, 2:17 p.m. CST

    if Carter had an answer,

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    thats fantastic. its a damn shame it didn't stick.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:19 p.m. CST


    by codymr

    Have to agree with you chap.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:21 p.m. CST

    You (US) pays $4 a gallon, we (Australia) pay ...

    by Shan

    ... $6 US a gallon or more, in the UK it's probably closer to $10 US a gallon. I wonder how much higher the US price can get without major disruption in people's lives?

  • May 22, 2008, 2:23 p.m. CST

    i agree, Shan.

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    imagine what will happen when the computer industry is hit with a petroleum shortage. lots of iPod components could be made with a years worth of oil.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:33 p.m. CST

    this is all really touching but

    by Richard Richard Mayhew

    That all of you are applying the same "every person has a valid opinion" ethic that works on an entertainment talkback to conversations revolving around ECONOMICS and POLITICS. Frankly, though it may seem superficial on my part, I refuse to take any serious advice or take seriously the opinion of people named "WeinerPenis," "GatsbysWestEggOmlet" (though this one does point toward a higher education of some sort,)or "Luscious.868."

  • May 22, 2008, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Chinese owned corps drilling for oil 50 miles off Florida

    by Darth_Inedible

    And that oil goes straight to China to be sold at far, far below market value while we're not allowed to touch any of the oil on our side of the border. China is also buying whole fields in Africa with the goal of creating a market-proof supply while we cower as Chavez nationalizes Exxon's operation in Venezuela.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Dick Cheney is pure evil...

    by BadWaldosRevenge

    So evil it humbles Emperor Palpatine. Treason's best friend. Hope Mr Holland doesn't ham it up, just play it straight and win a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for portraying one of the most villainous American government officers in U.S. History.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:41 p.m. CST

    This is hilarious casting

    by Razorback

    The biggest liberal cry babies are going to portray everyone in the Bush administration. I think a Michael Moore movie is less biased than this one will be.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:44 p.m. CST

    blackmantis, or at least have JEJ do the voiceover

    by poeticwarriorIII

  • May 22, 2008, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Darth_Inedible, Can you get a link to that info?

    by poeticwarriorIII

    That shit is unbelievable although it's probably true.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:50 p.m. CST

    welcome back pathetic warrior

    by g-ride9000

    you ready for some more of my pudding?

  • May 22, 2008, 2:56 p.m. CST

    For some reason my brain blanked out and I thought they had cast

    by Neosamurai85

    THAT would be an evil performance. That said, this is yet another smart casting choice. Dick is all about the cold frankness of his plane speech. I could see Dreyfuss pulling that off, and they do sound similar when Dreyfuss speaks softly. I mean... shit. I might actually have to sit through this movie. The casting is just too interesting.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:57 p.m. CST


    by Series7

    Dryfuss could be interesting. Though his voice is very nasal AICN TB'er sounding.

  • May 22, 2008, 2:59 p.m. CST


    by bismarckf You could argue the slant of something called "" but it references an item in the Orlando Sun-Sentinel

  • May 22, 2008, 3 p.m. CST

    Outside of the politics...

    by ed2ward

    I'm just enjoying the fact that Peter David suggested this bit of casting in an open letter to Oliver Stone on his blog a little over a week ago.

  • May 22, 2008, 3 p.m. CST

    ginrei724 and Coughlins Laws are right on the money...

    by waitingimpatientlyforingloriousbastards

    and Brians Life, could you be any more of a sterotypical obnoxious liberal?

  • May 22, 2008, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Isn't cheney a big guy? He's gotta be 6'2 at least

    by Tarl_Cabot

    Dryfuss is not a big guy. This cast is absurd save for Brolin.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:04 p.m. CST

    WTF? Is lost not on tonight?

    by GQtaste

    I looked for the new talkback and checked the local listing and saw that that chick show is on for two hours. Man, I was really looking foward tonight for Lost.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Who plays Victor Ashe, W's gay lover?

    by EvilWizardGlick

    I'm thinking one of the Wayans.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:12 p.m. CST


    by Sithdan

     Nope, ABC's airing its two-hour season finale of that crappy Grey's Anatomy show instead. The best show on television returns for its season finale next Thursday night.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Dreyfuss, Tinman version of Cheney?

    by EvilWizardGlick

    He must have been practicing with his Tinman role.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Shan, Gallon or Liter?

    by EvilWizardGlick

    Liter is larger than a gallon.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:15 p.m. CST

    so a thin effeminate man

    by smackfu

    is set to play an intense intimidating man with a giant head?

  • May 22, 2008, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Coughlins Laws, Meds baby meds.

    by EvilWizardGlick

    dude read up we are so fucked. <p> Spend some time at Whatreallyhappenned,, Counterpunch, Dissident Voice and StopmebeforeIvoteagain. Get some REAL perspective instead of the single party hash you spewed above.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:18 p.m. CST

    smackfu, Yes. Cheney has an ENORMOUS head.

    by EvilWizardGlick

    Big head. Very little brain.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Ellen for Dicks gay daughter.

    by EvilWizardGlick

    Really who gets cast as the gay daughter?

  • May 22, 2008, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Richard Richard Mayhew

    by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet

    of course you won't take anything on here seriously. neither will anyone else. no opinions will change, and thats the way we want it. this isn't a place to persuade or reason or even argue.<p>this is a place to bitch. and then bitch at other people who bitch about what we bitch about. and chances are, those bitches don't know half as much about what they say they know about as we know about the shit we say we know about, which usually isn't half as much as we say we do.<p>got it?

  • May 22, 2008, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Anti-Bush Movies

    by GlamDaToeHammer

    They will only go so far.. people ultimately would rather see a real movie this time around.. it's getting old the whole power/oil monger conspiracy crap.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:32 p.m. CST

    imperial ruler cheney gives this movie

    by alice 13

    0 shotgun shells.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Richard Dreyfuss actually is a TOTAL DICK

    by maxbrown

    I have a friend who went to the high school where Mr. Holland's Opus was filmed. There's an anecdote from on set in which Dreyfuss is smoking in one of the classrooms. When asked politely by the principle to smoke outside, Dreyfuss casually extinguishes his cigarette in her coffee cup. Richard Dreyfuss sounds absolutely perfect for this role.

  • May 22, 2008, 3:46 p.m. CST

    What happened to Shrub "jawboning OPEC"

    by Dingbatty

    Guess he was too busy holding hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah (shameful for our President to hold hands with a monarch).

  • May 22, 2008, 3:58 p.m. CST

    You must be this tall to ride this ride...

    by RetroActive

    Dreyfuss is a midget, for crying out loud! That auomatically disqualifies him from being or pretending to be an executive on any level!

  • May 22, 2008, 4:07 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    That is all.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Stone seems way too busy...

    by Kragmose

    I thought he was retired? <p> He should.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Will he method act and have his soul removed?

    by TheAFLACDuck

    Just askin'.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Burger Time

    by chuckmc

    That is my point exactly, made in a round about way. Asking oil producing nations to "ramp up" production on a finite resource so that America can have cheap gasoline is pointless. BTW, I have worked for energy companies involved in the Oil Sands in Fort Mac. There is potentially much more oil there than in all of Saudi Arabia and the province of Alberta is sitting pretty.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:25 p.m. CST

    CAN'T WAIT!!!

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    This film by a bunch of hyper-liberal panty wastes will be just the type of OCTOBER SURPRISE that Dan Rather provided in 2004!!! <p>When the voting electorate shows just how HATEFUL and VINDICTIVE the Hollywood supporters of the left wing are -- that they would even try to REWRITE HISTORY -- they are certain to reject the object of their affection, for which they have been attached and humping the leg of Barack Hussein Obama like a male dog in heat! </p>Obama was already going to lose. Now it looks like he will lose with even greater indignity! Thank God! </p>Have a great day!

  • May 22, 2008, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Saudi and Oil Price

    by chuckmc

    OK WeinerPenis, post your numbers to prove that "no one influences the price of oil more than the Saudis". You are talking out of ass, in your usual belligerent manner. The Saudis have no more or less influence on the price of oil than most other oil producing countries.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:34 p.m. CST

    I Wonder...

    by MarkWhittington

    If there will be a scene of Cheney sacrificing babies to the Dark Ones. Or maybe drinking the blood of a liberal.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Oil Sands

    by chuckmc

    Another point that oil production in Fort Mac is very labor intensive, but at a cost of 9 to 12 dollars a barrel to produce but selling for over $100, it is not expensive to produce. Also you cannot say the Canadian economy is brittle, it is certainly weathering the current global slowdown much better than the US. The Michigan governor has been complaining about all the manufacturing jobs they have lost to Ontario because the big 3 do not have to pay for health care in Canada.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:37 p.m. CST

    He played Karl Rove in that mess of

    by emeraldboy

    a movie from John Sayles, i think it was sayles. Having watched Rory Bremner, I think Ken Morley should play cheney. Morley played Reg in Coronation Street. Looks like Cheney.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Props to Peter David!

    by Steve Rogers

    He called this on his blog just recently! Nice one, PAD.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:41 p.m. CST

    I think there should be a rule

    by emeraldboy

    to prevent Dynastic politics in the USA. You have bush followed by the clintons, followed by bush. It has to stop.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:47 p.m. CST

    There will be nothing to stop

    by emeraldboy

    Chelsea Clinton running for High office. Depends who wins in november. But if the republicans do. Hillary will hand over the democratic party to her daughter. Chelsea for president. It would be hillary's way of getting revenge on the party. Michelle obama will hand the election to the republicans. that will happen on convention day. Republicans will say afterwards do you really want this woman as first lady?

  • May 22, 2008, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Oil Wells

    by chuckmc

    Also, the notion that you can just "turn up the spigot" on an oil well is just plain false. It takes allot of engineering just to get oil out of the ground (typically you only get about 1/3 of the oil that is there out of a trap), costs about a million dollars a hole to put in another well, which may be a net zero increase of production if it is on the same reserve. No matter if we are talking about oil sands, land or marine oil it is not a simple matter to increase production.

  • May 22, 2008, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Damn You Michael Bay


    Damn You Michael Bay

  • May 22, 2008, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Sithdan & "economic ruin" etc.

    by jorson28

    What would you have them do? Regulate (further) the oil industry? Give me a break - I doubt even the Democrats would be that audacious. Besides, you say the country is in economic ruin and I say most Americans don't know what real economic ruin is. As bad as Bush has been as a President ina lot of ways (lowering taxes and then going to war = dumb idea), you couldn't make the Democrats' socialist "solutions" for the economy and healthcare work unless you they had time to settle in and work out their kinks, time for the country to adjust. That means having a Democratic Executive and Legisltative branch to guide them for at least eight to twelve years (like FDR), and then if you tried to expand those programs you'd turn the U.S. into the former Soviet Union - a big country where virtually everyone but the government is lower-middle-class or poverty-level. Personally, I couldn't stand the idea of universal healthcare coverage because it's essentially Medicare on a nationwide scale. That program (along with Social Security) is practically busted right now and even the politicians agree that you'd practically have to FORCE everyone to submit to government coverage for it to really work. It would make every hospital in the country look like the worst, most overcrowded emergency room in any ghetto, treating patients as they come because everyone's got the same insurance. People with more urgent needs would likely die waiting before they got the surgeries they needed. In Canada, you already have some people waiting up to a year or more for basic heart surgeries. In any case, if "Dubya" is too vulgar and satiric, Stone will have shot his own party in the foot. As much money as Michael Moore's 2004 documentary film "Fahrenheit 911" made, guess who won re-election? You think those tactics do any good at all? I doubt many voters liked the idea of the biggest mouthpiece for the Democratic party being someone like that, barely caring about how accurate he is and leading the slacker uprising. In other words, who wants to vote for a party that mostly represents slackers? The more outrageous, vulgar and mean spirited the criticism of the Republicans, the more harm is done to the Democratic party's chances of getting into office. Of course, barely anyone here is going to believe me, and if there's any response to this post it's probably going to be some childish string of vulgar insults and name calling with a few "facts" sprinkled in to prove me wrong. Go ahead - support Stone's and others' actions and see if it accomplishes anything.

  • May 22, 2008, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Regulation of Oil Industry

    by chuckmc

    Regulation of the oil industry does not work, they tried it in Canada in the 1970s (called the Nation Energy Program) and had to quickly kill it because it was a big disaster. Now to turn this talk back into a debate about health care! The best thing the US can do to control health care costs is to have the government take control of the health care insurance industry. This is what they did in Canada in the 1960s. Not perfect, but Canadians live 3 years longer than Americans and morbidity rates are statistically identical for all major diseases between Canada and the US. Yes wait times are an issue, but that is because resources are allocated based on need, not ability to pay. My cousin's husband in Vancouver waited 6 weeks for his heart bypass surgery this year, and he was deemed "low risk". If he was deemed higher risk, he would of got in faster. And his heart surgeon went to med school at Yale.

  • May 22, 2008, 5:22 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    That is morbidity rates for patients in the health care system. Those Americans who cannot afford health care treatment are, as the French say, FUCKED.

  • May 22, 2008, 5:28 p.m. CST

    He tried once,

    by roojdeko

    ... doesn´t anyone remember he gave politics a shot in "American President" as Michael Douglas' nemesis in that picture. Not extraordinary work, but it was a start.

  • May 22, 2008, 5:49 p.m. CST

    This is a 'Hate' Movie

    by CrazyGnome

    We have important issues this country needs to work through. Can't wait to get started with Obama. Spending energy hating someone that will be judged harshly by history seems like a waste of our time. I should start a group to help drive our country to focus on important issues... I will call it "Move on" or some such.

  • May 22, 2008, 6:10 p.m. CST

    chuckmc Health Care?

    by Craig2574

    You think your HMO is bad wait till the government gets it hands on our health care. It will make your HMO look wonderful!

  • May 22, 2008, 6:11 p.m. CST

    wouldn't Dreyfuss be perfect for the role of...

    by thomasjarvis

    John McCain?! Seriously, picture the classic Dreyfuss sarcasm and patented sneer, that snow white hair, that quiet and self-assured yet no-nonsence tough as nails tone of voice...Dreyfuss for the starring role in Oliver Stone's McFilthy!!

  • May 22, 2008, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Just another flop in the making. Seriously..

    by Cotton McKnight

    who backs these projects? Even when they are supposedly good (like that MTV movie a few months ago- stop loss or something), nobody sees it. We just aren't in the mood as a country. I am speaking purely in terms of box office. It's just ridiculous. I say this movie makes 10 -15 million, tops. As far as casting goes, why not just get that stupid President from The Day After Tomorrow? The guy that "apologized" to the rest of the world.

  • May 22, 2008, 6:24 p.m. CST

    I swear I am not making a racist remark.

    by Cotton McKnight

    Yeah I am white, but the love of my life was an african american girl. So I SWEAR I am not trying to start something here. But it has to be said: Michelle Obama looks like Zira from planet of the apes. She really does. They even have the same hairstyle!

  • May 22, 2008, 6:24 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    I don't have an HMO, they are for suckers. What is worse than a HMO, is NOT HAVING ANY HEALTH CARE AT ALL. Given that the US has a lower life expectancy than Canada and most of Europe, the US health care system does not do a very good job on average for its citizens relative to the rest of the first world nations.

  • May 22, 2008, 6:30 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    Are you done talking out of your ass? Good. Go sell your SUV and buy a smart car, or win a lottery. Your choice.

  • May 22, 2008, 7:04 p.m. CST

    June, July, August, September, October

    by SnootyBoots

    Is this movie really going to be in theatres in 5 months?

  • May 22, 2008, 7:34 p.m. CST

    good casting-that's all...

    by shane420nsf

    I actually thought watching Dreyfuss recently on the Jaws DVD bonus features that he looked just like ole Dick-can't believe everyone's getting so political on here,though-little off-topic???

  • May 22, 2008, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Cotton, I Swear...

    by Rebeck2

    I would be calling you every name in the book - if I just wasn't laughing so hard. See, it's funny because it's truuuue.

  • May 22, 2008, 7:38 p.m. CST


    by shane420nsf

    ...there's a tiny little caucasian woman ai my gym who looks EXACTLY like Dr Zira as well-the same facial expression,eyes,little haircut-everything. She cracxks me up everytime I see her cuz I just want her to say "I loathe bananas!" or "Bright-eyes!"

  • May 22, 2008, 8:07 p.m. CST

    kingdom of the crystal skull blew ass

    by Prossor

  • May 22, 2008, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Cheney raped my country

    by Uncle Stan

    up the ass.

  • May 22, 2008, 8:50 p.m. CST

    More 'Richard Dreyfuss is a real asshole' stories!

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    Pretty please? We all know by heart how everyone feels about 'W'

  • May 22, 2008, 8:54 p.m. CST


    by samsquanch

    I was hoping they wouldn't cast an actor, and just go with a sort of arty abstract concept-of-human-evil kind of thing...

  • May 22, 2008, 9:09 p.m. CST

    Oliver Stone=William Castle

    by thegreatwhatzit

    Bush is an easy target. Stone is Bush's corporate Hollywood equivalent. Zip talent, all hype. And he's as big a liar as Hillary Clinton. Fuming over merchandising just when he wrapped PLATOON, Stone promptly struck a deal to profit from PLATOON board and video games. On the eve of JFK's premiere, Stone made a melodramatic appearance on NIGHTLINE: "Someone's out to kill me, Ted. It's probably the FBI. They're upset because my movie tells the truth" (of course, we later learned that JFK was founded only on speculation). It was a shameless gimmick, though I suspect that William Castle was smiling. When his lethary-popping ALEXANDER deservedly died at the boxoffice, Stone told European reporters, "You know why the film died? Because America is homophobic!" Stone is the Uwe Bolle of megabuck movies. And I didn't intend to compare him to William Castle--it's an insult to Castle. My own shameless plug: Viva Obama.

  • May 22, 2008, 9:20 p.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    Its time us movie fans united and kicked these political monkeys off our site.

  • May 22, 2008, 9:26 p.m. CST


    by thegreatwhatzit

    Didn't he (literally) slap an AICN staffer on the set of the sorry-ass POSEIDON ADVENTURE remake?

  • May 22, 2008, 9:37 p.m. CST

    We're gonna need a bigger Quail

    by G100

    Mwuuaaahhh! I say they pixelate his face to make it extra authentic. And while Stone is at it he could show us what Cheney keeps in his man sized safe in his office.... (A Question worthy of any amount of JFK style conspiracies)<p> <p>$135 a barrel and it's still only May. Wonder what it'll be by November ? (along of course with the knock on price hikes in almost every industry that uses Road Haulage like the Food industry.)

  • May 22, 2008, 9:41 p.m. CST

    I thought you were gonna say Dennis Hopper

    by BurgerKing

    But you said Hooper...I might have seen the movie if it were Hopper..

  • May 22, 2008, 9:43 p.m. CST


    by BurgerTime

    I agree. This situation has been brewing for a long time. Oil companies wouldn't talk about it officially, but people in the industry (I have a cousin who works in the oil and gas fields in Alberta, and a neighbour who works for a certain oil company in Huston) have been saying for a while that the era of plentiful oil is coming to an end. Why? More countries are competing for a finite resource, the deposits that are online right now are working at peak capacity, and the reserves that are being discovered are smaller or becoming harder and harder to access (ie. in remote or logistically difficult areas) <p> So, we've got to come to terms with the fact that, as oil gets more expensive because there's only so much to share with mushrooming global demand, we either drive more efficient cars and trucks, find other ways to power them, or start walking. <p> In the end, I have faith we'll make the right choices and come out on top, but it's going to be a painful transition, and a helluva long time before it's resolved to any degree.

  • May 22, 2008, 9:45 p.m. CST


    by BurgerTime

    And Dryfuss better be handy with a shotgun.

  • May 22, 2008, 9:49 p.m. CST


    by Super Nintendo Chalmers

    It seems like the people who were at each others throats in the first couple of "W" casting talkbacks have been replaced with new names debating the same tired shit. Unfortunately for me I thought the title of the article said "HOPPER to be a Dick in Oliver Stone's DUBYA!" Now Dennis Hopper would have been great for Cheney. At first I was against this movie, thinking that it wouldn't be critical enough for the liberals- and for the conservatives... well even a hint of something being against their team drives them into slobbering convulsions. So I didn't understand whom this movie was for. Now I believe that it's for the cynics. The people all across the political spectrum who started off eight years ago filled with either fear or excitement, then went through the most embarrassing part of the last century of American history- filled with a collapsing economy, 400% increases in gas prices, and hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis dead. Not to mention being owned by China (You guys enjoy spending the tax refunds that were paid for with borrowed Chinese money on lead tainted Chinese goods?). These cynics are at the point of numbness- things are so awful that it's hard to even be enraged anymore. These people may find it amusing to see Josh Brolin smirking through a couple of hours of born-again nonsense. Hell, it’s starting to sound amusing to me.

  • May 22, 2008, 9:52 p.m. CST


    by Super Nintendo Chalmers

    That Hopper thing was the whole reason I clicked on the story. And J-Dizzle, I agree. I will never post another political thing on this site. I hope. Sometimes it's hard to control myself.

  • May 22, 2008, 9:53 p.m. CST


    by Super Nintendo Chalmers

    Maybe the smoke monster from Lost? Okay, last one, swear.

  • May 22, 2008, 10:35 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    How can you not expect a political talk back for a political movie? If you don't want to talk politics, stick to non political movie talk backs. If you want simplistic one sided rah-rah banter, go to the Fox news website.

  • May 22, 2008, 10:42 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    How can you not expect a political talk back for a political movie? If you don't want to talk politics, stick to non political movie talk backs. If you want simplistic one sided rah-rah banter, go to the Fox news website.

  • May 22, 2008, 10:42 p.m. CST

    Here we go again...

    by Yabba the Mutt

    I hope this is the last post about casting for this movie because with each new one we keep reading the same Bush hate. You don't like him, fine. You disagree with his policies, fine. That's your right. But there are people that call him and Cheney evil and compare Bush to Hitler and everything. All I have to say is get some freakin' perspective people. Bush is not trying to round up all Muslims and send them to gas chambers. He's not hell bent on world domination. People say we're less safe... I haven't seen any other attacks on America since 9/11. Bush gets blamed for 9/11 because he was in office 9 months. Like al Qaeda just planned all that in the 9 months that Bush was president. It took years. Meanwhile we were attacked how many times when Clinton was president and he didn't do a damn thing about it?! At least 4 that I can remember. Then on one hand you have those that say Bush is a bumbling idiot and he's stupid and doesn't know how to breathe without asking. Then on the other you have those that say he's this evil genius and that he stole the election from Gore, and was the mastermind behind 9/11, and planned all that just so he and his "oil baron" cronies could invade Iraq and steal all it's oil. Which caricature is it. Can't have it both ways. Speaking of oil, since everyone is complaining about record oil prices and record profits and whatnot, here's some food for thought: oil prices and gas prices have remained pretty steady throughout Bush's presidency... until the Democrats took over Congress in '06. Am I saying they are responsible? Of course not. Just showing you how easy it is to assign blame and make people that are in power look guilty over something they really have no control over. Want a reason for high gas prices? It's called a weak dollar right now. Oil is traded on the dollar and it's really low now. Even el Badri at OPEC has said this. Everyone knows our economy has it's ups and downs. Right now we're at a lull. The prices will drop when the dollar gets stronger. Probably not before the end of the summer but most likely before the end of the year. Now I voted for Bush but I'm no shill for him. He's obviously not the best president we've had. I have issues with how he handled the war, he could respect our allies a little more, he spends way too much, and he really has no illegal immigration policy to speak of. It troubles me that some people (on both sides) can't separate a person's political ideology from the actual person. It's "well that Republican thinks we should build a fence on the Mexican border, so he's intolerant towards Hispanics" or on the flip side "that Democrat wants to leave Iraq so he's un-patriotic". Oh please. What ever happened to civil discourse and competing in the arena of ideas but in the end, still respecting the other person? Sorry this post is so long. Just wanted to put my two cents in.

  • May 22, 2008, 10:43 p.m. CST

    AP report confirms: Bush Doctrine has worked

    by AntoniusBloc

    an AP report has confirmed that the Bush doctrine has worked against terrorism throuhout the world. According to the report , "The Human Security Brief 2007 said that without the figures from Iraq, fatalities from terrorism have declined by some 40 percent since 2001." 40 percent! Now use simple logic: terrorism against civilians throughout the world has decreased, except in Iraq. The terrorists have to defend their own territory, their own region. President Bush has successfully brought the fight to them where the terrorists just can't blow up civilians but have to face trained soldiers with guns. By forcing the battle on them, President Bush has made the rest of the world safer and is realistically closer to ending what was once a growing international threat in islamic fascist terrorists. Here's a link to the entire article: <p> </p> Now, as bad as our economy is now, imagine how even worse it would be if we had to endure multiple terrorist attacks on the level of 9/11...imagine it with even multiple attacks not quite the scale of 9/11...yet we have had none on our soil, but we still feel the effects of the original attack. If anything President Bush has saved this economy from a situation much worse. Can't wait to see the Bush Haters rationalize the FACTS of this article, which makes Stone look like the biggest idiot for attempting to bash a President who has sacrificed his poopularity, here and around the world, to keep us safe. A President who is willing to lead. Expect that the declining number of terrorist attacks to rise if a weak spined Democrat is elected who places our troops in danger this very moment by setting timetables and emboldening the enemies of the world: the islamic fascist terrorists.

  • May 22, 2008, 10:44 p.m. CST

    g-ride9000, you bag of dog shit...

    by poeticwarriorIII

    I understand you want to hump my leg but please try to control yourself dumb ass. You're my number 1 fan though and I appreciate that cunt.

  • May 22, 2008, 10:44 p.m. CST

    Here we go again...

    by Yabba the Mutt

    I hope this is the last post about casting for this movie because with each new one we keep reading the same Bush hate. You don't like him, fine. You disagree with his policies, fine. That's your right. But there are people that call him and Cheney evil and compare Bush to Hitler and everything. All I have to say is get some freakin' perspective people. Bush is not trying to round up all Muslims and send them to gas chambers. He's not hell bent on world domination. People say we're less safe... I haven't seen any other attacks on America since 9/11. Bush gets blamed for 9/11 because he was in office 9 months. Like al Qaeda just planned all that in the 9 months that Bush was president. It took years. Meanwhile we were attacked how many times when Clinton was president and he didn't do a damn thing about it?! At least 4 that I can remember. Then on one hand you have those that say Bush is a bumbling idiot and he's stupid and doesn't know how to breathe without asking. Then on the other you have those that say he's this evil genius and that he stole the election from Gore, and was the mastermind behind 9/11, and planned all that just so he and his "oil baron" cronies could invade Iraq and steal all it's oil. Which caricature is it. Can't have it both ways. Speaking of oil, since everyone is complaining about record oil prices and record profits and whatnot, here's some food for thought: oil prices and gas prices have remained pretty steady throughout Bush's presidency... until the Democrats took over Congress in '06. Am I saying they are responsible? Of course not. Just showing you how easy it is to assign blame and make people that are in power look guilty over something they really have no control over. Want a reason for high gas prices? It's called a weak dollar right now. Oil is traded on the dollar and it's really low now. Even el Badri at OPEC has said this. Everyone knows our economy has it's ups and downs. Right now we're at a lull. The prices will drop when the dollar gets stronger. Probably not before the end of the summer but most likely before the end of the year. Now I voted for Bush but I'm no shill for him. He's obviously not the best president we've had. I have issues with how he handled the war, he could respect our allies a little more, he spends way too much, and he really has no illegal immigration policy to speak of. It troubles me that some people (on both sides) can't separate a person's political ideology from the actual person. It's "well that Republican thinks we should build a fence on the Mexican border, so he's intolerant towards Hispanics" or on the flip side "that Democrat wants to leave Iraq so he's un-patriotic". Oh please. What ever happened to civil discourse and competing in the arena of ideas but in the end, still respecting the other person? Sorry this post is so long. Just wanted to put my two cents in.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:43 p.m. CST


    by Rebeck2

    I respect your tone and I don't think you're evil, you'll be glad to know, but look into how the Bush administration handled the information the Clinton people gave it on terrorism (which is to say, threw in the trash) and then repeat that ridiculous Republican trope about Clinton being responsible for 9/11. I'm sorry, but what a joke. I love the way Republicans never take responsibility for anything. For instance, you voted for this president and almost everyone agrees he has been an absolute unmitigated disaster. Do you take responsibility for that? Maybe you were completely wrong. And it's not the Holocaust, but thousands of people died for no reason. No reason at all. So, whether he's an idiot or evil doesn't really matter, it's the shitty shape he's left the country and the world in.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:46 p.m. CST


    by Rebeck2

    I respect your tone and I don't think you're evil, you'll be glad to know, but look into how the Bush administration handled the information the Clinton people gave it on terrorism (which is to say, threw in the trash) and then repeat that ridiculous Republican trope about Clinton being responsible for 9/11. I'm sorry, but what a joke. I love the way Republicans never take responsibility for anything. For instance, you voted for this president and almost everyone agrees he has been an absolute unmitigated disaster. Do you take responsibility for that? Maybe you were completely wrong. And it's not the Holocaust, but thousands of people died for no reason. No reason at all. So, whether he's an idiot or evil doesn't really matter, it's the shitty shape he's left the country and the world in.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:47 p.m. CST

    Sorry For The Double Post

    by Rebeck2

  • May 22, 2008, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Fresh shit for the Bush apologist flies to buzz around...

    by BurnHollywood

    But it's kind of like how the morons assert the "Bush Doctrine" works...every keystroke they waste lecturing a bunch of indifferent movie buffs about how Dubya isn't a total shithead is time they could use to campaign for McCain, so it's all good.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:53 p.m. CST

    Fresh shit for the Bush apologist flies to buzz around...

    by BurnHollywood

    But it's kind of like how the morons assert the "Bush Doctrine" works...every keystroke they waste lecturing a bunch of indifferent movie buffs about how Dubya isn't a total shithead is time they could use to campaign for McCain, so it's all good.

  • May 22, 2008, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Lotta repetition tonight...

    by BurnHollywood


  • May 22, 2008, 11:59 p.m. CST

    I hope the movie HAS THE HUNT and Dreyfus rocks

    by Proman1984

    And so does Indy!

  • May 23, 2008, midnight CST


    by poeticwarriorIII

    Holy crap, that's pretty scary shit. While Bush has drug us through a shit storm of little brown people with rocket propelled grenades the rest of the world has been preparing to go on without us. Anyone that thinks our economy is going to bounce back like it always has is a blind cunt. With China having its own price controlled oil supply they will crush us and our puny technology driven economy.

  • May 23, 2008, 12:11 a.m. CST

    Evil Wizard Glick

    by Shan

    1 Gallon = approx 4.55 L And we call them Litres in British English Land. But you can call them Liters if you like.

  • May 23, 2008, 12:20 a.m. CST

    I thought Stone was making

    by Seph_J

    another Vietnam movie... about the awful shit that the yanks did at My Lai in 68. <p> This Bush stuff will be interesting as hell.... but please don't be forgetting the 'nam flick Olly! <p> Oh, and I love you, Mr Stone.

  • May 23, 2008, 12:45 a.m. CST

    Harry To Be A Cunt In Michael Bay's LARDASS!

    by sidestepper

    The story of a politically clueless yet highly knowledgeable film geek.

  • May 23, 2008, 12:52 a.m. CST

    And when I first saw that headline I became

    by Seph_J

    a little dyslexic, and thought it said Hopper.... as in DENNIS THAT would have been good casting!

  • According to one Report the Iraq War was in fact casualty free, without the figures from Iraq. Now using the same "simple" Logic President Bush has defeated every Enemy of Freedom especially in those places we choose to ignore reality. Which would also work for Afghanistan. Thus Iraq and Afghanistan are "Free" despite both now having repressive Fundamentalist Sharia Law and Gang and sectarian warfare on the streets. Why ? because we can choose to ignore this. By ignoring the massive rise in Terrorism since the Disasterous Iraq war and pretending Bin Laden & Al Qaueda aren't free to continue their activities in Northwestern Pakistan & Afghanistan, President Bush has clearly made the rest of the world safer and is realistically closer to ending what was once a growing international threat in islamic fascist commie nazi terrorists. Safe enough to start raising the spectre of hypothetical unimaginable Terrorist violence both in the past and more counterintuitively in the future. (even though this Terrorism has theoretically almost been defeated.)<p> <p>Now, as bad as our economy is now, imagine how even worse it would be if we had to endure multiple terrorist attacks on the level of 9/11...imagine it with even multiple attacks not quite the scale of 9/11... now imagine it with shapeshifting invisible Terrorists and multiple Nuclear Bombs and imaginary W.M.D...NOW imagine a terrrorist under every bed ready to kill everyone you eknow AND their pets while bringing Wall Street to thier knees with Economy destroying Hypnorays. Who looks stupid now ?<p> <p>In the face if such an imaginary threat we need a President who has an imaginary capacity to lead and definitely not a Lame Duck or an older rerun of the incredibly successfull Bush Doctrine, which remember, might plunge us all suddenly into Terrorist Doom if we don't keep doing more of the same.<p> <p>Expect this unparralleled "Mission Accomplished" to end if Democrats Embolden the Enemy by electing a weak spineless President who foolish enough not to keep sending good money and troops endlessly after bad for 100 years into this Quagmire in Vitna... sorry Iraq.

  • May 23, 2008, 1:55 a.m. CST

    Good money after bad endlessly & troops for 100 years

    by G100

    Just to make that last bit crystal clear since the foolishness which almost made me confuse an obvious military Quagmire with Iraq also affected my ability to clearly state the most commonsense route to a succesfull war and economy.

  • May 23, 2008, 2:35 a.m. CST

    Who will play Harry Whittington ? Leslie Nielson ?

    by G100

    I think he could be the man for the job. The Naked ShotGun 44 1/4 - The Cheney of fear.

  • May 23, 2008, 3:48 a.m. CST

    Down like a dollar

    by VoxMillennium

    The US is simply an empire down on its last legs and what we see here is the wriggling of stretched necks in the guillotine before the blade comes down: - Social breakdown: country is completely divided; personal freedoms are corrupted; suspicion and fear rampant. A completely broken down school system lays the groundwork for future massive illiteracy. In the world's self-proclaimed leading economy, 40 million people are living below the poverty line. What’s wrong with this picture? - Economic breakdown: Dollar going down the tubes, in spite of promises of imminent recovery nothing happening. Inability to adapt to changing world markets (classic mistake in empires on the way out; learn form the past!) means America is running after the facts, still thinking guns and oil will keep the inevitable collapse away even though it's clear that the former dependency has had its day. National debt now worth trillions! The US is a third world country economically only kept alive by credit from foreign countries’ willingness to keep supporting the dollar, but that support is dwindling fast and at some point everybody is going to leave the bankrupt country to its own devices and that will be it, preceded by foreign countries just taking over your more viable corporations, so you will not even own your own country, but in the end it will be decided it's simply not worth the effort and the final phase will commence, the US garage sale. - Political breakdown: Apart from the fact that a two party state is not much of a democracy, it's telling that there is no democracy on the planet where its population so much distrusts its own political representation and indeed that's because you don't really have a democracy. You have elections and in 2000 only 50% even bothered to vote and why should they with leadership that’s either morally or ethically corrupt or just plain nuts, but hey as long as they have the nice occasional one-liner during the campaign and/or enough power to rig the results if all else fails? To avert eyes from internal crisis they are directed towards external conflicts that are completely pointless and will only contribute to the breakdown. Good luck with the election, I'm sure whoever wins will make all the difference and turn it all around. America, nice knowing you.

  • May 23, 2008, 5:14 a.m. CST

    Why would anybody fund this movie?

    by irritable

    People who approve of Bush won't buy tickets because it's unlikely, given Stone's public statements over the years, to be flattering. <p> Many people who don't approve of Bush are likely to avoid it, partly because Stone's political movies are so superficial and flaky and partly because Stone is a wildly inconsistent film-maker anyway.<p> The chances of this being an insightful character study or a serious cinematic exercise seem to be close to zero.<p> Not to pre-judge or anything ...

  • May 23, 2008, 5:15 a.m. CST

    2% a very wide margin ? Not like 71% then

    by G100

    yes scraping through by 2% in 2004 is a HUUUUUGE margin of Victory.<p> <p>The all time record Nixon beating 71% Bush disapproval on the other hand, is of course peanuts. A teeny tiny number. Easily forgotten by the American people just like the rest of the last 8 years.<p> <p>That must be why the Dems are printing millions of leaflets with McCain giving Bush a cuddle because they know this Presidency and this Economy and this War are so very, VERY popular.<p> <p>Will the Movie have the guts to portray Bush Golfing though ? As we now know that sort of thing Emboldens the Terrorists and is in fact the only thing capable of upsetting War Veterans and the families of troops who have died.<p> <p>Which is why Dubya Heroically gave up his Golf for his country. A mighty selfless sacrifice in a time of war from a True Patriot and inspirational Hero. (with 71% disapproval ratings for some reason)

  • May 23, 2008, 5:23 a.m. CST

    Damn you, George Lucas!

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Damn you to hell!

  • May 23, 2008, 6:04 a.m. CST


    by David Cloverfield

    I hope you're right. I would watch that movie.

  • May 23, 2008, 6:30 a.m. CST

    Brian Cox Or Philip Seymour Hoffman As Carl Rove Please!!!

    by Media Messiah

    And as Donald Rumsfeld...any sociopath they manage to get off the street. Lastly, Paul Giamatti as John McCain.

  • May 23, 2008, 6:49 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Give him time. He's probably working up another strategy of lies and deceit.

  • May 23, 2008, 7:08 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    If I'd known that I wouldn't have such a low opinion of that cocksucker.

  • May 23, 2008, 7:09 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    I meant President Cocksucker.

  • May 23, 2008, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Toby Jones is cast as Rove

    by irritable

    - according to IMDB.

  • May 23, 2008, 8:19 a.m. CST

    Cheney 08!

    by deSambor

    why not?

  • May 23, 2008, 8:30 a.m. CST

    Bush vs. Alexander the Great :)

    by ricardomontalkhan

    Let's hope this is better then Stone's "Alexander." Hey movie fans check out the hot new blog on blogspot. it's from a disgruntled film producer. it's called thebitterproducer

  • May 23, 2008, 8:38 a.m. CST

    really harry

    by ZO

    way to be a far left kook shotgun wielding maniac evil incarnate sith lord really tell it like it aint

  • May 23, 2008, 8:42 a.m. CST

    -sigh- Cheney shotgun jokes aren't funny anymore.

    by Anna Valerious

    Cheney heart attack jokes, however...still funny. (Yes, I'm a Republican. No, I'm not seeing this film because it'll be a very biased liberal view.)

  • May 23, 2008, 9:13 a.m. CST

    No one will see this

    by Rand92

    Like I said in another talkbalk, the public doesn't want this type of crap coming out of Hollywood. They want to be entertained not forced to sit through the political diatribes of Hollywood elitists and conspiracy theorists. Movies from Hollywood should entertain, not be propaganda. WWII films of the 40s were different because they existed to try and get the country through a tough time by helping, not piling on. Today's Hollywood is so spoiled by the freedoms that so-called American fascist leaders have given them that they cannot see that their films, in any other country, would probably land them in jail. America's problem is not that it is becoming too fascist, but that it has become too free. Freedom of speech allows any asshole with an ax to grind to make political slander based on no hard evidence. You sheep here who buy into the liberal line of thought about Bush only show that you have no clue what it takes to be President and if you did you'd show a lot more respect for the man mistakes and all. No wonder we are a laughing stock in America, the people have no respect or national pride. The number of Americans calling their president evil, an asshole, a murderer, have no fucking idea what it means to truly live under a leader like that. Turn off your computers for a while, get out of your basements and join the real world before you pass judgments on what you don't understand.

  • May 23, 2008, 9:19 a.m. CST

    "so-called fascist leaders"

    by irritable

    What the hell are you talking about?<P> Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution don't exactly fit the fascist profile. Thousands of congressmen, judges and journalists who have supported freedom of speech for hundreds of years can't be equated to Nazis.

  • May 23, 2008, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Or are you saying

    by irritable

    "Hollywood elites abuse Freedom of Speech by calling their leaders, who gave them that freedom, fascists."?<p> That's just as crazy. Freedom of speech wasn't invented by the current administration.<p> Who are these "elites"? Did "they" attack people who criticized Clinton for his dishonesty about his puerile antics with Lewinski? <p> The whole point about freedom of speech is that you're allowed to call your unfavourite President bad names. You're allowed, even encouraged, to vent - even if you make a goose of yourself. It's a GOOD thing. You can't do that in quite a few countries.<p>

  • May 23, 2008, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Banks is way too young and hot for Laura Bush

    by wilsonfisk89

    Otherwise excited to see what he does. Fuck Bush.

  • May 23, 2008, 11:07 a.m. CST

    FACT: Republicans are stupid, ignorant.

    by wilsonfisk89

    They rely on talking points, false bravado, and fear to justify their existence. They lack a true understanding of world history, and America's place in it. And lets face it, most of them are racist. If they actually believe America, and the world are a safer, better place than just a few years ago, before we invaded Iraq/destabilized the region/reversed all the international backing and support we had post 9/11, then they are either brain dead or evil. Now, you can argue these points, and blow off a lot of hot air, but they are all true. Republicans are the worst. Fuck you all.

  • May 23, 2008, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Haa. Really? -

    by wilsonfisk89

    The party of the KKK? That is a terrible point. What the fuck does the KKK have to do with "Liberals" today? (cricket cricket...) Nothing! Obviously! Terrible point. And Pussy appeasers? I love how MANLY you guys think WAR is! Its actually nearly homo-erotic for you. Creepy. And no, I personally don't rely on MoveOn for shit, in fact I have never read their site. Although I do think that their "General Betray Us?" ad was pretty important. At least it got people thinking right? Oh, I forgot, discourse is to be frowned upon in this current war state, sorry! And as far as calling Bush, or the current GOP conservative, you really did prove your stupidity. They spend so much Goddamned money its absurd! Its double speak! Keep shilling out tens of billions, but sayyyy that you are conservative, and people will never know the difference! The war sucks, the economy sucks, America's image on the world stage sucks, spying on citizens, and the precedent that such an act sets-sucks, and trampling on the Constitution sucks big time. In short, you and all of your ignorant, cro-magnon, Republican counterparts suck. You and your boner for Bush have destroyed this country. Again, Fuck you all.

  • May 23, 2008, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Liberal activist judges are a myth, talking point

    by wilsonfisk89

    So McCain says it this week, and here you are parroting it-surprise

  • May 23, 2008, 11:32 a.m. CST


    by just pillow talk

    First you call Bush a "Liberal war-monger", then you say that Liberals are "pussy appeasers". Which is it?

  • May 23, 2008, 11:48 a.m. CST


    by wilsonfisk89

    Here you go kids- challenge an outspoken Republican, and see his argument whiter away as he disproves all of his initial points, and succeeds in confusing everybody. ha.

  • May 23, 2008, 12:04 p.m. CST


    by just pillow talk

    Unleash your anger upon the world!

  • May 23, 2008, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Q, does the angry tirades come naturally

    by just pillow talk

    and you can call on them at any point in time, or do they need to build up and they erupt from you in a volcanic display of crazy?

  • May 23, 2008, 12:25 p.m. CST

    wherever they come from...

    by just pillow talk

    they sure are "special"...<p>2for2true would be proud.

  • May 23, 2008, 12:40 p.m. CST

    DICK CHENEY '08!!!!!

    by BringingSexyBack

    If only. He could run against Lohan/Spears and still lose. <p> Party's over. Time to clean up.

  • May 23, 2008, 12:41 p.m. CST

    One of my favorite lines in Jaws

    by Darth Macchio

    "I need to measure the bite marks..."<p>"Well, why don't you stick your head in there!"<P>Plus another favorite line "What are you? Some kind of half-assed astronaut??!?!"

  • May 23, 2008, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Liberal Activist Judges

    by irritable

    A convenient imaginary problem ... just like WMDs (Whatsits of Meathead Distraction).

  • May 23, 2008, 1:09 p.m. CST

    When it comes to BraneRobot... (re-post)

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...I think we are now witnessing a classic Talkbacker meltdown. It started over in the Rumsfeld TB (where he got his ass kicked), it continued in the WACO thread, and it now appears to be spilling over here.<P>He's just rambling now. Amusement personified.

  • May 23, 2008, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Stop digging Brane.

    by wilsonfisk89

    You got shitted on.

  • May 23, 2008, 1:33 p.m. CST

    BraneRobot = INSANE

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Shall we call for an AICN Poll on this subject? Care to see a vote tally?<P>"Liar" = the last defense of the truly beaten and absurd. You need a new schtick. One that you can back up.

  • May 23, 2008, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Will he run around the Whitehouse...

    by Darth Macchio

    ...with a mountain-like wad of whip cream in his hands yelling maniacally, "This means something! This means something!!!"

  • May 23, 2008, 3:06 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    It's clear that the disintegration of your "c"onservative Republican party has liquified your already feeble mind. Boy, that must really burn your ass, huh? What else would send someone over the edge and on a crusade of never ending bullshit?<P>No one to blame but "freedom hating Liberals", eh? How pathetic can you possibly get, Brane?! It's like a bottomless pit with you.

  • May 23, 2008, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Another favorite scene in Jaws...

    by Darth Macchio

    When Quint crushes the beer can and looks up at which Hooper crushes the styre-foam cup he was holding.<p>Any of you repetitive political asshats going to weigh in on the movie? The old is dead and the new is old; no one has the balls to actually beat the shit out of each other Battle Royale style so what next? Watching you guys go back and forth is like watching retards play tennis with no ball. Occasionally it's fucking hilarious (hence why I read em)...but later on you just feel bad for laughing at a bunch of screaming retards.

  • May 23, 2008, 5:20 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    of taking whole passages of criticism of the Right, and replacing key terms to focus on the Left. At times, it could be an eye-opening tactic. However ... <p> Like anything Branedead does, he fails at this. The only way this is effective is if your altered passage rings true. And nothing Brane has come up with even remotely resembles the truth. Just clearly the desperate rambling of a wingnut who, despite thousands of words blathered on, remains ultimately pointless and quite an insult to the notion of rationality. <p>

  • May 23, 2008, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Stone's film=0 boxoffice revenue

    by thegreatwhatzit

    No one will care about Bush after the Nov. elections; this turkey is another one of Stone's vanity projects (and Stone is a liberal only because he thinks that performing as a provocateur will add some p.r. panache to his films; it's the same sort of "shock" tactics that were once deployed by deserate pseudo-professional hucksters like Lloyd Kaufman). The only poignant anti-Bush film would have been Stuart Gordon's HOUSE OF RE-ANIMATOR (w/ William Macy as "W"); with its cross-over appeal, it would been the only anti-Bush film to make money (horror camouflages the political subtext). The script is a friggin' riot! As for Harry K, his epousal of a liberal" venue is prompted by Hollywood imitation--gee, Hollywood deadites are Democrats so that's cool; maybe they'll invite me to their cool parties." Hasn't happened yet, heh Harry? Anywho, Viva Obama; only 6 more months until Bush is "history" and Hillary Clinton returns to the trailer park.

  • May 23, 2008, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Like I said...

    by Yabba the Mutt

    What the heck ever happened to civil discourse? Why is it that every political debate in these talkbacks has to end up in immature name calling -- from both sides. Both parties are responsible for the state of the country. So it's the fault of politicians in general. Oh and by the way... I would like to say that the claim that "all Republicans are racist" is such a stereotype. I'm a Republican and my wife is black -- and she's just as conservative as me.

  • May 23, 2008, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Clintons, closet racists

    by thegreatwhatzit

    They showed their "true colors" and effortlessly linked prejudice to the Democatic party (it's not longer a Republican stereotype). Thanks, Yabba, for some constructive insight sans name-calling.

  • May 23, 2008, 7:02 p.m. CST


    by Yabba the Mutt

    I respect your opinion and it doesn't sound like I'm going to convince you otherwise. We'll agree to disagree. But it's nice to know that there are sane people out there that can actually respond and criticize without resorting to childish name calling.

  • May 23, 2008, 7:24 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    then apparently "Uncle Tom" is a STD... cause, anyone not enlightened enough to be a liberal democrat is clearly racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted/etc.

  • May 23, 2008, 9:28 p.m. CST


    by Yabba the Mutt

    My, you paint with broad strokes ("anyone", "all", etc.). Now I have a question: I'm a conservative Republican, does that mean I'm not "enlightened"? Pardon me for using a term that seems overused these days, but that sounds a bit elitist. And of course you have evidence to back up this claim that "anyone not enlightened enough to be a liberal democrat is clearly racist/sexist/homophobic/bigot ed/etc". Because of course you wouldn't make such sweeping generalizations without facts, would you? After all, you're "enlightened".

  • May 23, 2008, 9:39 p.m. CST


    by Yabba the Mutt

    After a second read of your posting, I realize it's possible you were being facetious. My apologies if you were. Let this be a lesson talkbackers! Lack of sleep from a newborn does affect one's reading ability!

  • May 23, 2008, 10:44 p.m. CST

    Warcriminal Genocidal Scumlover Brane is back

    by G100

    See I and in fact most people don't automatically think that anyone who disagrees with me, OR all Republicans or Democrats are racist/sexist/homophobic/bigot ed/etc.<p> <p>Because it's a moronic childish sweepish generalisation. No mattter how you try and slice it or pretend irony or fascetiousness.<p> <p>So far so simple and easy to follow, yes ?<p> <p>Brane on the other hand Worships Convicted WarCriminal Scum whom he prefers to refer to by the endearing nickname "Slobo" (how sweet) and dismisses the Genocide he perpetrated as breaking a few eggs or somehow justifiable. That's when he isn't making excuses for the K.K.K. (it's so easy to cash their cheques you see, so why wouldn't you ?).<p> <p>Those are REASONS for using a few if not all of those Labels being flung about so glibly. Not just because someone is a Democrat or a Republican but because of what they say or do.<p> <p>BTW I presume whatzit was being ironic when he said "Thanks, Yabba, for some constructive insight sans name-calling." and headed his post "Clintons, closet racists"<p> <p>I DO however look forward to hearing why Crrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzy Ted Hagee the Pastor isn't a Racist/Bigot/sexist/Homophobe, particularly in light of his now infamous suggestion that Hitler was doing Gods Work.<p> <p>Just how far and how fast can McCain run despite his advancing years ? We'll soon find out as he sprints away from his previous Warm acceptance of Hagees endorsement.<p> <p>Now only Hillary is lacking a crazy Preacher type. She must act soon and close this Pastor Gap or McCain might name his Veep and become unbeatable in the eccentric religious nutballs sweepstakes easily.

  • May 23, 2008, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Hillary's pastor...

    by thegreatwhatzit

    The Rev. Whitewater (her disciples were visible at her recent Klan rally, i.e. West Virginia). Loves rednecks because they don't question her (lack of) aptitude; and they actually believed that stupid "sniper fire" bullshit.

  • May 23, 2008, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Actually Stevie it's very hard to read your post

    by G100

    I agree with Yabba if you are mocking Generalisations fair enough, but just reversing them seems no better. Perhaps it's the Fact that BraneanimalRobotParts agreed with you so readily that may have thrown a few of us there, so if I have taken you the wrong way I too apologise because I may have missed the part where some idiot said "all Republicans are Racist" if so fair enough they need mocking almost as much as the morons who think all Liberals or Democrats are unpatriotic or apeasers.<p> <p>Thank you whatzit. Hillary is STILL in the race ! It may be the religious eccentric race but it's a race all the same ! I need to hear more from this Rev Whitewater and Hillary needs to disown him if she's to be taken seriously in this exciting Religious crazy-off.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:01 a.m. CST

    Classic signs of a delusional extremist

    by irritable

    Denying the Holocaust, denying evolution, denying climate change and its anthropic causes.<P> The extremist rejects the overwhelming consensus of impartial expert evidence in favour of the opinions of a tiny discredited minority.<p> Facts are ignored because they contradict ideology. Just like the Tobacco Industry, funding specious arguments denying the causal link between smoking and disease, the Energy Industry funds a public relations machine which attempts to conceal the true position. <P> The true position - set out in the 2007 IPCC report and supported by 30 Academies of Science (representing literally tens of thousands of scientists of all political beliefs) - is this: the world climate is changing rapidly as a result of carbon dioxide generated by human activities. The current average rate of heating departs dramatically from patterns which have been established from ice cores and mineralogical evidence spanning 650 million years.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:04 a.m. CST


    by lipshitz

    McCain/Leiberman '08! Unite us! Don't be bein a dividerer of us. Clinton/Kerry Bush/Kwayle bust with West/Obama O, Obama/West Put dem white wimmins to the test. And the rest is on the mondale fritz... I'm bustin out Like Lipshitz

  • May 24, 2008, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Preacher Parsley disowned by McCain too

    by G100

    Well it looks like McCains clearly in the lead with 2 crazy Preachers Disowned to Obamas 1 and Hillary hasn't YET disowned any.<p>And it doesn't end there ! apparently McCain is having an old Reagan council interview and choose between these 3 for his VEEP choice at his ranch this weekend.<p> <p>Mitt Romney and Governors Charlie Crist of Florida, and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. ROMNEY! he could win the Religious trifecta for McCain with him on the ticket. The other 2 course need no introduction being household names.<p> <p>Parsely as well as having fruitbat proclivities is sadly also of the same kind of stripe as Branestructure, hence McCains rapid repudiation of this Zealot who described all of Islam as a "conspiracy of spiritual evil" and called for its destruction.<p> <p>You could help this sad religious reject out Brane since you too have the same rabid views but were sadly somewhat "vague" about exactly HOW you would "eradicate" and "wipe out" Islam Brane ? Would it involve Pogroms ? Ethnic Cleansing ? Camps of some sort ? an Inquisition ? Help us out here as you seem to be calling for the wholesale destruction of anyone holding this faith ? How would you destroy a religion without wiping out it's adherants animalBrane ? Hypnorays ? Or is your position fairly obvious since you have already said "All those shitbag Arabs can blow each other up for all I care," and "Islam is a scourge that must be purged."<p> <p>Ahhhh.... so it's a PURGING is it. Which Genocidal Scumbag Madman Dictator would you model your PURGING on then Brane ?<p> <p>See most people would say that earns you a Klan hood and a Race Hate Badge but no doubt you'll try and weasel out of it semanticaly because you seem to think you aren't quite directly calling for hundreds of Millions to be eradicated... just very obviously implying it as much as you dare.

  • May 24, 2008, 7:20 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Soylent Ahmed!!!!! ZOMG

  • May 24, 2008, 7:22 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    but he fails to understand that 97% of Jews are Liberal and peace-minded and would spit on him for his repulsive views.

  • May 24, 2008, 10:44 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Will someone ask *him* where he got his degree in paleo-climatology? <p> I'd ask, but I've never gotten a truthful reply from him ever, so you might have better luck.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Global Warming

    by chuckmc

    First off, name calling does nothing to back up ones argument and is usually indicative of someones use of truthiness, not fact that can be backed up with a reference. BraneRobot is citing numbers that can be found on There is continuous debate about the cause and effect of global warming. The general consensus currently is that the globe is getting warmer, on average, at a rate that is inconsistent with the geological record. The rate of change overall in the latter half of the 20th century has been the fastest rise ever that can be demonstrated in the geological record. However the source of this is still debatable, but the general consensus is that it is most likely man made. Yes, the earth has been warmer in the past, including during the time of the dinosaurs (most of North America was sub tropical like Florida back then). There are allot of parallels between the debate about climate change and the debate about smoking causing cancer. Smoking will not 100% guarantee you will get cancer, but it tremendously increases the odds of it happening sooner instead of later. Getting cancer is essentially a random event, however if you live long enough you have a 100% chance of getting it. This has to do with the carcinogens in the smoke raising your spontaneous mutation rate etc. Because of the time factor of it taking years in humans for the effects to take place, it took a long time for the scientific community to build up the evidence for the correlation, but there had been a consensus since the 1950's. Anyhow, because of the complexity of the science of climate change there is nothing conclusive, just consensus, and certainly discerning opinion is a healthy part of the scientific process. However, do not mistake a discerning opinion as fact. Anyone familiar with the rapid changes in the Canadian arctic and western American wildfires knows that SOMETHING is changing. However, because of shifts in ocean currents caused by the oceans warming, we could see a period of cooling over the next 10 years. Global warming is not necessarily a constant steady march upward, but a generalize trend amongst all the statistical noise. Because of the vast difference between the timespan of human history and geological time, it makes measuring this trend very hard. Also note that the IPCC was set up by the World Meteorological Organization and consists of a combination of UN bureaucrats and scientists from around the world who study varying aspects of climate.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:59 a.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    How are we going to save the world? Another point of debate! The general scientific consensus is that whatever changes we make will not affect us in our lifetime, more to help out our children and grandchildren. For me, the most practical short term solution seems to be expensive energy and water. People are inherently greedy, its a hard wired product of human evolution, and no matter what people say in public, most vote with their wallets in private. People respond well to incentives, poorly to rules, as most people will cheat to get ahead if they can get away with it. On the upside, full size SUV's and pick up trucks are selling for close to half what they were a year ago for anyone who is currently in the market for one...

  • May 24, 2008, 12:32 p.m. CST

    You're dodging the facts BraneRobot

    by irritable

    ... and trying to bluff your way out with a long catalogue of rhetorical questions - because you're way out of your depth on this issue. For all your intellectual vanity, you're too short on knowledge to debate this rigorously<p> Your real position is that climate change is a political issue. It's not, it's a question of fact.<p> The political issue is that the Energy Industry has donated $156M to the Republican party to "encourage" the administration not to introduce legislation which would inevitably reduce profits. This has encouraged toadies in the right wing media, and PR flack to produce specious responses to the warnings of scientists. You're vomiting up the glib ripostes of these jerks. Have you noticed you've been conned by experts?<p> You pretend the fact of anthropogenic climate change is based on an "appeal to authority". Nice try, but wrong. It's based on a firmly stated consensus in the 2007 IPCC report. In science, consensus ultimately rules. Consensus now exists. Every "argument" you've parrotted has been demolished.<p> As you're perfectly well aware, the IPCC report is based primarily on the work of climate scientists, mainly meteorologists, including the US National Climatic Data Service (any reason why they should be lying, by the way?). The 30 concurring Academies of Science speak for tens of thousands of scientists, of all disciplines. That's overwhelming force in a scientific argument.<p> You'd be lucky to find 20 climate scientist of any standing who assert that current global warming is not primarily due to human activity. You've failed to name any.<p> You imply that significant numbers of scientists "took their name [sic] off the IPCC Report once they saw what was in it". You're bluffing on that one, you know it and I'm calling you on it. You can't establish that a significant number of climate scientists of any standing "took their names off the report". Just try and you'll be cut to shreds.<p> You imply that "carbon dioxide levels rise after the temperatures rise". That's a risible solecism you've presumably cut'n'pasted that from a blog, not a scientific source. Carbon dioxide levels have been steadily rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Temperatures have fluctuated, but the average yearly temperature rise on land and in the oceans has been inexorable - now at about .32 deg per dec for the last three decades.<p> Yes, sport, I do realize that the hottest recorded temperatures on Earth were recorded before the Industrial Revolution. During the Hadean and Archaean eons, to be precise. Between 4 and 2.5 billion years ago. And hot periods have occurred since. But always in accordance with patterns now reasonably well understood, arising from astronomical phenomena - orbit change, tilt change and axis progression - or from impacts and vulcanism. None of those facts is remotely relevant to the current issue.<p> Your implication that over 95% of global warming is caused by "water vapour from the oceans" is another ridiculous thermodynamic solecism. Your ignorance of basic science is showing. Educate yourself with this - it's politically neutral and in non-technical language<p> Your implication that "little puny humans" contribute "2% to the atmosphere" is a meaningless rhetorical bluff. 2% of what? We're not talking about farting and breathing, were talking about the combined CO2 output of all world industries, forest clearing, transport and other carbon producing activities. There's nothing puny about it. It's steadily causing the temperature to rise on land and sea.<p> What do I propose? I propose that the US administration stops pretending that this is a non-issue and starts to adopt a CO2 reduction regime and that it enters the Carbon Trading economy. Or do you say that all the other advanced nations adopting this policy are part of a vast "Left Wing Conspiracy"? Yes, BraneRobot, I'm well acquainted with the energy costs of manufacturing hybrid cars and the even worse energy equation for Hydrogen fuel cars. The scientific literature is readily available. Unlike you, I've read a lot of it. Hybrid cars are still far more energy efficient and non-polluting that conventional vehicles. But, what's that got to do with whether or not there is anthropogenic climate change - the proposition you summarily reject? Why have the last two hurricane seasons in the US been tame? Easy, because the year to year consequence of the heat build-up in the Gulf of Mexico varies: however, the overall trend is inexorable. As the years go by, the hurricanes will become, ON AVERAGE, stronger and more destructive. This issue is all about long-term trends, not about whether it was hot last week.<p> Do I know what El Nino is? Yes I do, BraneRobot. I also know what La Nina is - an equally important aspect of the trans-Pacific weather oscillation. Do you? I notice you added your conventional ad hominem attacks to your post: Mr Expert on weak rhetorical devices.<p> I'll just point out a few curiously revealing features of your posts:<p> 1. You choose to troll your extreme political views on this frivolous (and anonymous) film board. You rarely appear to post anything about movies. This strongly suggests you haven't got the guts to post on one of the many serious political discussion boards on the Web. Judging by your posts, you lack the intellectual firepower or knowledge to post on a board with powerful debaters. Film geeks don't fight as hard about off-topic trolling as they do about movies. You've presumably been banned for intemperate hate-mail on other sites. Even in this relaxed environment, you've had to change your pseudonym several times. DocPazuzzo has recently listed some of your most fascist postings. You didn't deny any of them. 2. You're very big on Tough Talk. Much more so than most posters. This strongly suggests that you're an isolated, rage-filled, middle-aged eunuch, impotently posting electronic hate-mail to anonymous "enemies" because (despite your intellectual showiness) you have an undemanding and rather menial job. That is to say, you constantly advertise your self-doubt by grandiose displays of mock confidence. 3. You seem to despise most of your fellow Americans. Democrats are (in your cliched neo-con cant) indecisive weaklings. All 100 million or so of them. George Bush Snr and George Bush Jr are crypto-liberals - and presumably you despise all of their supporters, another vast slab of the population. If you hate America so much, emigrate. May I commend Zimbabwe, Belarus, North Korea and Iran. They run their governments without any namby-pamby nonsense about civil rights, judicial independence and the freedom of belief that you find so uncongenial. Alternatively, get off your ass and enlist. Fight real enemies - like Al Quaeda and the Taliban- rather than an imaginary group of malevolent and destructive "liberals". If you can pass the psych test.<p> To be perfectly frank, I piss on your puny insults, you pathetic weakling. As for your puny irony, I piss on it.<p>

  • May 24, 2008, 12:36 p.m. CST

    In my post to Yabba,

    by Stevie Grant

    I was joking around. It was meant to lampoon the offensive, broad generalizations thrown around AICN TB's so often. But, clearly, I have no business attempting to be humorous.

  • May 24, 2008, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Too irritated to edit the typos

    by irritable

    in my rushed post to that bullshitting fraud, BraneRobot.<P> But I will edit my final taunt: "I also piss on your puerile attempts at irony, you narcissistic twerp."<p> Got it?

  • May 24, 2008, 1:02 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    And the only one who doesn't realize it is Brane. Which makes it so much more amusing.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Forget climate change

    by Gozu

    An easy justification for relying more on alternaitive sources of energy is so we aren't reliant on countries and regimes that hate us. Solar, wind, and wave power are all viable alternatives. That might sound "leftist" but it makes sense.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:06 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    I appreciate your information and arguments, even if looks like you're talking to the proverbial brick wall in Brane. FWIW, it's damned funny.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:07 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Brane'll gladly pay $9 a gallon for his right-wing gas.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:11 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Loved your response to Brane's "2% puny human" statement. He really must think we're living in a pre-industrial agrarian civilization. What a fucking idiot.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:12 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Brita is your friend ...

  • May 24, 2008, 1:14 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    forget Solar Panels and Windmills, nuclear power is the best way to supply electricity. Solar Panels can be cost efficient at the domicile level, but aren't for cities, and wind power has to be subsidized, so it just isn't efficient, period. (and none of this has to do with the price of crude)

  • May 24, 2008, 1:16 p.m. CST

    by Stevie Grant

    and bottled water is like atm fees: you ain't paying for the product, you're paying for the convenience.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:29 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I tip my hat to you, sir. Well done.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:33 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Can you feel the pwnage?<P>

  • May 24, 2008, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Hey, you're back for more

    by irritable

    Are you dyslexic as well as dishonest, BraneRobot. Read the answers to your questions and weep, you wimpy poseur.<p> Leftist talking points? You wish, Jellyfish! <p> Scientific repudiation of your inane political cant, in fact.<p> You're calling someone a Blowhard? Kettle, meet pot!<p> You're the one who talking about psychoanalysis, not me. I'm pointing out glaringly obvious personal problems you're disclosing to us with every bizarre post. Why exactly are you posting hate-mail on a film TB while being humiliated by mere film buffs? Is that working for you?<p> Please identify any cut'n'paste material in my demolition of your argument. You can't because there's none, you lying wimp.<p> I'm a Leftist? Crap. I'm politically neutral and simply interested in facts.<p> Golden Calf? What the hell are you raving about? So now you concede Global warming is occurring but think it should be ignored because "Socialists" will use it to enslave populations? Brilliant!<p> Hypocrite? Oooh, ouch, your hate-filled electrons are like, so traumatic. Grow up, you fool.<p> No BraneRobot, I don't drive a car. I sold my cars four years ago. I walk, take public transport, ride a bike. No, I don't use air conditioning either. Sorry to spoil your fun.<p> You don't seriously believe that the US Energy Industry is not at risk of reduced profits from legislation imposing carbon emission statements, so why make a fool of yourself by advancing such a naive argument.<p> Your hatred of Al Gore (and anybody else who disagrees with you) is utterly irrelevant to the factual question: is global climate change anthropogenic. A vast number of scientists has now answered that question: Yes.<p> Your fall back argument is this: the scientists are lying so they can get funding. Logic is your weak suit. In fact, in the US, scientists are under funding pressure to deny global warming. No need to take my word for it: Google it.<p> "Expert critics of global warming hysteria [are] being systematically silenced." Oh really? Where, who, when? That would be from the vast left wing conspiracy of "liberals" suppressing the facts I guess. You're bluffing again, and I'm calling you on it.<p> Scientific consensus NEVER said "eugenics was god". IN fact, the Nazis asserted that eugenics was justified. Not the scientific community. That's another desperate bluff by you, and you can't back it up.<p> Pre-Copernican philosophers and the Catholic church asserted (not surprisingly) that the earth was flat and that the sun rotated about it. Scientists asserted - at risk to their health from the religious consensus - that the evidence proved otherwise. You lose that point, you cheat! <p> Science is not "a question" you half-wit, it's a careful process of finding out the facts. The process has been adopted by the Courts of law to determine disputed questions of fact. Assertion must be proved and exposed to contradiction. Ultimately, the consensus of the informed (the scientific community or the jury at trial) determines the most probable truth. Educate yourself about elementary fact finding before you pontificate.<p> "Typical Liberal": again you fall back on mindless cant. I'm no Liberal, you unimaginative little tosser. Where I come from, the Liberals were thrown out of office for slavishly, supinely following US foreign Policy. I'm just interested in facts, regardless of what political parties find convenient.<p> Got the picture, ignoramus?

  • May 24, 2008, 1:45 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    Nice work Mr. Nice Gaius! And I agree with Stevie G that Nuclear is the only practical environmentally friendly energy source in the near term until other technologies improve to be more economical at scale. We can also potentially use carbon capture technologies with existing coal and gas technologies. I have a post above about electric cars that goes into more detail. And also bottled water is a total waste of money for most people, often bottled water is dirtier than tap water.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:49 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Thanks! That just made my whole weekend. And I sure needed it after watching Indy 4...

  • May 24, 2008, 1:50 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Hey we're all in agreement! I'll bet Brane's opposed to it - in Branespeak,he's "Pro- Anti-Liberal Anything". <p> Irritable, did you go to NYU? You sound like you did. Unlike Brane, who only pretends that he did.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:51 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    While I haven't read you're previous posts... come on. Everyone knows Inconvenient Truth is total bullshit, as is Al Gore (actual GW scientists consistently get pissed at him for picking-and-choosing, and simplifying everything to the point where the final product is either a lie, or meant to deceive using half-truths. And greens and economics just, flat-out, don't mix. In fact, I've personally listened to one of Obama's chief economic advisers bitch and moan about how he has to disguise sound economics as "green" policy just to convince the "green" cultists that it is, in fact, destroying businesses (while the plan is just a more economically efficient way of reducing pollution). I personally believe "Global Warming" has become a cult, though I believe in global warming... fucking environmentalists.

  • May 24, 2008, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Sorry I missed this talkback...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...but it's been a joy watching all you fine upstanding citizens destroy that fucking crypto-fascist shitmonger, AnimalBraneBalls. <p> Kudos, gentlemen!

  • May 24, 2008, 1:53 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Makes sense to me. PBS and Travel channel are all I need as a getaway.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:03 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Glad I could help! Head over to the Waco TB if you want to see even more of Brane's lunacy:<P>

  • May 24, 2008, 2:04 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    Brane comes nowhere close to being the top source of total bullshit, erroneous postings, he's just all by his lonesome, politically; yet, I routinely read examples of either total ignorance or insanity on these TB's that usually don't get replied to. And, yall should actually thank him, he's one of the few TB'ers to consistently offer non-liberal views... he gives life to the political TB's yall love to jump in on.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:06 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Branedead meltdown in full glory.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Stevie Grant, the Gore film is not "total bullshit"

    by irritable

    but his simplifications and rhetoric are open to legitimate criticism. That should happen and it should be robust. <p> On the other hand, it was an important opening salvo in an important debate which occurred late in the US and has moved on in the intervening period.<p> The simplifications of some of the complicated arguments were what you see in many popular science programs. It's meant to be accessible to the scientifically illiterate.<p> Like most lobby groups, the environmental lobby covers a spectrum from naive, uninformed idealists to hard-bitten rationalists. The function of the relevant parts of the US civil service is to carefully separate the naive bullshit from the hard facts.<p> Governments in Western Europe are now grappling with the issue you describe: how to adjust economic policy to accomodate the exigencies created by the gradual rising of sea levels and agricultural productivity changes which are forecast as the probable long-term results of temperature rises. <p> No-body pretends that this is straightforward or easy. However, pretending that it's not happening is no longer a rational policy.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:10 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    No, there are many who offer consistently non-Liberal views, like Bill Brasky, for example. But there's no confusing Bill for Brane.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:17 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    no, Gore's film and current "career" is total bullshit. There are actually very few papers that get printed in actual peer-reviewed journals that warn of immediant, "catastrophic" GW consequences in our lifetimes. And Gore has been claiming that shit would happen in the next "10 years" for decades now. You know Gore has become extremely wealthy giving his bullshit power point presentation and selling "carbon credits," and etc, etc.? Honestly, I gotta say, if you defend Gore, you clearly are a GW cultist and not worth responding to. Go learn (even basic) statistics and then buy access to JSTOR... then try to find the "imminent GW disaster" papers in the peer reviewed journals, and check out "methodology," then the p values to t tests. And, it takes a while to actually find one of 'em, just to let you know.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:18 p.m. CST

    true BSB,

    by Stevie Grant

    but Brane is usually the one who keeps this sort of TB alive. You gotta give him credit for that, at least.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:19 p.m. CST

    BSB, I'm not from NYU

    by irritable

    I'm a trial lawyer from Oz. I have to deal with obnoxious sociopaths like BranerRobot on a daily basis.<P> The only reason I'm here is to relax in an idiot's playground of Cheese-film gossip while recuperating from the flu. However, I somehow go little annoyed at the disingenuous interventions of that sleazy pissant.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Stevie Grant, I'm not an "imminent catastrophist"

    by irritable

    ... I don't really care what Gore is saying or doing. He's not a scientist. <p> I just wanted to correct some grotesquely inaccurate information foisted on film buffs by a malevolent nut.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:25 p.m. CST

    while I can't remember,

    by Stevie Grant

    the specific paper; a few years back I actually researched and found one of the "GW will kill us all" papers (obviously, not in a peer-reviewed journal)... but those funds-seeking-assholes actually tried to count simple a (and variable limited) OLS regression as an advanced IV Regression, completely ignoring all sorts of OVB. Definition of a total bullshit paper that popped up everywhere from FARK to CNN, yet no one ever mentioned it's total and complete bullshit status.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:27 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Stevie: I've said before that Brane is here for our amusement, so I agree with you on that. <p> Irritable: Good to meet ya. What a breath of fresh air you've let in. Thanks.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:30 p.m. CST

    I truly believe...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...that Brane is one of those people who could snap and go on a workplace shooting spree, leaving only a drooling political manifesto-rant on YouTube after he blows his own brains out. <p> A sick, evil fuck.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:32 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    and blew his own brains out before going on a shooting spree? He may be dumb enough to do just that.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:35 p.m. CST

    I'm with Brane,

    by Stevie Grant

    Saying man's carbon emissions is the engine driving "Global Warming (up until 1998))---now Global Climate change" is total bullshit. I've had to research the shit out of this topic, and, in my 60+ hours on various web-journals, I've only found a handfull of papers whose math actually added up.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:37 p.m. CST

    don't blame me

    by Stevie Grant

    for that last statement, I've read countless "GW is going to kill us all" papers that resulted in more grants... you're desired outcome, already came.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Brane the Global Warming Expert. Riiiiiiiight.

    by G100

    Glad you like peer reviewed journals Stevie as this part of an Editorial from Nature seems to sum up the facts nicely.<p> <p>"The IPCC report, released in Paris, has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the climate-change sceptics' feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous."<p> <p>It also sums up Branes sad situation, but I give no one credit for pretending entire branches of Science have somehow been subverted by a shadowy worldwide conspiracy. THat's Tin-Foil hat territory. Where are these climate scientist Millioinaires BTW ? Because I don't have to look very hard to find the Incredible Oil profits and nor does anyone filling up with Gas. Besides anyone says "Islam should be purged" is clearly a spittle flying loon. End of story.<p> <p>There are reasonable people out there who needn't fall into one of Branes little Liberal or Leftist boxes who would no doubt be horrified at Branes antics and they would distance themselves as far as possible from him even if some of their viewpoints unhappily co-incided with his rants.<p> <p>He is causing vast amusement though and that Waco talkback is yet more proof. Along with his Comprehensive Demolition here by irritable who knows about the Science and not just far right talking points.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Got you again, BraneRobot, you little sneak

    by irritable

    I noticed your acceptance of global warming and only attacked your denial of anthropogenic causation. Don't pretend otherwise you sedulous hatemonger.<p> Your pathetic new evasion: "Guy" the argument - misrepresent what was said and knock down the sham version of my argument. Forget that kindergarten stuff you weasel.<p> Anthropogenic warming is proved: period. Deal with it. Don't bullshit me about "religious-like [sic] convictions" you fraudulent little tit.<p> You know perfectly well I didn't accuse you of denying evolution. I carefully put you in the same bag as the ID wankers - a delusional extremist.<p> Run away, scared little boy, run away. Try and find the guts to post on a real political web-site instead of stinking up this TB. Let the grown-ups get back to their movie talk.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:51 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    you know the headlining scientist from that IPCC report had to threaten lawsuit to get his name taken off it right? and, fuck you, unless you want to actually debate the math or statistics of any given study predicting global disaster from climate change that you base your opinions on... go fuck yourself, cause I actually how to approach said papers with a critical mind.

  • May 24, 2008, 2:54 p.m. CST

    it's not

    by Stevie Grant

    that I don't think the globe is warming, I've just seen very, very little math/stats evidence that it's due to carbon dioxide.

  • May 24, 2008, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Stevie Grant, try

    by irritable

    for an overview. There's a lot of material and links on Wikipedia now - bearing in mind the usual caveats about Wikipedia reliability. However, the issue has been exhaustively knuckled out in the "Discussion" section, so there's some solidity and reasonable substantiatiation. <p> The Scientific American has been covering this in detail for a few years now. Check out for further leads.<p> The truth is out there. Nobody pretends precision is possible. Ultimately, you have to make an informed value judgment.

  • May 24, 2008, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Fuck you and Fuck Nature ? VERY scientific Stevie

    by G100

    Along with Science, Nature is one of the two most repected peer reviewed journals in the world.<p> <p>And I know Dr. Chris Landsea withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report over his conflict around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". But he's still ONE scientist with justifiable concerns about ONE other Scientists personal extrapolation of Global Warmings effects in a report that has been accepted by a prestigious Peer reviewed journal as at the very least usefull in that it's preponderance of evidence has shifted the debate away from the hysterical voices in the wilderness who will deny the science no matter what the Scientific community and evidence says.<p> <p>BTW I already apologised for perhaps misinterpreting your earlier post and in fact stated that you might be sending up the blanket steatements made by some, to which you replied sorry for trying to be humerous. Well looking at your Fuck you reply and befriending of Brane why on earth would anyone think you lacked a sense of humour ? It's pretty clear to me.

  • May 24, 2008, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Time for sleep

    by irritable

    I'll resume hostilities later.

  • May 24, 2008, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Um, G100...

    by thegreatwhatzit

    The only one who thinks that Hillary Clinton is officially in the race is Hillary Clinton (kind of sad...and pathetic). This is all about a vanity-driven douchbag who thought she was a shoo-in (initially very condescending to Senator Obama, sizing him up as a chauffeur). You didn't "get" the Reverend Whitewater reference?

  • Hillary was done many, many moons ago, whatzit everyone knows that but, as you so rightly said, her.<p> <p>Though she recently seemed to raise the spectre of assassination by crassly telling listeners that JFK hadn't been assassinated in the Democratic nomination cycle by this time when he was running. OOOPS!!! (And people think Bill has been a bit Gaff prone this time around)<p> <p>But I WAS genuine in my inquiry in case she DID have some eecentric religious nutball in hiding somewhere since they are now popping up all over the place she might have been feeling left out. (yet again)

  • May 24, 2008, 3:48 p.m. CST

    And Leslie Nielson WOULD make a good Whitington

    by G100

    To bring things back to the original Topic I say Nielson COULD make a good Harry Whittington. Agewise and with some makeup he definitely could pull it off.<p> <p>After all it would be a massive surprise if a film that featured Cheney heavily would slip over that amazing chapter of his "illustrious" Bush VEEPness.<p> <p>Who wouln't want to hear the historic phone call between Dick and Dubya ?<p> <p>"What have you done now Dick ?", "Well George I was huntin Quail ya see...." Instant comedy!

  • May 24, 2008, 3:52 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    I thought she referenced RFK (not being a smartass, just curious).

  • May 24, 2008, 3:52 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

  • May 24, 2008, 3:54 p.m. CST

    by Stevie Grant

    until you actually can reference a paper with sound stats/methodology analysis that predicts a near future "disaster," or CO2 as the climate change engine... leave the subject alone.

  • May 24, 2008, 3:56 p.m. CST

    yeah prolly was RFK

    by G100

    Got my R and J mixed up there. But my God it WAS one of the crassest things I've heard in a loong time. Jesus ! I'm still in the race in case we get another Dead Kennedy scenario ???? Unbefuckinglievable.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Stevie and the Math

    by chuckmc

    Stevie Grant, I agree there is no conclusive proof that it is C02 that is directly responsible for global warming, but if you find a paper from a *reputable* journal who's math does not add up, send the authors an email asking them to walk you through it. If there is indeed a error in their math, they would probably appreciate knowing about it, although math errors should of been easily caught during the initial peer review process before the paper was even first published. As a dig, I am going to point out that the Calculus and Algebra that is required for a B.A. in Economics/Commerce and a M.B.A is much simpler than the Calculus and Algebra that is required for a B.Sc. in Science and Engineering. Also the fundamental difference between a soft science (such as economics, political science, archeology, womens studies) and a hard science (such as chemistry, physics, biology, etc) is that in a soft science you only need to present the data that backs your argument, in a hard science you have to account for all currently accepted data on the subject.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:08 p.m. CST

    by Stevie Grant

    they don't use that complicated algebra or math... they use statistics in their calculations, and stats is a whole other animal.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:10 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    That is correct, and B.Sc. level statistics is again at a higher level than the stats that is required for a B.A.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:13 p.m. CST

    I don't get your point,

    by Stevie Grant

    all the alarmist papers the media hypes for 48 hrs then forgets don't published in peer review journals, cause they're baseless. But I was an applied math/(variety of hard sciences) majors for years, then switched to econ. and had to take even more statistics classes and econometrics... so yeah, I got a better handle on the math/stats/algebra/calculus/etc. than you give me credit for.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Writing Skills

    by chuckmc

    Of course, you need a higher level of writing skills for a B.A. than a B.Sc., as demonstrated by me.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Nuclear Power

    by Shan

    The amount of pollution created in building a nuclear power station is enormous (as is the startup expense building the plant before any energy is generated) and there's also the question of where to store the waste, which is another problem. Not saying it isn't a viable option (France gets a lot of energy from nuclear power) but like every form of energy, it has its positives and negatives.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Fair enough

    by chuckmc

    about your math skills, and I agree that the alarmist papers are not going through peer review and are not being published in a reputable journal. However my point still stands that I would be very surprised if you could find a math error in a reputable paper on climate change.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Stay away

    by chuckmc

    from alarmist papers when researching any topic. Greenpeace is not an accepted scientific source, Nature and Scientific American are.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:18 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    and I'm basing my arguments from the "I need convincing" stance (obviously). So the burden of proof doesn't rest with me as far as I'm concerned. While I believe the globe is warming, I have yet to see a global climate model that holds up convincingly. If you have a peer-reviewed paper to recommend, I'll read it (just not until next week; I'm a senior who just finished finals and term projects and papers and such... and I'm celebrating with Makers Mark). Cheers.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:25 p.m. CST

    No papers from me

    by chuckmc

    I have no papers beyond what is on the global warming wikipedia page, and I am inherently a skeptic like you. I know SOMETHING is changing the climate, but I do not know of any conclusive proof of WHAT it is. However if our best guess at this point in time is CO2, and we can implement change without causing a significant negative impact to our economies then we should probably try it. Of course the free market may take care of this for us with rising energy prices. The increase in hurricanes and the rise in ocean levels could have massive economic implications in 50 years. I personally would not be buying real estate in Florida right now, unless you can afford to rebuild your house from time to time.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:39 p.m. CST

    by Stevie Grant

    no, Kyoto and similar protocols will devastate our economy for no reason (Kyoto, by it's charter's definition, is only a symbolic step and based on climate models that have been proven wrong over the years). The most economically efficient to limit pollution is by taxes, but the environmental lobby is completely against it. If you want a economic summary of why taxes not credits or caps is best, I can give a basic explanation... but the environmental lobby is fucking retarded: they don't care about standards of living or the economy or the effects of what they claim is necessary.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:43 p.m. CST

    and chuck

    by Stevie Grant

    wiki is only good for broad-stroke, major stuff, not specifics. That site is the topic of a raging, academic warzone.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:43 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    I don't like Kyoto, but I do like energy taxes, so I think we are in agreement there. People respond well to incentives, and taxes properly implemented are a powerful incentive. This cap and trade does not sound as efficient to me.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:47 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    Studies that I have read is that wikipedia has a error rate in line with academic textbooks, and the references to the academic papers on the global warming page seem credible to me (Science mag, Nature mag, etc). Its as good a place to start as any, short of attending a conference and getting down and dirty with the experts.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:49 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    I've been reading over this TB a little more, and a lot of people need to realize oil just doesn't power our cars... it makes industrialized society possible.

  • May 24, 2008, 4:52 p.m. CST


    by chuckmc

    comes from oil, as do many other things you may not realize. Yes, it is very pervasive. Also oil from the ground "saved the whales" in a sense because the industrial revolution used whale oil for lubrication and lighting, which was replaced by cheaper oil out of the ground killing off the whaling industry.

  • May 24, 2008, 6:22 p.m. CST

    You forgot chuck Stevie doesn't pay attention to Nature

    by G100

    No doubt Nature is full of mad Environmentalist Gore loving hippies too and the decades of experience in publishing those peer reviewed papers you claim to respect count for nothing.<p> <p>Actually I don't know why chuck or irratable are even giving this deliberate obtuseness and tilting at windmills credence.<p> <p>This isn't about the Science it's about a Libertarian trying (but failing) to turn the clock back on what is now overwhelming Scientific Consensus.<p> <p>Tell you what, which of these Scientific Bodies are in error for issuing this joint statement.<p> <p>THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).<p> <p>The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified. There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world’s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 21001. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources.<p> <p> and WHY should they have to convince a Libertarian whose only concern is an unrestricted market with zero taxes ?<p> <p>Are they ALL aL Gore's bitches Stevie ? Because it looks to me like those are some pretty authorative Scientific Bodies who might actually have more than a passing aquaintance with peer reviewed papers than you do. And hard though it may be for you to accept, they probably know quite a bit more about than you and I do about how science operates.<p> <p>And since you are so well versed on the detailed scientific papers surrounding this incredibly complex subject when you say "I have yet to see a global climate model that holds up convincingly." Why not show us the ones that DON'T convince you ? Or quote some peer reviewed papers that back your fringe argument up ? Because like chuck said there's no shortage of Papers agreeing with the IPCC Position and not just on Wikipedia.<p>This is all amusingly irrelevant anyway. The world's moved on. (even Dubya the Oil-man has moved on) and Politicians ,Scientists, Corporations, yes EVEN Economists are now working to MITIGATE the effects of Global Warming since this supertanker cannot be turned immediatly. They are working on strategies that involve Agriculture, Flood defenses, emergency planning, housing and industrial site flood plain forecasts, new insurance models both Corporate scale and Domestic, National Security planning, new water capture & desalination technologies, and a raft of Tidal & Wind technolgies are currently being upscaled to more than just a small alternative sector to name just some of the immense efforts now being undertaken because, THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON. Nobody is listening to the science deniers anymore.<p> <p>BTW when you say "leave the subject alone" you DO know that it makes you sound like a pompous pretentious Douchebag don't you son ? Being well versed in aspects of Economic Theory sadly doesn't bestow automatic Godhood of the forums upon you.<p> <p>I have no problem listening to other viewpoints and admit when they are clearly better informed than I or others are.<p> <p>irritable has schooled you and Brane in the subject Stevie, that's the plain fact of the matter.

  • May 24, 2008, 7:08 p.m. CST


    by Rand92

    I don’t think you understood what I was saying. I am saying that we live in a society where Oliver Stone is allowed to say whatever he wants to using a world-wide medium without any proof whatsoever. The Internet is also full of websites that do this. They lie, defame people, all without proof to advance a political agenda. That’s why I said that Hollywood abuses freedom of speech. These elites, Oliver Stone, Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Jane Fonda and others, use the national media which they have more access to than most to make political statements based on nothing but hatred and no facts. That is abuse to me. And they did not attack Clinton because he is one of theirs. Most entertainers do not live a clean life and those that do aren’t shouting lies from their soapboxes. They backed Clinton because he was crapping on traditional family values and doing whatever he wanted with no consequences. Hollywood would love to live that way which is why they support gay marriage, are anti-gun, anti-religion, and live decadent lifestyles. Also, I know that the founding fathers were not fascist, I was making a sarcastic statement that it is plain ridiculous that people call our leaders today fascist when they allow that kind of speech to begin with. Bush has taken a lot of flack, some of it deserved, but a lot of has not been. If he were evil and a fascist then those people saying those things would be in prison or executed for treason. It just goes to show that the people who call this administration evil and fascist really have no idea what it would be like to truly live under those conditions. Hollywood is comfortable in their privileged lifestyle (I.E. elite lifestyle) yet try to act like they are fighting a repressive regime. It is a joke and the average citizen knows that; which is why Hollywood will never be influential in politics. They are out of touch and don’t get it while the public does.

  • May 24, 2008, 7:11 p.m. CST


    by Rand92

    Before I get called anti-gay, my point is that traditional family values tends to frown on it, not me personally. I don't agree with that life choice, but I do not really care what people do in that regard.

  • If the Movie sucks then no-one will go and see it and Stone will be less able to make Movies because it Bombed.<p> <p>If it's a Good Movie then lots of people will go and see it and it might have said something new.<p> <p>If it's just meh and does nothing more than a fairly predictable Biopic and potted History then it will quickly fade into the background.<p> <p>But it's REALLY not going to corrupt Millions of people or make Republicans suddenly turn Democrat or skew the Election.<p> <p>People will cast their Vote the way they always have. On the basis of the things that matter the most to them personally at the time of the vote.<p> <p>Movies are not the pinnacle of Propaganda certainly not these days when everyone is so jaded.<p> <p>Besides, FOX TV pumps it's "message" out 24 hours a day EVERY day. Religious Leaders have a massive public platform and The Government and Executive has vast powers of persuasion and pressure to utilise when it wishes to.<p> <p>Movies, despite the Hysteria about Hollywood, are rarely life changing. True, the Great Movies stay with you but that is because great movies are never simple propaganda pieces. Most Movies are simply enjoyable diversions or annoyances for the hour or two you watch em. Giving them & their Directors mythical Power and status is amusing but the sadly still one-sided Crud/Gold percentage tells you that most of the time Hollywood and it's Movies are consumed with little or no lasting effect. Like a bland box of Popcorn.

  • May 24, 2008, 10 p.m. CST


    by SunTzu77

    It will get some coverage because of controversy..but in the will flop. I enjoyed both Oliver's old school writing and directing so much more...Conan...Platoon...Wall Street...Scarface...Year of the Dragon...Midnight Express...etc.

  • May 24, 2008, 10:31 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    I'm kinda drunk right now, so forgive any syntax/spelling errors. But, I've made it very clear I believe the globe is warming overall (hasn't since '98, but I expect that to change). My problem with the GW crowd is there isn't any single climate model (that I'm aware of) that can accurately predict last years temps and also predict major climate problems in this century. And, yeah, fuck you, Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth are full of shit. Hell, if I remember correctly, that chief GW Chicago-Suns-Times writer's entire evaluation of Gore's "Truth" was that is was total bullshit, despite there being ample evidence available, and that Gore was just cashing in with bullshit half-truths and outright lies.

  • May 24, 2008, 10:35 p.m. CST

    actually G100

    by Stevie Grant

    I just scanned your post again (come on, you can't write that much on an AICN TB and expect someone to actually read it all, even if it hadn't been so confrontational), and you seem to be replying out of emotion... pissy, pissy, crybaby emotion.

  • May 24, 2008, 10:44 p.m. CST

    hold on,

    by Stevie Grant

    G100, I just rechecked my postings, and A BIG FUCK YOU TO YOU. I've already stated I'm coming at the GW disaster scenario as a skeptic, and then explained that I'll need to see the actual methodology and statistical analysis of any model to change my mind (I've already looked over many, many of the alarmist models' methodologies, and, yeah, there's damn good reason they get in 20 second segments on the nightly news and not into peer reviewed, ACADEMIC journals. And, no, the "world" has not accepted GW theory to be true other than certain politicians who use the topic to their electoral benefit, then do very little... I'm going to take a wild guess here, you're a Euro aren't you, most likely a young Brit, right?

  • May 24, 2008, 10:57 p.m. CST

    ^ Meltdown continues ...

    by BringingSexyBack

    Kids, this is your brain on right-wing talking points. Don't read right-wing talking points.

  • May 24, 2008, 10:59 p.m. CST

    just glanced over,

    by Stevie Grant

    that ridiculously long-ass posting again. And, no, fucktard: Libertarianism does not equal anarchism... you just gotta be a Euro for your postings to make sense

  • May 24, 2008, 11:02 p.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    you know I'm not right wing, but if you can send me a link to a single global warming disaster scenario model than can precisely predict any temperatures from the last several years (given the decades of precise data over global temps)... enlighten me.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:05 p.m. CST

    by Stevie Grant

    and, once again, I don't have a problem with the claim that the globe is warming overall, in fact, I agree with that claim. My problem is with the fact that there aren't ANY reliable models, and the GW cultists want to destroy our economy for the hell of it.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:12 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    I was referring to your pal Brane, whose post I had up. Hope you did well on your exams - stop being so damned obstinate though. Night night.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:17 p.m. CST

    final posting

    by Stevie Grant

    I've had my share of Maker's Mark, and am feeling guilty for constantly posting, nonstop, for a while now. Apologies, everyone, I know AICN isn't the place to debate pissy climate change arguments, or politics, or etc... In all honesty: sorry for posting so many political/scientific postings.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:17 p.m. CST

    Words of Wisdom from a Drunk namecaller

    by G100

    Tell you what when you sober up and stop writing childishly laughable insults. (ok, semi-coherent drivel I presume they were MEANT to be insults but it does sound like someone babbling who simply can't hold their alcohol) Why don't you tell everyone exactly WHY you know more about Peer reviewed studies than The Editors at Nature whose job it is to publish them ?<p> <p>You could also correct them on their stats/methodolgy like chuck invited you to. And I'll levave the Irony of someone who claims to specialise in Economics asking for detailed predictions hanging... Ouch! How IS the Economy doing ? Yeah it's not like trying to Model an entire PLANET is it ? Jeeeeesus!<p> <p>Who am I going to believe ? One of the most prestigious Scientific Journals or some drunk kid who thinks Economics (that oh so SOFT Science) and Libertarianism (too nutty even for the NeoCons) are the answer to everything ?<p> <p>Dear me but that IS a tough one.<p> <p> Take your peurile insults and shove them up your reality & science denying Libertarian pompous little ass. And shove them up your new fuckbuddy Branes too while you're at it. Watch out though, get too close and he'll be asking you to calculate the most cost effective way to "Purge all Muslims".<p> <p>But PLEASE keep it up. With people like you and Brane on their side it's no wonder the Libertarians are always nothing but a punchline in any election. That is when anyone actually remembers they exist.<p> <p>Most people had assumed Global Warming Deniers had crawled back into their bunkers after being slapped down hard by real Science and real Scientists. Good to see some who aren't afraid of the ridicule they always engender.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:22 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    hehe I said "nards". <p> G100 and Irritable FTW

  • May 24, 2008, 11:24 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    But I'll never forget the time I did battle with him over war profiteers, and he was agressively defending Halliburton and the like. I think in reality he's less of a Libertarian and more a corporatist.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:36 p.m. CST

    Athropogenic G.W. Denier defends Halliburton ? You kid !

    by G100

    Imagine my surprise.<p> <p>True enough though. Stevie doesn't seem to have any ethnic cleansing tendancies but denying the sober fact about Anthropogenic Global Warming as presented by Nature, the hundreds of Scientific Bodies who endorsed the study and the thousands of Scientists who took part in the IPCC Report does not speak highly of someone with a real firm grip on reality.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:45 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Brane's primary motivations are racism and hatred of all things Liberal. He formulates his shallow opinions to support them. <p> Stevie is an odd duck. I think he's less of a Libertarian in the sense of advocating individual rights than he does corporate rights. He will defend corporations not for what they can do for the people and country (providing jobs, valuable goods and services, contributing taxes) but for their right to profit, even at the expense of people's health and the environment, of which Halliburton incidentally is a shining example.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Since my list appears to have confused you Stevie

    by G100

    Here are the American Scientific Bodies who endorse the IPCC.<p> <p>Foolishly I had thought that using a Worldwide list might have been more appropriate to conveying the worldwide acceptance of the Report.<p> <p>US National Research Council. American Meteorological Society. Federal Climate Change Science Program. American Geophysical Union. American Institute of Physics. National Academy of Sciences.

  • May 24, 2008, 11:49 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Stevie's Conservative Libertarianism and Liberal Libertarianism. I guess that boils down to one supporting corporations' rights and the other individuals'. I think that guy was Australian too, I think he was an Anarchist. Good night, G100.

  • May 25, 2008, 12:02 a.m. CST

    well he claimed Libertarian tendancies

    by G100

    True enough there are some very odd splinter groups of Libertarianism since it is has a marginal but pretty odd & vocal pool of adherants.<p> <p>One could I suppose divide them into the Individualists who follow the Idaho style Live Free or Die/get the state out of my goddamn house model of almost semi-cultish Guns and Bunkers survivalism, and the more Corporate Flat Taxing Deregulaters who would happily let the Markets and Corporations Rule everything with no state interference and no welfare or safety nets.<p> <p>I tend to group them together sure because they are equally Politically irrelevant TBH since the best both groups can hope for is scraps from the Republican table.

  • May 25, 2008, 1:38 a.m. CST

    hey guys,

    by Stevie Grant

    just checked back before I go to bed; glad I inspired such an inspired conversation. And, BSB, the other Libertarian you were talking about identified himself as a socialist libertarian (there's no such thing). I'm just a big believer in state's rights, economics, and sound scientific models.

  • May 31, 2008, 1:01 a.m. CST


    by Stevie Grant

    just in case you randomly check the TB again (like I just did), but... I don't care how many generalized mag articles and generic org. statements you list. To convince me mankind is stampeding head-on to a GW clift (despite gains in standards of living, never before seen, including the periods when 'everyone' thought we were going to freeze to death), cite me a single peer-reviewed paper whose model can accurately predict 85 temps, or 93's temps, or 87's temps, or even 98's temps, or last years, or etc., etc. Cause, I actually know how to read the paper and evaluate the methodology, something your idiocy has made plain you clearly lack. "The Scientists," whose GW alarmism models can't exactly predict the temps from any years we have satellite data for... THEY ARE USELESS... unless you're an editor eying the "Green" crowd. I honestly believe/hope you are about 17, for your sake.