Ain't It Cool News (


My favorite aspect about films is the manner in which we as intellectual beings differ upon the very same stimuli.

How one person can aggressively disagree about the quality and nature of the story as told before them. How it is possible to have complete interpretive parallels in thought.

Moriarty went into THE CONTENDER calling it a double.... Meaning that in the great big baseball game of filmic art... the movie only got to second base....

Well... It is one helluva double. As I see it, when this film came up to bat... Rod Lurie was the signal man off third base telling Christian Slater to swing at the pitch that Gary Oldman was throwing... He had already missed twice, when suddenly he connected. The first to score from the hit was Jeff Bridges, who was quietly residing on 3rd Base. Next Joan Allen came in. Phillip Baker Hall was the outfielder that was a little slow getting to the ball, but he tossed it from far left field. The 3rd Baseman (composer Larry Groupé) Was caught staring at Sam Elliot, who was rounding third... missed the ball which hopped at a weird angle towards the pitcher’s mound, where Oldman fielded it to his catcher... William Peterson, who couldn’t quite tag Elliot out, but quickly threw the ball to second, Oldman fell to the mound to avoid being hit thereby holding Slater at 2nd. In all... the scored double knocked 3 runs in, resulted in a wonderful highlight defensive moment in keeping Slater at second.

Though technically a double.. the film scored and gave quite a few highlights. Is it a homerun? No... But damn if it didn’t put points up on the board.

Alright... so I’m wallowing in metaphor, but it’s my interpretation of the Professor’s parallel. Oh, and if I remember correctly... before the next pitch, Slater stole third.. but technically that wasn’t part of the actual hit... hehehe

Let me explain this in plain speak. THE CONTENDER is a very very very very solid film. It isn’t Babe Ruth pointing to the left outfield stands and knocking the ball there... but it’s a winner all the same. It won’t reside in the great halls of history for all time... But it’s a damn fine film.

We saw the same film, saw the same hit and we saw where the base runner managed to get to... it is only... Moriarty was either too busy with his peanuts and buttered popcorn and missed the details... heheheh... ACTUALLY... to be fair... his upbringing, particular tastes and aesthetics delivered a different perception of the same film.

For example... He felt that Gary Oldman was a thinly veiled Snidely Whiplash styled cartoon character... just this side of twisting his mustache and winking in the camera. He felt that his look, what he does and how he is presented is always as... THE BAD GUY.

I disagree. I adored Gary Oldman’s character. He’s an executive producer on the film, and it is my belief that he turned in some of his best work.

Oldman is a staunch right wing conservative. He is pro-life. He also holds the Executive Office in the highest of esteem. In his eyes, it is a crime that a ‘second choice’ candidate... the inferior candidate obtains the office for which there is a better choice. He lost the office to Bridges character... he accepted it as the will of the people. But here, this is his watch... and both the people and a great many others prefer William Peterson’s Hathaway as the principal candidate for the office of Vice-President. It is now his duty to get that person in office. It’s his duty to history and to honor this country to ensure that the best man get the job.

And thus we have the confrontation. The chess pieces are painted black and white and we play. Oldman doesn’t hate Joan Allen’s character, he just doesn’t feel she’s the best person for the position... and it is with that belief that he justifies... IN HIS MIND... the actions that he takes.

He doesn’t CREATE the evidence and the testimony that he is given. That was information that turned up in the investigation of who Joan Allen’s character was. And later as more evidence is turned up, his part in the game is basically over....

Ultimately... the tactics he takes are reprehensible... but often times in politics, this is the case with tactics.

I find Oldman’s character sad, misguided... a defeated political bulldog. I see Oldman’s character as his own wife views him. A once great man that has ruined himself with his innuendo and self-righteousness. Oldman’s Congressman was never the ‘little’ man that McCarthy was... rather, he is a little Nixon, a man that should have been known for opening up China, but is forever tainted with the ratfucking and the bugging and the dirty tricks that Watergate uncovered. Oldman’s character would’ve been considered through history as being a man that made great strides in the obliteration of hate crimes and championing racial issues... save for this... the exclamation to his term as public servant.

Now, when he goes passionately over the top on his position on Abortion and the sanctity of the unborn children... Well, while I personally do not agree with his stance... I certainly understand the passion... This is an issue that is very much the sort that if you feel strongly... one way or another upon it... You will PASSIONATELY defend your position and most likely... PASSIONATELY attack the opposing thought upon it.

This isn’t a BAD GUY in the Snidely Whiplash mold... this is a complex multifaceted character that has chosen... what we leftist minded folks will believe is the WRONG PATH.

However, there is always the other side to this. If... if you are a staunch conservative... then his outcries on abortion, marital infidelities, deviant sex, etc... Well those are all things you believe in. He isn’t a bad guy... he’s suddenly... ‘a moral compass’. It just depends on your point of view.

When I talked to Moriarty about this, he pointed out that as soon as he began leaking the photos to the internet and to the press... and began using the media as a blunt instrument with which to attack her... Well... I hate to point this out, but.... ummm... that’s modern politics... hell, go back to the day of the political machines that Capra’s films fought against... In those days, gigantic big business monopolies controlling entire states were the bad guys.... In today’s world of politics...

Matt Drudge is an e-mail away. Ambush reporting is awaiting a chance to rip at meat. This is part of the political machine of today... and it is available to the motivated individual.

Doesn’t make it right. Doesn’t make it just... But as a narrative force in a film... Yeah.. I like it.

As for Joan Allen’s tact of ‘weathering the storm’ her edict that, “I won’t answer because it is not ok that they asked,” philosophy... I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH.

Personal issues like sex... I don’t believe are the playing ground of the press, politics and as such... I hold that given the entire story of this film... the message that... whether you did right or wrong... Whether you married your high school sweetheart and never once deviated from that point... Or whether you’re a swinging couple that trades partners like you’re at a SQUARE DANCE... that your position should always be... NO COMMENT when it comes to your personal life... UNLESS you feel free to discuss it... otherwise... it is private.

For me, through the entire Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, the only person that had a right to an opinion on the affair was Hillary. If it was ok with her, if she could tolerate it, if it was already known... whatever the case may be... It is an intimate venture of consenting adults.. and not the place of the Federal Government. And I simply do not accept that to serve public office, your bedroom is on display.

Not only should he of not answered anything... it was not ok to ask the questions. And after going through that very very public case... I do think it is Very very appropriate to deal with the material in a fictional... distanced manner.

Is the film a liberal idealistic display?

Um, yeah... but what the hell is wrong with that? What the hell is wrong with Idealism? Must we always exist in Cynical society where it must end badly to be realistic... where everything must be reprehensible.

The adage of... ‘that is not how it would happen’ is such malarkey. Who said movies were about truth, movies... for me... are always about the way it either is... or should be.

For me, I love inspirational liberal agendas. I am very much a social reformist when ya boil me down. I believe we should remove guns, not movies. I believe we should focus on education, not censorship. I believe we should focus on science and medicine rather than the military industrial complex. I believe your voting history and political position are on trial for your candidacy, not who you once screwed, what you once ingested or how many parking tickets you had in college.

And i believe in this film. I enjoyed it. It’s a nice ideologically sound liberal story for those of us that believe. Is it a GREAT FILM? No, I don’t think so. But it does have two stabs at greatness.

Jeff Bridges’ President is magnificent. His quirks and eccentricities are wonderful... the pentameter in which his character delivers his speeches and addresses... a joy. I imagine that being in the White House for... 2 terms... that in the second half of that second term... The White House feels like that funny pair of sneakers you love to wear. You wear them in all the inappropriate ways... The way he orders strange quirky foods, uses his private bowling alley, delegates responsibility and the like... Very keen. Very astute.

And second, Gary Oldman. His Congressman Shelly Runyon is a textured and difficult man to out and out hate for me. Public servants that lose their way are always sad. They once had a dream to change things for the better... somewhere on that bitter path... it can change you. This film, and this character, show you quite simply how a good man can become the bad guy blindly. Doing the wrong thing to do what he feels is right. Complicated.

Also in the kudo box...

Joan Allen, who is really really good... but personally, Joan is always this good. Stoically controlled isn’t a high score point to me. But she is solid and absolutely believable as being a female nominee for Vice President.

Christian Slater is wonderful as well. I love his youthful geekiness... his idealistic independence. He’s determined to do what is right... partisan politics... doing what is right is of the most importance... not party allegiances. Watch him in the White House... he’s radiant.

Sam Elliot... as always, Sam is the absolute swingingest dick in town. Listen to him... watch him when Oldman asks him to look him in the eye to confirm something.... Is he not the coolest most together man on the planet there. Sam Elliot was the extra topping on this movie that made that double score 3 runs. He’s great.

What kept it from being that perfect homerun?

Well... The score. It was just so OBVIOUSLY placed... sooo ham handed... that it made me roll my eyes from time to time. Now OBVIOUS scoring can be great... witness John Williams’ STAR WARS music, but here... Larry Groupé

well... quite simply... Larry ain’t no John Williams (I love double negatives).

All in all... a very very very strong film. A solid film that will most likely just miss out on my top ten of the year come January... but if you’re seeing 15 movies this year and you’re a liberal... this should be one of em.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 11, 2000, 3:14 a.m. CST

    The best films about politics are ones without politicians.

    by *veers*

    Unless you are trying to say something about politicians and not politics of course. Any mid period Jean-Luc Godard, like WEEKEND or Ken Loach films.****** Although I think most politicians are suspect, my respect goes out to the First Minister of my country, who is seriously ill in hospital.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:05 a.m. CST

    I'm going to see this movie and ONLY THEN will I post my opinion

    by Bari Umenema

    Clearly it's an intelligent film. And clearly Moriarty and Harry disagree about it. So let's all try something new and novel and different and unique on this one. LET'S RESERVE OUR OPINION OF IT UNTIL WE HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN IT.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:12 a.m. CST

    Now for films that are obviously sucky and stupid and shallow an

    by Bari Umenema

    But on this one because it seems to be ambitious and smart I will actually pay to see it in support of the excellent cast and Rod Lurie who appears to be aspiring to greatness or something. Even Oliver Stone is doing a contemporary political drama now titled "American Caesar" about, you guessed it, a modern-day retelling of Julius Caesar. Et tu, Harry?

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:18 a.m. CST


    by Piestar

    Hey Harry that was some speech. When the bottom falls out of this film critique stuff maybe there's a place for you in the white house. Although considering the US has yet to have a black president maybe you should not get your hopes up you wonderful fat ginger guy you.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:27 a.m. CST

    My Review

    by GermanCity

    I sent in a good little review of this movie two days before it came out. Why wasn't I posted? Wouldn't it be nice to have a review before the movie opens? Isn't that the point of this site, advanced info? It's kinda insulting. I've seen some of the deeply crappy, mispelled, thrown together reviews that have been posted simply because they were advance ones. I did a freaking spell-check, so why not mine? Grrr. I'm so bitter. Grrr.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:27 a.m. CST


    by Brian DePalma

    Judge each day, not by the harvest, but by the seeds you plant.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 6:51 a.m. CST

    It fell apart in the second half

    by Stephen Dedalus

    I saw this at a University screening last night. THE CONTENDER was a good movie on the whole, but what keeps it at a meagar *** in my book was the way it fell apart in the second half. Oldman's character lost interest and was pretty much confined behind the microphone; Christian Slater, lets face it, was furnature- I didn't feel that his character was really given anything interesting to do- and came off as too innocent to be believable; Joan Allen was exceptional in the lead; Jeff Bridges prevailed over a poorly written character (most of the time, the president appears to be too much of a "Joe Average" character, eating sandwiches, swapping jokes, and delivering the mandatory "big speech before Congress" at the end); Sam Elliot was okay, but he was essentially playing the "Sam Elliot role" of the Southern-voiced aide; William Peterson had a strong supporting performance. Ron Lurie created an exceptional group of characters, but he seemed to lose track of them halfway through, when the film fell into a parade of predictable speeches and resolutions. There is no real conclusion for Christian Slater's character, though. Lurie just leaves him hanging. But the performances, like I said, were more than admirable, and Lurie shows compitent direction. It's worth a look.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 6:57 a.m. CST

    Any recent film dealing intelligently with US politics flops big

    by voight-kampff

    Bulworth, Primary Colors and Nixon. All excellent films about American politics that no Americans went to see.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 6:58 a.m. CST

    And thank you Mr DePalma

    by voight-kampff

    My day is not complete without a nugget of wisdom from you.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 7:48 a.m. CST

    "No call no one nothing."

    by r_dimitri22

    Triple negatives are even better, Harry.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 9:24 a.m. CST


    by 'scuse me chief

    Park the beef bus in tuna town...give her the old womb buster...hump her brains out?

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Stop the Bleeding

    by w_buhr

    Harry, I know you are a bleeding heart liberal, you like the wax politician over a man who lives in the same city as you, but a clinton apologist, too??? You said the bedroom shouldn't be on display, which I agree with. But Harry, what about when that bedroom happens to be, oh I dont know, THE OVAL OFFICE!!!??? It's attitudes like this that will bring our country down. Fucking take responsibility for your own actions, public or private!

  • Howdy there folks. I also saw a screening for this last night and let me just say that I completely agree with Moriarty's review in the sense that the movie had a chance to make an incredibly powerful statement regarding double standards and instead of tackling a truly tough subject, the wimps that made this movie opted for a neatly tied bow around the package which they like to call a plot. I, btw, AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, but I'll tell you right now, this movie is pure Hollywood, ignorant, liberal pablum. It's made with that same "politic chic" sensibility that Hollywood is so into at the moment, and it is filled with political stereotypes. It is true that if it wasn't for the acting this movie would completely suck, and the William Peterson character was AWESOME. If you wouldn't usually see this type of movie go check it out, it's worth a look, but if you are into political movies, there's better outthere, and by the time you get to the end, you'll end up wishing that the movie would have been more.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 9:59 a.m. CST

    I still agree with Moriarty on this one, Oldman was gunning for

    by Smilin'Jack Ruby

    Oldman makes a veiled racist remark at one point, his wife hates him, he's not just doing his "civic duty" because he is indeed meeting behind closed doors with the other candidate whom he says will have a smooth ride in because that's what he wants. Yeah, it's modern politics to leak stuff, but he wanted another candidate and it didn't matter what she did, he simply needed some way to get rid of her. He was going to get rid of her long before he even knew about the silly photographs. But, as you said, ain't it great when a film is made that really inspires debate as to whether it was good or not? Personally, I was so disappointed in this film it is still bugging me. And, I thought Bridges' president character was almost wholly one-dimensional.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Another left-wing socalist liberal movie from Hollywood?

    by SCOTT1458

    nah, can't be. Great speech Harry, let's "focus on science and medicine instead of the industrial military complex"......great idea, what you gonna do when some rouge nation(s) come invading you for such research? Don't worry, while I know your fat ass won't be out there defending us, others will.....I wouldn't quit reviewing movies to become a policy maker anytime soon Harry, leave that for those with common sense.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 11:04 a.m. CST

    The problem with 'agenda' films like this

    by Charnal

    The easy way for a filmmaker to hammer home these kind of points is to create an army of straw men for the protagonist to knock down. In doing so, the filmmaker fixes the fight by creating a story that has conditions and matchups that favor his champion. Like so many of those old Star Trek episodes - Kirk encounters a slavery planet and gets to proclaim "Slavery is wrong," he encounters a Nazi planet and gets to say "Nazism is wrong," he encounters a racism is just easy screenwriting. In this case, the protagonist has a point - "I doesn't matter if I did this, because it's nobody's business." But the filmmaker stacks the deck by making her innocent of the accused action. So it's easier to identify with her and hence easier for the filmmaker to prove his point. Imagine the trouble he would have if she actually did sleep around and sexually harrass subordinates and use her position to satisfy a dominating sex drive that really made all her decisions for her. Would he be able to have her say, "It doesn't matter, because it's none of your business?" Would the ultimately audience accept this character's rationalization? All this director shows is that, if you are innocent of an accusation, you shouldn't be hounded. That is like coming out in favor of spring or puppies. He could have taken on a much tougher set of questions, ones that would test our current moral and political standards...but straw men won't hack it in that arena.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 11:12 a.m. CST

    mind pollution

    by Saiyan

    I haven't seen this movie, and I probably won't becuase it would do more damage than good. From what I've read, Joan Allen's character is probably a good candidate and doesn't deserve what happens to her in the movie, but what this does is further undermine what happened with the Clinton/Lewinsky thing. The conservatives didn't label the scandel the "Clinton Sex Scandal", the LIBERALS did, they tricked everyone into thinking the whole thing was about sex, when the point was that Clinton SERIOUSLY ABUSED HIS POWER. I know that this movie isn't about that specifically but the sexual aspect is far worse than what Clinton did, and the conservatives of course are going in for the kill in this flick. To me that's more liberal media brainwashing. It probably makes it clear that sexual misdealings and whatnot have nothing to do with the person, especially if it happened a long time ago, but Allen's character from what I have seen is also a great woman of her time and is destroyed by an honest mistake. So this is a liberal idealist movie? What is the liberal ideal? I'm an independant now after living with a large family of liberal idealists, and I'm sick of them. The way I have survived is realizing that something like 98% of the media is liberal. That includes both the entertainment industry and the news stations. Every word I hear on TV is slanted toward liberalism, I have taken note and do not fall for it anymore. Do I sound conservative? Well I would say I'm independant conservative, I go with my gut on all issues. I just think republicans are as frustrated as I am with all the media bullshit. They sound like me right now... only all the time, so their ideals seem misguided. So if you're liberal and want to get further stepped in anger toward conservative/republicans, then be my guest, it's expected.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Good point Charnal

    by Saiyan

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Where's LaneMyers?

    by L'Auteur

    did he say "parking the batmobile"?

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 11:53 a.m. CST

    Oh, look, defenseless puppies!

    by Ronald_Reagan

    I'll withhold any Big Rant that I might have before I see this movie, but so far the movie looks like its in aforementioned Hollywood "political chic" that all the Concerned People in the Industry are into right now (like Martin "I'm not the president but I play one on TV" Sheen with his anti gun commercial). And someone else made the excellent point of the straw men that the writers set up-- they're all basically cartoons of conservativism. Sorry to disappoint you, but we don't go around looking for women to oppress. True, there is no need for Hollywood to be fair and balanced-- that's their pregotitive. But don't hide it under this "we just want people to care" bullshit. They have an agenda, and they seem to be hiding from it. There's idealism, then there's propaganda

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Well done Charnal.

    by Chip

    This movie takes a debate out of context and confuses the issue (abuse of power, sexual harrassment, perjury, obstruction of justice) with the initiating action (sexual "deviancy", mis-conduct, or however you want to label it.)

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 12:32 p.m. CST

    THAT'S what I want for Christmas!

    by Poetamelie

    A baseball movie starring Sam Elliott! Harry, you're a genius! Somebody get Development on the phone! (Great review, by the way, Harry. I can't wait to see the film.)

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Who wants a cigar?

    by browny

    Everyone is entitled to opinion about Clinton and his intern. This affair wasn't about sex...hell if it was, it sounded about as exciting as a tepid episode of Red Shoe Diaries. No, Clinton's indiscretion was about sexual harassment; ala Paula Jones. Once the Head of State decides to hit upon one of his employees it becomes a bigger political and legal issue than simple marital infidelity. I'll never understand how all of the Clinton apologists don't grasp this simple fact. (suprise! I'm still not a Republican.)

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 1:52 p.m. CST

    And the correct response should have been

    by swavill

    I always thought Clinton should have handled the lEWINSKY question one of two ways. One to get up on national television and say its NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUISINESS. Or when asked by a reporter about it he should have said YEAH SHE GIVE GREAT BLOWJOBS WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GET HER TO GIVE YOU ONE. Its probably a good thing I'm not running for public office.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Consenting What?

    by browny

    Mr. Buddha - Actually, I have little moral outrage over that nasty little bit of nookie in the Oval Office. If that Hilary wannabe wasn't an employee, I'd say go ahead and have a nice time just like JFK and countless others. My point is though that the concept of CONSENTING ADULTS gives way to the doctrine of IMBALANCE OF POWER when the affair occurs between boss and subordinate in the workplace. The fact that Billy lied about the statement of facts under oath, just furthered his disgrace. In many parliamentary jursidictions of the world, that lie on a statement of fact would in itself be enough to force his resignation. What I regret the most is that these simple facts have been overshadowed by the silly Religious Right Outrage over the seamy details of the acts themselves.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Willie and Don

    by browny

    A while ago the Smoking Gun ran some documents of alleged Sexual Harrassment charges against Don Johnson(you know Nash Bridges aka the guy in no socks and a linen suit). What does frost my ass is the reason these guys hit on employees. Let's face it, they're celebrities who can play hide the wienie with any number of groupies - yet they choose to hit on some underling who might just be tryin' to keep down a -ahem- job. It makes me realize that its not about sex... instead it must be about the sizzle that comes about from abusing those whom you command.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Here is the Clinton apologist film I thought would occur

    by Wondermutt

    Harry, there is no way you can review this film because you are in bed with all of the liberal whiny hacks in Hollywood. Now they have mad their film that defends Clinton and his sickening actions. Harry, his affair with Monica was not private because he lied about it in court while he was being sued for sexual harrassment. This movie will alienate about half of the audience out there, kind of like "The American President" did with its blatent portrayal that Richard Dreyfuss did of a conservative being EVIL. I'm suprised that a film like "Primary Colors" was actually made at all. Rant over.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Pour me a cup of hot fat,

    by Ronald_Reagan

    Because its getting chilly in here! Sorry to say, there are plenty of nice, quiet conservatives who don't see things in black and white; I think it was the Talkback Jackass of the Day, Wrathful Buddha, who started the childish name calling that our "tolerant" liberal friends like to resort to once they begin to lose an argument. As for that guy in the White House..the "this is privacy, none of you business" idea is weak; this man has done his best to make his private life public (Mr President, boxers or briefs?) and has shown that he really cares more about his own political skin than the good of the country. And, most of all, he lied in court, which, in case you don't know, is a felony. Like someone in the (more entertaining) AICN chatrom said, "hey, urinating is legal, but if I do it in court, I'm in trouble". So lets all sit back, relax, and thank the Greek Gods that Clinton is getting the hell out the White House and...oh. Wait. They mostly talk about MOVIES in here? Oh my. Um....havent seen it.......gotta run bye.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Liberal Ideology Entertainment

    by Stranger

    OK, so you like a little Liberal Ideology Entertainment (LIE) in your movies. That's fine, but when do we get to see some Conservative Ideology movies. And I don't mean Lassie, or other family-oriented stuff. But some White Hat / Black Hat movies with Conservative Values on the Good Guy for a change. Believe it or not, you can be Conservative and a Good guy. Unfortunately, this movie *sounds* (I doubt I'll go see it), like a case of "the other guy is so bad, it doesn't matter what we do". and "If you let those rascally conservatives win, you'll never have sex again". So if anyone can recommend some 'conservative' movies, I'll gladly listen.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:13 p.m. CST

    John Williams..

    by X-Girls

    Sure wasn't @ his best in The Phantom Menace! He had really dramatic music when they were eating @ the table!

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:29 p.m. CST

    WrathfulBuddah, do you actually think b4 you speak?

    by D'Jesus

    Or do you just spew out catch phrases that the biased media plant in you? If you are going to say something like republicans "see everything in black or white" and "are simpletons", then please elaborate and explain how this is so. Also, Kenneth Star was appointed by Janet Reno, not the vast-right-wing-conspiritists Republicans. If you do some research, you will find that she is Billy's appointed Attorney General. Wait... I'm sorry. I forgot that you liberals expect others to do work for you. I will supply the research on request.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Mr. Smith Goes to Washington...

    by D'Jesus

    is one of the finest "political" movies of all time. It never slaps you in the face with pro-liberal anti-conservative bullshit. I would guess that's because it is a better movie made in a better time.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Still think nothing tops All The President's Men

    by superninja

    Great movie.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Fact of the Matter Is.....

    by mrbeaks

    The whole mess began as an inquiry into the Clintons' wrongdoing w/r/t their Whitewater dealings. Subsequently, after getting sidetracked with the whole Lewinsky/perjury/impeachment fun (and, yes, the man did perjur himself, which was idiotic, but no less idiotic than selling arms to our former enemies, or building up a dictator and his Republican Guard only to watch him invade a neighboring country and drive up oil prices so that we can make Lee Greenwood's awful "God Bless the U.S.A" a number 1 hit again,) those allegations have been dropped due to an insignificant amount of evidence (i.e. the "smoking gun" is taking up residence on the floor of the Potomac.) Look, Clinton's hands are far from clean, and I don't mean to defend the guy, but let's not forget the proud tradition of Oval Office misdeeds that will likely continue once either of these yahoos takes office come January. And if I'm voting democrat this year for a candidate I have despised in the past, know that it's only to ensure that we don't end up with a Supreme Court tipping to the right and, thereby, seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, or define what is "obscene" for the rest of the country (though I concede that such action is highly unlikely. Just coverin' my bets.) Furthermore, anyone who looks to the Executive Branch to set the moral standard for the rest of the country should remember that the last time we had a leader who filled that particular bill, he turned out to be a spectacular failure despite being one of the more intelligent presidents we've ever elected (yes, that would be Mr. Carter.) As for this movie, it might share THE WEST WING's politics, but it's nowhere near as entertaining.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Best Political Movie? You Gotta Be Kiddin' Me!

    by mrbeaks

    It's FIRST KID, by far! After Sinbad, the Oval Office will never be the same again.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Proposed "Willie" Amendment

    by superninja

    WHEREAS all Officers of the Executive Office of the United States of America ("Officers") and Private Parts ("Privates") belonging to said Officers heretofore elected into said office shall remain confined in the pants of said Officers for the full term of their service in the Executive Office, unless said Officers are married, whereas said Privates may be utilized accordingly.

  • Oct. 11, 2000, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Conservative Idealism

    by Monkey Lord

    is about honesty, personal responsibility, and doing the right thing for the right reasons... Strangely sounds a lot like liberal idealism too. The PROBLEM with trying to ascribe these qualities to any single political party is that you will only succeed in absolute failure. To yack on about "whining liberals" or "dumbass republicans" is making broad generaizations about a LOT of people. Being a democrat or a republican has NOTHING to do with the quality of your values, or the sanctity of your beliefs....or even whether you're right or has to do with which special interest groups you will be more likely identify with, and thus support at the polls. I consider myself a conservative, yet I am not a "pro-lifer", I'm not even remotely a christian, and I'm a supporter of environmental issues and the arts. The whole reason I won't register myself as a republican is because I know exactly what will happen: I will be labeled by a stereotype by those who don't understand what "conservativism" means.

  • I'm not a right-winger, I just think the movie will be sloppy and heavy handed...and of course Mr. Godzilla-Armaggedon boy is lapping it up. Harry, will you ever learn?

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 12:26 a.m. CST

    An open letter to all those who purport to be liberals.

    by Vieri

    Do you even know the basic tenets of liberalism? Compassion, equality, dignity ... spit out the old rhetoric. Well I suggest you polish up your understanding of the ideology. Being a liberal, albeit in the classical sense, is to be one that believes in the sanctuary of the individual to live their life autonomous from interference of a coercive force ( i.e. government ). However, modern so -called

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Kenneth Starr (The Untold Story: Chapter 1)

    by spenworks

    The wierdest thing happened - I was in this bar -Latitude 22- down here in Cabo- when C.N.N. started showing this interview with Kenneth Starr, same old liberal TV shit. Nacho, the bartender, points at the TV and calls a couple of the waiters over. Well they were all cracking up "mira, mira, es Kenny", "Si, si, de veras, es Kenny", "" " Kenny, la reina de la Ballena" Well they kept chattering and giggling and laughing and spitting out some rapid fire Spanish that I couldn't follow, but they were having a good old time. When the interview ended I called Nacho over and asked him what that was all about. He sais that until a couple of years ago Judge Starr was a frequent visitor to the Ballena, a local sleaze bar hangout for transvestites, druggies, queers and assorted perverts. I said "yeah right and thought no more of it , although it did enter my mind that if the Judge did turn out to be one of them queers, we could probably use it---humanize him a little and show all those Liberal Hollywood and Beverly Hills Jews and queers that we really are the party of diversity--all inclusive--room for everybody, you know. " La reina de la Ballena" --has a nice ring to it. Kenneth Starr the queen of the whale. Anyway I thought no more of it 'til last week---Newt and a few of those tobacco guys were down here on a "fact finding" mission and I was showing them a few of the hot spots, you know Kokomo's, Squid Roe, the Giggling Marlin but they wanted to see something a little hotter---you know how Gingrich gets-- so I took them to the transvestite show at the Ballena. They had a drag queen strip show, smoky, loud drum machine disco shit--Stayin' Alive, Stayin' Alive---so the show is getting grosser and grosser and Newt and his cronies are slammin' tequilas and getting louder and louder. The show is getting ranker and raunchier by the minute. The queens are having live sex on stage and Newt has a transvestite waiter on his lap--open mouth kisses and some serious groping-- one of the tobacco guys is getting a blow job from some fag under the table, one is passed out face down in his spilled drink his hair smouldering in an ashtray, and the third guy is prancing around the dance floor in a big sombrero--wagging his weenie and screaming " come and get it, hot Kentucky cock, free samples, hot Kentucky cock, come and get it".. So I figure I got to get thes guys out of here--can't you see the headlines- "House Speaker arrested in drug raid at transvestite bar". So I head to the phone to call a cab and right by the phone is a bulletin board and they got all these photos of drag queen parties and right in front is an8x10 color glossie of these six drag queens doing the Can-Can, and man, the queen on the right looks an awful lot like Judge Starr. Well I got Newt and the boya back to the tobacco company villa at Santa Maria and the next morning I poured them into the corporate jet to go back to D.C. and make the world safe for Democracy. You know I got to thinking about that drag queen pic so I went back to the Ballena to check it out. The Ballena wasn't open yet but the door was unlocked so I wandered in. The chairs were all on top of the tables and some guy was mopping up. The smell of the disinfectant mixed with the stench of stale booze, vomit , sex and cigarette smoke almost made me puke but I held my breath and headed back to the bulletin board. It still looked like Judge Starr and as I was taking the photo down I was interupted by a slick little guy with a Gilbert Roland mustache. He asked me in flawless english if he could help me to find something. He was an oily little shit-thousand dollar lizard boots- Rolex -custom shades - raw silk guayabara shirt and more gold chains than half a dozen Harlem pimps. He looked a lot like that scum from the Cali cartel that we busted at Rebozo's place back in Miami Beach. I gave him some of that good old boy Texas tourist routine. How ya doin' pardner. I was here last night with some fishin' buddies 'n' I saw this here pitcher, 'n' ya know it looks a lot like this neighbor a mine back in Dallas. I just sorta thought it would be fun to show him this here pitcher. MORE TO COME!

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 12:46 a.m. CST

    Kenneth Starr (The Untold Story: Chapter2)

    by spenworks

    So I told my oily friend that if he had any more photos I might be interested in buying them from him. I could see the wheels turning--I thought he had me figured for a guy who was going to try a little blackmail. He said he thought he might have some more candid shots in his office. He lead me down a narrow hallway toward a raggedy looking door with a video camera moounted above it. The door slid silently open as we approached. We entered what could have been a Beverly Hills doctor's waiting room. Couch, afew chairs, file cabinet and monitors for the security cameras---but the three guys definately were not from a B.H. doctor's office--serious muscle, all in aviator sun glasses and all with pistols stuck in their waist bands, Cali style. The smallest one, a snake eyed, rodent faced sleaze with an acne ravaged face and a stainless steel incisor ran a metal detector over me, stepped back and said "'sta limpio" (he's clean).The boss, whose name turned out to be Hipolito de la Vega (known locally as the shark) motioned for me to follow as he passed the desk and punched a code into a keypad by a second door. The door opened by giving three audible clicks and sliding smoothly up into the cieling. Ii'm starting to wonder just who the fuck is this Hipolito--and what the fuck have I wandered into? Triple dead bolt tungsten-moly steel McCallister locks, video cameras, metal detectors, armed muscle--whew!! I'm thinking I could be getting into some deep shit here. I don't think the offic was big enough to play tennis in but a quick round of badminton would have been no problem. Red tile floor, enough tropical plants to start a small jungle, a waterfall in one corner , conference table with a dozen chairs, media center, computers even had some giant green iguanas meandering through the foliage. He invited me to be seated at one of six chrome and leather Eames chairs arranged around a glass topped table, the base of which was a full size bronze nude of Pamela Anderson. I felt like I was trapped in a fucking James Bond movie! He sat himself in the chair accross from me and picked up a legal size manila envelope from right over Pamela's tits--- took out a handfull of 8x10 glossies and tossed them over to me and said "I believe you said you were interested in photographs Mr. McCaffrey" I'm thinking uh oh! how the fuck does he know my name ? I might be in way over my head. I picked uo the photos, the top one was Gingrich locked in an open mouth kiss with the waiter in drag--must have been forty 8x10s. They had the weenie wagger in his sombrero, they even had a wide angle shot from a cieling cam showing tobacco guy number one with his head thrown back, looking right into the camera with the little pervert in his lap gobbling his crank. While I'm looking at the photos and trying to figure out what the hell is going on Hipolito says " so let's cut the bullshit Mac (he even knows my nickname) we both know there's no neighbor in Dallas--you want pitchers of Judge Starr, we got 'em. Look at this." He flicked a remote control and the jumbo screen came to life. It opened on the bedroom of the tobacco company villa in Santa Maria, you could see out the french doors to the big patio overlooking the Sea of Cortez with an incredible view of the Cabo arch. Laying right in the middle of a huge round bed with purple satin sheets was none other than his honor Judge Kenneth Starr. He was wearing thick Bette Davis pancake makeup, bright red lipstick smeared his swollen lips. He wore false eyelashes and his heavy mascara was smeared and runny, his Keely Smith type page boy wig was mussed and askew. He was sporting a garter belt with heavy mesh black silk stockings black lace panties and a sexy black push up bra with cutouts for the nipples. His eyes were glazed and he was drooling as he sniffed from a jar of medicinal ether. Scattered around the room were Dominoes pizza boxes, K.F.C. wrappers, empty tequila bottles, diet cola cans and many childrens toys and teddy bears. On a bedside table there were loose amyl-nitrare poppers,piles of cocaine, queludes, opium suppositories, crack pipes, syringes (some used some still in the wrapper), abaggy ful of 'shrooms, some blotter acid, adouble handfull of peyote buttons and a whole bunch of tabs and caps I couldn't easily identify. MORE TO COME!

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Brings A Tear To The Eye...

    by Moriarty

    Spenworks, I think you may well have just elevated TALK BACK to a whole new level of performance art. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 1:43 a.m. CST

    What the federal goverment has done for us.

    by spenworks

    Rush Limbaugh: "With the exception of the military, I defy you to name one government program that has worked and alleviated the problem it was created to solve. Hmmmmmmmmm? I'm waiting..... Time's up.---- Now, I'm noe expert on government. And besides, I'm a liberal. So me naming 10 or 20 of the hundreds of successful government programs isn't going to impress anyone. hell, I think Rural Electrification worked! That's how big a dumbass liberal I am. So here are a few bonafide conservatives to tell you what government programs have worked. 1: George Will- "Rural electrification. the Interstate Highway System ("The most successful public works program in the history of the world") The federal government has been tremendously successful in disseminating health and safety information, for example, about smoking and seat belts. (ed. note- we wouldn't have seat belts with out Ralph Nader) 2. Rep. John Kasich- National Institute of Health, Youth Sumer Jobs program. 3. Bob Dornan- The FAA, lighthouses, federal penitentaries. 4. Arianna Huffington- The National Parks System, guarenteed student loans, aid to Greece. 5. Ben Stein- Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, Food Stamps. Richard Viguerie- Public libraries, the FBI, the GI Bill. So, is Limbaugh that out of touch with conservatives like Will, Kasich, and Dornan? Or does he just take his readers to be complete morons? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? I'm waiting....... Times up!

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 1:54 a.m. CST

    The Limbaugh quote...

    by spenworks

    So there is no appearance of impropreity, I'd like to let it be known that the conservatives list of Government programs that work is from Al franken's book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, fat Idiot". And yes..... "Stuart Saves His family" sucked ass.

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 2:08 a.m. CST

    Kenneth Starr (The Untold Story: Chapter 3)

    by spenworks

    FROM McCAFFREY'S JOURNAL - The screen flickered and went black- came right back up with a close up of a big screen Mitsubishi showing Gene Kelly Singin' in the rain, just singin' in the rain. the camera then panned to the french doors and zoomed ou to the patio. There in a little kiddies rubber wading pool (it looked like one of the early Flintstone models, light blue and yellow with Barney, Fred, Wilma, Dino and the whole gang) in about six inches of water, was the CEO of one of the world's largest tobacco conglomerates. His soft white fish belly cottage cheese body took up most of the pool. He was wearing an outsize floral design diaper(appeared to be primarily violets and loblolly with some little red flowers I couldn't identify as color accents--quite tasteful actually) and a child's leopard skin flannel pajama cap, complete with little cat ears, that tied under the chin. He was waving a large blue plastic baby rattle (seemed to be a normal off the shelf item from ToysR us) in one hand and a half empty bottle of Herradura Tequila (I think it was the Tres Generaciones commemorative crystal decanter) in the other. His eyes were red and puffy and he appeared to have thrown up on himself. He had evidently eaten something chunky in a red sauce(quite possibly Huachinango Veracruzana). While Singin' in the rain, just singin' in the rain blared from the Mitsubishi--seven or eight naked prepubescent Mexican boys- the youngest six or seven, the oldest about eleven- held hands around the pool urinating on the CEO who seemed to be alternately laughing and crying as he sang out "ring around the rosie, ring around the rosie" He looked like a drug addled, deranged drunken sex-crazed Baby Huey as he wallowed in the kid p-ss and vomit screeching out " look, look, golden arches -golden arches"(seems they called this the McDonald's game. In the background doing a strip tease to singin' in the rain, just singin' in the rain was none other than His Honor Judge Kenneth Starr. He seductively and quite gracefully slid off his black silk mesh stockings( probably Frederick's of Hollywood) and although he stumbled drunkenly while struggling with his garter belt (looked like a Victoria's Secret number), he had some pretty nice moves--it was easy to see how he won all those dragqueen competitions. Regaining his balance and composure he turned coquetishly sideways to the camera,removed his bra (probably also Victoria's Secret)and with his right hand twirled it playfully around his head. As he cutely hid his breasts with his left hand and arm he did a few playful bumps and grinds. Then while lip-synching to singin' in the rain, just singin' in the rain with a delicate curtsy he tossed the bra underhand to an imaginary audience and spun to face the camera and raised his arms victoriously like Hitler greeting the troops --- revealing two of the most incredible tits I have ever seen. You remember Magda and Ivana the Russian identical twin dancers from Minsk that we doubled for the wet-chocolate sting we used to clean up that Berlin mess? Well His Honor Judge Kenneth Starr has tits like magda or was it Ivana? Anyway he has tits like the one that had the really nice tits except he's got nip---s on them puppies like Harley Davidson handle bar grips and they're painted bright red. Hey these weren't strapped on or falsies of any kind, they were his - and by the way he cupped and carressed and sucked and bit on them 'til they were all inflamed and swollen like rocks -he was really proud of them. The screen flickered and went black for a second and when it came back on what was revealed shocked and startled even me, and that's almost impossible to do sure as my name's McCaffrey. MORE TO COME.... IF I CAN SURVIVE THIS SICK AND TWISTED DESCENT INTO THE HIDDEN LIVES OF MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 6:35 a.m. CST


    by trafficguy2000

    Both parties have their faults, do some research and vote for a party that wants to get government OFF your backs OUT of your pockets and will leave the idea of what is OFFENSIVE to the people not themselves!

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 9:36 a.m. CST

    I know I'm shocked...

    by nuke187

    Gee, Harry loves a movie that's basically left-wing propaganda. Some of you act like you're shocked or something. =) BTW, Harry, it's worth noting that Clinton's sex life became the purview of more than Hillary when it went to the case of sexual harrassment brought by Jones. By then lying under oath and trying to cover that up, Clinton both tried to subvert justice and broke his oath to uphold the Constitution. Both of these could easily be construed high crimes and misdemeanors. Note that he also used his office in the attempts to thwart justice, which obviously makes him unfit for it even if his crimes aren't enough to have him removed.

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Politics and violence in the media, etc.

    by ArC

    A friend recently asked me about a common, Lieberman-esque question about why politicians like to target the media, whether that be video games, movies, TV, whatever, as scapegoats for the evils of our society, as in guns in our schools and issues like with the Columbine tragedy. This is a pretty typical liberal, or non-thinking minded view, and we can reason through it this way. The reason that they look at the media is because they are trying to understand what's causing the degradation of the morals of our society. The question, in their minds, is not "how did 'Tommy' get a handgun", it's "what in the world made Tommy think that shooting someone with a gun was 'ok'". Guns in and of themselves have no power over the minds of individuals, even children, to push them to violence. I think that the question is correct, but what people like to do far too often is take the easy route. Rather than tracing the source of a problem as far back as they can, they simply hit the symptoms they see along the way and attempt to address the symptoms instead of the true problem. Consider this--as domestic violence, and violence among children has risen, so has the violence in the media, whether that be video games, or TV, or movies. However, while some people think this implies a direct correlation to the problems at hand, these are simply symptoms of the same greater problem. This problem is the afore-mentioned degradation of morals in our society. In other words... why Tommy thought it was "ok" to shoot somebody with a gun was not because he saw Wily E. Coyote try to eat the fucking Roadrunner, it was because he was never properly taught that there is a right and wrong--and wrong includes shooting your classmate in the face. Think of the reasons that, throughout your life, you haven't done things that hurt other people. Most likely it's because your parents have imparted in you a sense of right and wrong, and you felt guilty if you DID do something wrong... which is called a conscience. The violence in our media, etc., is simply more evidence that our society has lost its conscience. Why? Because the violence wouldn't BE there if there weren't a market for it, and people, adults, have again and again decided that rather than feeling any sort of social responsibility towards the rest of society, and our children in particular, they clamor more and more for the extremes. Jerry Springer, When Animals Attack, South Park (the movie), etc. etc. etc. Since it's all so "entertaining" we tolerate it... it makes money. Then when we see all the violence being perpetuated... the short-thinkers look for scapegoats, for the easy answer. It's not all so surprising if you only really look at our society. How many people who come to this board have two parents? And if you have two, are they both your "original" parents? Then, even IF you're lucky enough to have two, how many jobs do they hold between them? If you're REALLY lucky you might have a parent who's home parts of the time you are. Anyway, it'd be nice if more people used their brains and took the time to reason through things, rather than settling on what's convenient, what's topical, what's easy to blame... but the public doesn't think that far, certainly, so why should our government? Nor do those who make movies, apparently, taking a forum which could, and should, be used to create a balanced portrayal of politics, but... always seems to come out with a liberal slant. Perfect liberal president in the West Wing. Conservatives painted with a broad brush as evil in The Contender. Conservatives bring up the issues about family values and right and wrong for a reason--and it's not necessarily totally political. They do so because they see the same moral degradation that we do--and are disturbed just as many of us are. Instead, however, of using scapegoats such as cartoons or video games, they try and understand the larger picture, and root out the source of the problem. Even Clinton, with his adultery and unprofessional conduct as the leader of our country (which can be taken both as a moral and political leader, because he REPRESENTS our country, as he IS our leader) is more of a symptom of this larger problem. However, he only exacerbates the situation--you can draw in the logical lines here, from morality, doing the right thing, and... being the worst example and role model we could possibly have perhaps as our spiritual and political leader. Take that as you will.

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Bobcat summed this election up best...

    by Di

    I heard him on the radio the other morning. His comment was: "Oatmeal, or Cream of Wheat. Oatmeal, or Cream Of Wheat..."

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 6:59 p.m. CST

    NEWSFLASH: Oldman Says Studio Democrats Ruined Contender (from

    by superninja

    Cantankerous actor Gary Oldman is openly badmouthing his new movie, The Contender, just one day before its release date

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 8:12 p.m. CST

    Well, well, well

    by Ronald_Reagan

    "Well, he did use to say 'well' alot" <Homer Simpson>. Nice to know that there are other film fans out there who happen to be conservative as well. As for this bit 'o Oldman news...I'm not suprised. God knows that the head Dreamworks honchos are shills for the Democrat, and the charge of them doing "selective editing" is sad but plausible. And, yes, if Hollywood loved The West Wing so much, they'll give this movie at least an Oscar nod just to make it be considered an "important" movie. talkbackers, try out the aintitcool chatroom. At least in there, the chatroom moderators can kick out the jackasses....

  • Oct. 12, 2000, 11:52 p.m. CST

    The Contender Controversy

    by highdive

    Yeah, so I saw an advance screening on Thursday, and I totally see why Oldman is upset about DreamWorks and their disgusting editing job. Sick, sick, sick. The movie could have had such a better ending had DW not messed with it.

  • Oct. 13, 2000, 12:12 a.m. CST

    What this film is really about

    by swavill

    Having just gotten home from a screening of this film and rereading both Harry's and Moriarity's reviews I find I have a slightly different take on it. The core of this film is about a political candidates refusal to comprimise her principles for personal gain. In the face of a complete shit storm on nationwide television she refuses to defend herself from accusations because she believes that to do so would give the accusations a credibility that they do not deserve. And that this would set a precedent for future candidates. The line in the film about the first person to testify before McCarthy's commitee on Unamerican activities and how he named names and cooperated. If he had just told them to go fuck themselves how much harder their job would have been went straight to the point. In a day and age where the politicians that we have to choose from fervently support or oppose whatever the polls tell them they should support or oppose this week, the idea of a candidate standing on principle even at the cost of political office is refreshing. Allen's character even after evidence surfaces in her defence refuses to use it saying that she cannot abandon her principles just because they are inconvenient. This film is told from a democrats point of view and as such will likely appeal to people inclined to vote for democrats and turn off republicans. Which is actually a shame because it has excellent performances across the board. And the message of a major political candidate standing up and being themselves saying this is who I am . This is what I believe and I will not compromise my principles for any reason ,right or wrong ,come hell or high water is something which should appeal to all of us.

  • Oct. 13, 2000, 3:22 a.m. CST

    Hey Manowar . . .

    by ol' painless

    "Making the beast with two backs." I got that one from my mate Will Shakespeare. And I agree, Joan Allen is a lovely lady, and an actor I could watch all day. I tell you, I really do fear for America if Dubya gets voted in. This guy is quite possibly the stupidest man to ever run for President. Reagan wasn't stupid - he was just insane. But Dubya - shit, that clown can't even put a sentence together without his tongue falling out of his mouth to trip him up. Seriously folk, can you imagine him meeting world leaders - he won't even know their names!

  • Oct. 13, 2000, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Ol' Painless...

    by SCOTT1458

    don't you live in Australia, or New Zealand or something like that? Seems you guys got enough to worry about over there, than to care about the U.S..

  • Oct. 13, 2000, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Try to take my guns Harry

    by Walther P99

    I'm not going to get into the Lewinsky bullshit. That dragged on forever and we conservatives must admit: WE LOST. CLINTON WON. What was the price for them though? The liberals have sold out all of their decency, morality, and credibility to defend Clinton. I would like to ask you liberals if it was worth it. WAS CLINTON WORTH YOU SELLING OUT YOUR SOUL?! I hope he was, cause you commie-libs are now the laughing stock of the country. George W is going to win the election. Face it. Look at every poll on the web. AS FOR HARRY KNOWLES. COME AND TRY TO TAKE MY GUNS YOU FAT SHIT!!!!! I dare you. I've got a 325-grain hollow point with your name on it.

  • Oct. 14, 2000, 2:13 p.m. CST


    by wow


  • Oct. 14, 2000, 2:20 p.m. CST


    by wow

    I will Let Gary Oldman express my outrage with hiscomments of this crappy political excuse to influence the coming election.<sp> <p>Cantankerous actor Gary Oldman is openly badmouthing his new movie, The Contender, just one day before its release date

  • Oct. 14, 2000, 2:23 p.m. CST

    I think you should all blow me

    by SnifflesQ

    Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian. Right-wing. Left-wing, middle of the bird. Conservative, liberal, radical, reactionary, fascist, moderate. Who gives a fuck? You all still do whatever THEY tell you, so please spare the world more of your recycled jargon and rhetoric. Unless you're willing to stand up and do something about it -- and I mean really DO something about it, not just vote for your flavor of the month and then go out and buy a bumper sticker reading "Don't Blame Me. I voted for ..." then you've got nothing to say. You're a bunch of sheep and morons and you deserve every inch they're slipping you. *Whew* So ... Anybody seen any good movies lately?

  • Oct. 15, 2000, 3:55 a.m. CST

    Yo, Vieri

    by LesterB

    I hope you'll pardon my leftist idealism, but, believe it or not, you are absolutely right about liberals being hypocritical. You're absolutely right, we are against guns and for freedom of speech and expression. If you find that to be an oxymoron (I don't, but if you do, that's okay), that's fine. But we're not the only ones. Conservatives certainly seem to have hypocrisy problems themselves. How about the fact that every Republican leading the charge against Clinton had had extramarital affairs himself? How about your "pro-life" stance? Unborn babies are people and criminals aren't? So it's okay to kill the bad guys? This coming from the same people who are so concerned with what God thinks. Isn't there some kind of law in the Bible about loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek? Not that I would know. After all, I'm a godless liberal faggot, right? Oh, yeah, that's the other thing, the Republicans are real big on freedom for everybody - unless you happen to be attracted to a member of the same sex. Then you can't even have consensual sexual relations in 42 of the 50 states! I guess that's because gay people kinda scare you, huh? So, yeah, I guess you're right. Liberals are hypocrites. And conservatives are honest, God-fearing folk. Yay Bush! I'm going to go out and get a bumper sticker right this minute! Then I'm going to drive to Michael Moore's house and mark his door, so Satan will know who to take when the Day of Judgment is upon us. In case you can't tell, I'm being heavily sarcastic. Nixon beat his wife. Lincoln was a vehement racist (read ALL of the Emancipation Proclamation sometime). Kennedy fucked around on his wife, and so did Clinton. So did FDR. Eisenhower was a drunk. Ronald Reagan was too old to be in office. George Bush lied to our faces about taxes. My point is that you're not gonna find an honest, gleaming, perfect politician. They don't exist. Not in the Republican party, not in the Democratic party, not anywhere. So let's lay off of the liberals, okay? We ain't so bad. Except for that commie pinko fag thing.

  • Oct. 15, 2000, 9:08 a.m. CST

    This will rock !

    by Gutty

    I'm in Europe, cant wait to see this one! Good, insightful review Harry, nice to know that you and Moriarty dont always agree! P.s , visit my page at

  • Oct. 15, 2000, 9:28 p.m. CST

    About Viewpoints...

    by Lobanhaki

    I think the conservatives who blast this film for being so openly pro-liberal can feel free to assert their politics in their own way. I applaud The Contender for the logical and principled way it brought it's political viewpoint to the silver screen. Some people (like Tom Clancy unfortunately) don't trust that people can infer the thrust of a film from subtext of the scene, but instead assume a take it or leave it attitude about the statements made. (Both Parties) However, People watching movies want tension, suspense, and drama, and you don't get that if your characters become pure mouthpieces for your politics. As for Spielberg's involvement, I have my doubts as to whether he or anyone else in Dreamworks would do that to a film. I think Spielberg actually did his best to help Lurie get his vision to screen, and I don't hear him complaining. Oldman? Well, maybe from his point of view, that's what happened to the film. But I think the film does qualify for greatness, in the way it takes on both the issue of equality in Gov't, and in the way it takes on the truth-clouding capacity of scandal politics.

  • Oct. 15, 2000, 11:29 p.m. CST

    flightsrgn, this is why no one likes Rush Limbaugh anymore...

    by LesterB

    Because, like you, he's a self-righteous, whining, moaning, sore loser. Face it, pal, we "gay-ass liberals" won the morality war by beating you guys at your own game. We exposed you for the hypocritical, purely partisan jerks that you are. We chased your ethically bankrupt leader, Newt Gingrich, out of Congress just after trouncing his second-in-command, Bob Dole, in the '96 election. Face it, you're out of touch. America doesn't trust conservatism anymore. So you tried to buy that trust back by ratting on the babysitter who brought his girlfriend over, but surprise ... America didn't fall for it. You know why? Because deep down, we Americans all understand that everyone lies about sex, and if that's a crime, then we should all be thrown in jail, including Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Trent Lott, Kenneth Starr, and the rest of that Cavalcade of Assholes the Lewinsky trial introduced us to. In the end, you lost, and now you're jealous, so you're slinging mud in every direction you can, trying to take the White House back by using the same dirty smear tactics and fear politics that the conservatives have always used. Give ... it ... up. America doesn't buy that brand of horseshit anymore. Now they're into liberal horseshit, which is a whole other bag of manure. But at least it's not vindictive, cruel manure like conservatives make. Yes, both parties are fucked up beyond belief. But I'll tell you this, I'd still rather have Al Gore running this country than homophobic, racist, daddy's boy George W. Bush. And so would most enlightened Americans. So you're going to lose again, conservatives. My only question: how long till you sore losers impeach Al for lying about the dog eating his homework?

  • Oct. 16, 2000, 9:06 a.m. CST

    This is why Hollywood is in a downward spiral

    by Shaft9876

    Harry's excuse that Hollywood is concerned more about money than it is about politics may have held water 5 or 6 years ago, but nobody's buying it anymore, and America's "love affair with the movies" is in decline as a result. It became obvious with last year's Oscars, in which each of the nominees for Best Film, with the exception of The Sixth Sense, represented a different facet of left-wing (in some cases flat-out Communist) philosophy. Now, they've taken the next step, which is to release what is inarguably a flat-out propaganda film weeks before a Presidential election in a clear attempt to influence that election. Anyone who has any interest in art or in the independence of artists should be upset about this film, regardless of whether or not they agree with it. Look at it this way- if the entire media structure of a nation becomes devoted to promoting one political party's agenda, including attempting to help that party gain and hold power, and only artists who follow that agenda are allowed a voice, how far are we from a one-party totalitarian state? Not far at all. In other words, the cries of "Communism" are not simply paranoid rantings at this point, they have a reasonable grounding in reality. This remark by Oldman pretty much says it all: "I'm surprised that more people have not been murdered in the entertainment industry," he adds. "We deal with these people every day, and I cannot fight them at their own game. I just want to work with some people with real integrity."

  • Oct. 16, 2000, 1:36 p.m. CST

    good, not great by any means

    by Jack Burton

    The movie is simply too preachy by the end of it. I agree with Harry that the music is total overkill, as are some of the camera shots. There are scenes that seem to be designed to do nothing more then provide symbolism for an idea or conversation. Example: Senator Hansen running through Arlington Cemetary while the committe plots on how to take her out or "kill" her, The President always ordering weird food as visualization of how he always gets what he wants, in this case Hansen's approval from the committee. The hardest part to swallow was how more or less perfect Senator Hansen was. While it was admirable that she would not answer the question, I find it hard to believe that with so much at stake... (spoiler warning) she would not refute the accusations when she had the proof in the form of the letter in her hand. She is a politician for God's sake! Is she really going to take it lying down when she had evidence that the accusations were unfounded? I simply could not make the leap of faith there. Plus the whole car in the river thing was obvious from the beginning. Five minutes after that scene I knew that it was a set up and that it would come into play in the conclusion as soon as the FBI agent started sniffing around. Anyway, it's good but not great. The acting was top knotch across the board with the always reliable Slater turning in a very good performance.

  • Look, this is not meant to bash conservatives. But CLB was bitching about how you'll never see a conservative president being portrayed as a good person, and I had to weigh in. Think about it. When was the last time there was a conservative president with a cuddly, sweet, sensitive image? Bush was respected. Reagan was feared. Ford was mocked publicly, and rightfully so. Nixon was and is reviled, and rightfully so. None of them have been loved. Eisenhower is the last conservative president that the public even came close to adoring. Liberals are just easier to love. That's not the conservatives' fault. It's just easier to like someone who wants to give people a helping hand, and has idealism, and is tolerant of everyone regardless of sexuality, race, or religion. And modern-day conservatives just don't have that image. I mean, c'mon ... can you picture Bob Dole or George W. Bush volunteering at an AIDS hospice for a day? No. They'd run away screaming. Can you picture Bill Clinton doing it, though? Now, bear in mind, I'm not asking if he would, because I don't think he would either. I'm asking if you can picture it. Yep, so can I. And all fictionalized Presidents of recent years, from Andrew Shepherd to Josiah Bartlett to Jackson Evans (I think that's Jeff Bridges' character's name) have been liberal, because they have all been based on Bill Clinton, or the public's idealized vision of Bill Clinton. Clinton is like Kennedy in the sense that he made a lot of people believe that wonderful things were possible in this country, and that he could lead the way to those things, and that's the kind of idealism and hope people want from a President. And if you're writing a movie about a President, and you want people to like him, you have to instill that Kennedyesque mystique. So that's why conservatives don't make good heroes. I'm not saying they're bad people. Just not Hollywood enough.

  • Oct. 17, 2000, 9:06 p.m. CST

    flghtsgrn, your lack of competence is downright frightening...

    by LesterB

    Let me get this straight: Kennedy was an honorable man who just happened to occasionally use a murderous, criminal organization like the Mafia to get what he wants, but Bill Clinton is a piece of shit because he got a blowjob from an intern and lied about it? If you don't mind my saying so, your priorities are pretty fucked up. I read your latest post with a good deal of amusement simply because of the mind-blowing exaggerations. Bill Clinton sexually harassed EVERY SINGLE female member of the Cabinet? Gee, if that were the case, you'd think they'd be less eager to defend him, right? Or that they might even take legal action on their own? Apparently Madeleine Albright and Janet Reno don't have a problem with being sexually harassed by their Commander-in-Chief. And the Middle East is about to declare war on us! Oh my God! I'd better go sign up so I can defend my country from EVERY SINGLE MIDDLE EASTERN NATION, which is what you've implied. Let me explain the situation in the Middle East for your clearly fourteen-year old brain ... if you don't understand, ask your history teacher later. Palestine and Israel want the same piece of land, and both say it's their property according to their respective religions. So Bill Clinton, who you think is such an idiot, has spent a great deal of his eight years in office trying to keep these two groups of people from killing each other, and he's been more successful than any other president before him, incidentally. Then Israeli President Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, some other people came to power, and things changed. It wasn't Clinton's fault. In fact, as we speak, he's over there right now holding a summitt and trying to rebuild relations between the two nations. And in any case, we are NOT even CLOSE to going to war with ANYBODY in the Middle East right now! That kind of irresponsible rhetoric and bullshit is absolutely typical of conservatism, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Stephanopoulous is working for conservative issues? Funny, in the book he wrote last year he called Bob Dole "the quintessential political do-nothing of the 20th century" and Hillary Clinton "the most effective first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt". Sound like the words of a conservative to you? No. Me either. It's clear from your last post that you know nothing about politics or world affairs, but if you wish to consider this clearly one-sided debate, by all means go ahead. On a completely separate note, what evidence do you have to support the theory that the Presidents in "Air Force One" and "Independence Day" were conservatives? As a matter of fact, I thought it was pretty obvious that the President in "Independence Day" was blatantly bades on Bill Clinton. And Bill Pullman, who played the role, said that his base for the character was Bobby Kennedy. "Air Force One", I'll confess, I don't know. You could be right. But do you have any evidence, or is it just a "hunch", like my "Independence Day"-liberal connection?

  • Oct. 18, 2000, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Clearly, you didn't understand what "Primary Colors" was about..

    by LesterB

    It was not about Bill Clinton and his "liberal bullshit", flightsgrn. It was about a flawed human being who meant well for the country, but had certain weaknesses, just like anyone else. It was about idealism ... in fact, it encouraged idealism, the same idealism that you and your fellow conservatives scoff at whenever possible. If "Primary Colors" was so anti-Bill Clinton, then explain to me why it was that John Travolta, a huge contributor of his, played the lead role, and Mike Nichols, who is among the biggest and most active liberals on the planet, directed it. Now it appears that you not only have trouble understanding politics and world affairs, but your film as literature technique definitely leaves a lot to be desired. I'd suggest you rent the movie again. I own it. I think it's the most fair and evenhanded look at politics in a long, long time, and I think it's John Travolta's best performance.

  • Oct. 19, 2000, 12:06 p.m. CST


    by jigs

    Lester, You are correct to a extent. Primary Colors was an attempt to make excuses for Bill and make it seem ok for a president to be so flawed. The problem is that it failed miserably in this regard. All it did was make Bill look even more ignorant and incompetent. Why do you think Hillary through a fit and banned this movie from the White House? I have no doubt that John T. and friends were trying to do Willy a favor but, oops, it failed.

  • Oct. 19, 2000, 12:13 p.m. CST

    The Polotics of the Contender

    by jigs

    If any of you still have doubts about the liberal biases of Hollywood then check out this story on Foxnews - Gary Oldman Talks about how Spielburg and his buddies made them put a liberal slant to the movie and make the republicans look evil as usual.

  • Oct. 19, 2000, 12:35 p.m. CST


    by LesterB

    Of course that's what Oldman says, jigs. He's a conservative and he doesn't like the fact that he was duped. Which he was. I mean, I'm not going to sit here and deny that "The Contender" is partisan, political propaganda. I think anyone who's seen the trailers agrees with that, let alone the movie. And it certainly seems like they didn't make much of an effort to make Oldman's character at all human, just a bad-guy Republican. I'm not saying it's right, but what I am saying is that these people have a point when they say that the government needs to stay out of people's bedrooms, especially the President's. Because that crap is none of our business. And as for "Primary Colors", I disagree with you. I don't think it demonstrated Clinton's incompetence at all. It showed that he was a flesh and blood human being who wasn't perfect, who made mistakes. For instance, an honest film made about the Lincoln presidency would reveal that Lincoln was in fact a vehement racist, definitely had bouts with depression and suicidal tendencies, and had a loveless, angry marriage. Is any of this good? No. Does it reflect well on the Great Emancipator? Well, not the racism thing anyway. But does it make him any less of a great president? No. Presidents are people, too. Clinton has a right to make his mistakes, and it doesn't affect how good a President he was. And frankly, if it's between him and a pale, virginal choir boy who shakes his finger at everything deemed by his people as "immoral", I'll take Clinton, not the android. Besides, as I said, "Primary Colors" wasn't really about Bill Clinton. It was about a generation that lost its idealism, and about hope that a new generation wouldn't. But you conservatives HATE idealism, so it's natural that you would hate Bill Clinton, because he's the first President since Kennedy who made us feel like we as a nation could actually solve our own problems. He made us feel empowered. Bush didn't do it. Reagan was successful in his campaign, but couldn't follow through. Clinton was a great president for that reason and that reason alone. He even made us abandon our distinctly American, puritanical standards and embrace a less defined morality, where right and wrong is relative, which is what real life is like anyway. Granted, this last action wasn't intended, but it's what happened. And that's Clinton's legacy. Now why did Hillary not screen the film at the White House? I thought the answer to this question was pretty obvious. It portrays she and Bill as flawed people. No one likes to see their flaws onscreen and forty feet high, let alone the leader of the free world. I'm not sure I'd want a movie about my life screening in my house either.

  • Oct. 19, 2000, 3:06 p.m. CST


    by jigs

    Lester, I'm not going to get into a long heated argument because you are liberal and I am a conservative. I doubt I could convince you of anything and I know that you could convince me of nothing. I would however like to make two points. 1 - I did not ask what you thought of Primary Colors, the answer to that is obvious. My answer to that question is equally obvious. The point of the statement was that your average American who does not follow politics, (that way outnumbers you and I), saw the movie as a satirical jab at the Clinton administration. Thus the attempt to help Clinton failed with the majority of Americans. Now as for my second item I find your references to Lincoln to be very insulting. References like this all started when Clinton was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. In an attempt to make Clinton appear to be just like other presidents liberal spin doctors began throwing garbage like this all over the place even though the fact is they are NOT true. Now I don't know what liberal establishment fed you this garbage, (Probably the most famous lib. establishment of all i.e. college), but it is completely false propaganda. You can try to justify Clintons actions until you are blue in the face but do not try to spread more of your liberal lies about past presidents of this country who had REAL integrity

  • Oct. 19, 2000, 5:42 p.m. CST

    It is time

    by jigs

    All I can say to those Republicans that have posted on this board is let them wine. In three weeks we have a chance to see the end of slick willy and all of those that tagged along with him. We have to get out and vote. We can't shut the liberals up with our words, we have to do it at the polls. If we fight the good fight maybe even Alec Baldwin will keep his word and leave the country. Hell, I invite all of you liberals to get on the Alec Baldwin band waggon and if our man wins....leave and never come back.

  • Oct. 19, 2000, 9:32 p.m. CST

    flightrgn and jiggs, not to drag this out any further, but...

    by LesterB

    I really feel the need to respond, in particular to jiggs' naive indignance at my mention of Lincoln's all-too-human problems and flaws. Jiggs, have you ever read a biography of our 16th president? The man was severely fucked up. He held seances and had visions of his own death often. In multiple letters to his wife he contemplated suicide. His wife was an angry, bitter, mentally ill alcoholic, and that naturally caused many problems within their marriage. And yes, Lincoln was a racist. Freeing the slaves was a political move, not a moral one. It was an effort to cripple the South's economy, thereby making it easier for the Union to prevail, not to mention the obvious implications as far as Southern morale. As a matter of fact, one of Lincoln's provisos in the Emancipation proclamation (which you would know about if you'd ever read the speech in its entirety) was that the blacks be put on a ship and sent back to Africa, since the United States was ordained by God to be a white man's country. It was a strategic move in a time of war, and nothing more than that. Surely you can't be so foolish as to believe all the children's stories of "Honest Abe" who was ahead of his time in the way he viewed black people. He was a good man for his time, but no better than any other good man. Which is my entire point, that even the greatest people who ever lived were inherently flawed. Now, onto flightsrgn, who seems to think I'm some kind of socialist. I'm not. Actually, I lean far more to your end of the spectrum than the socialists. I'm a libertarian. That means I believe that people should be allowed to do basically whatever they want as long as it endangers no one else. That, too, is what the Republican party was founded on, before it was corrupted by religion and moralistic know-it-alls like Newt Gingrich and Kenneth Starr. I'm so conservative that I'm liberal. And proud of it. Okay, now that that's all cleared up, you're right, Jiggs, you and I will never agree because we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. However, I respect your opinion, since it is grounded in strong arguments and intelligent give-and-take. However, you really must know that flightsrgn is giving all of you guys a bad name. Tell him to tone down the SUCK MY COCK SLICK WILLIE stuff. It makes all conservatives look bad.

  • Oct. 21, 2000, 1:10 a.m. CST

    One person did, yes...

    by LesterB

    He wasn't in the Administration, though. And one person died in a plane crash. What's your point? What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Also, I just took a look at a poll that had Bush and Gore dead even. Polls are bullshit, flghtsrgn, which is what all the conservatives were saying when Clinton had 61% approval after the Lewinsky thing. My, how our tunes have changed...

  • Oct. 21, 2000, 2:56 a.m. CST

    wrong again LesterB

    by GunRunner

    Vince Foster was found with an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. He WAS in the administration; he was Deputy White House Counsel and had been part of Clinton's team in Arkansas too. Ron Brown died in a plain crash in Europe and an autopsy found a .45 caliber hole in the back of his head. Scores of people connected to Clinton have died mysteriously, probably due to Clinton's indepth connections to organized crime in Arkansas (Mena Airport cocaine smuggling, the Jerry Parks murder, the Mike Espy debacle, Whitewater and Casa Grande, Dan Lassiter). Clinton's a crook, and everybody knows it.

  • Oct. 21, 2000, 3:07 a.m. CST

    Jerry Parks murder

    by GunRunner

    If you wanna know more about Bill Clinton's connection to the Jerry Parks murder, follow this link.

  • Oct. 21, 2000, 3:33 a.m. CST

    I can acknowledge when I'm wrong...

    by LesterB

    And you're right, Gunrunner. I was wrong about Foster not being on Clinton's staff. However, it does not make me any less right about one thing having nothing to do with the other. Bill Clinton did not have Vince Foster killed, or Ron Brown, or anyone else, and to suggest anything like that is shockingly irresponsible and downright cruel. The ".45 caliber bullethole" in Ron Brown's head was later found to be caused by a projectile that flew off the wall of the plane in the middle of the crash, as the plane was breaking up. Obviously, you'll say it was a cover-up. I'll say you need to stop reading all those conspiracy mags. And incidentally, 12 people connected with or inside the Reagan administration died under unusual circumstances. Did Ronnie order all of them killed as well? Or is he just immediately exonerated because he's a Republican, and Clinton is damned because he's a Democrat? Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, all of this is a coincidence that the right wing in this country have been using to try to bring down Bill Clinton because he's the first effective Democratic president in thirty years and that terrifies them? I notice you took care not to directly accuse Clinton of anything. Instead you said it was "organized crime" or some such hogwash. Assuming you're right, and Vince Foster and ALL of these people who died over the past eight years somehow managed to cross these people, and this crime syndicate had them killed, how does that in any way implicate Bill Clinton? Just add some bad acquaintances to his list of unfortunate character flaws. It doesn't change the fact that thanks to him (and, in the economy's case, his appointee Alan Greenspan), the economy is booming, homosexuals are on the verge of being treated like human beings instead of pariahs, women are making almost as much as men (almost isn't enough, but it's something), and the budget is balanced. Face it people, the guy has been a great president, whether we like him personally or not. I certainly don't. If I ran into the guy in a restaurant, I wouldn't shake his hand (I've got a thing about adultery). But my personal feelings have nothing to do with my happiness as an American, and the pride I've felt for my country over the past eight years. Excluding the months of the Lewinsky trial. During that time, I was ashamed of my country and the petty, puritanical politics of partisanship. And I still am. And I'm afraid that this is a trend that will continue if the Republicans get into office. Then the Democrats will feel the need for revenge (I can hear the battle cry now: "Remember the cum-stained dress!") and try to impeach Bush for something utterly ridiculous, like fucking an intern and lying about it. The difference between you and I, Gunrunner, Jiggs, and flightsrgn, is that if that were to happen to Bush, you'd fight it tooth and nail. But you're the same people who nearly helped kick Clinton out of office for the exact same thing. Principles are wonderful ... in moderation, like everything else. Principles can also make you blind. Are you all so wrapped up in party rhetoric and wanting to see your "team" win that you would put this country through a painful impeachment just because the other side's team captain LIED about SEX? What has this country come to? When did we lose our grip? Was it Reagan? Was it Nixon? Was it Kennedy? All I know is, this country has not had a true, honest, and fair election since TV showed up, and it may never have one again. People are pampered. They don't care who their president is anymore. Well, I do. I'm voting for Harry Browne, because I want the bullshit to stop. And I hope you'll join me - but I think some of you may be permanently lost. So caught up in your party's victory or defeat that you forget what America was built on. Politics isn't a sport. You don't cheer for your team. You pick the guy who will do the best job, regardless of his "morality", which is such a relative term, I'm not even going to bother trying to define it. God, we had it so good. And somewhere along the way we loused it up. I hope someday you'll all see that I'm right. And if you don't, that's okay. I respect you all, but YOU ARE WRONG. And if you keep it up, you will destroy this great country. That's all. Sorry this was so long and so bitter, but I'm passionate about my country.

  • Oct. 21, 2000, 4:30 a.m. CST

    LesterB just can't get it right......

    by GunRunner

    Clinton WAS involved in organized crime in Arkansas, it is not just "hogwash". Dan Lassiter was a close fried of Governor Clinton, and a big part of his gubernatorial administration, and was indicted for drug smuggling, then was pardoned by Clinton. Organized crime in Arkansas and the South is usually referred to as the Dixie Mafia. While the goverment was investigating the Italian mafia in the New York and Chicago during the late 60's and early 70's, crime figures in the South used that opportunity to capitalize on the FBI's fixation on organized crime in the Northern cities. Bill Clinton also took campaign contributions from James Riady, a well-known Indonesian drug smuggler. I strongly believe that Ron Brown's death was intentional because he was getting ready to plea bargain his way out of a federal indictment. He told several people just prior to his death, that if he was indicted, "he wasn't going down alone." On the EXACT SAME DAY, Ron Brown's business partner was shot in an assination attempt while on business in South Africa. LesterB is wrong again on the hole in Brown's head. The hole was never PROVEN to have been caused by flying debris; his body has never been exhumed and it probably never will be. Was Ron Brown shot? I don't know, and I don't claim to, but these questions need to be asked, not just written off as "right wing propaganda." I would like to know where LesterB came up with this fabrication that 12 people in the Reagan administration have died under mysterious circumstances. He must get his news from Al Franken's homepage. The Clinton Body Count is a well known piece of documentation. Do I believe that Clinton has actually killed people. No. Its all done by suggestion and manipulation. Just listen to what L.D. Brown and other Arkansas State Troopers have said! Ask anyone who lived in Arkansaas during Clinton's rein about the mysterious deaths! It is well documented, but has never been picked up by the national media. As for the Lewinsky debacle, NO ONE WANTED TO IMPEACH CLINTON BECAUSE HE GOT A BLOW JOB IN THE OVAL OFFICE. He put his hand on the Bible and lied under oath. It doesn't matter if it is about sex, the oath does not say, "I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God, except if its about sex." Barbara Bottalino lied about oral sex in a CIVIL case (just like the Paula Jones case was) and was found guilty of perjury is now serving 8 years in house arrest. She lost her law license and her medical license for this. The president also let Lewinsky file a false deposition. This is a crime. If you advise someone to lie on a signed federal document, you have committed a felony. Some people say, "well, the Paula Jones lawyers shouldn't have asked him about Lewinsky on the stand in the first place. It wasn't material to the case." Well, the judge , Susan Webber-Wright (who ironically was one of Clinton's law students at the University of Arkansas), thought differently and said it WAS material, and found Clinton in contempt of court. As far as if I would do the same thing to a Republican, hell yes I would. If George W. Bush (who is without a doubt going to win big) did the same thing I would be the first one to ask for his resignation. Clinton is also a sexual predator. He gets what he wants from women however he can. He raped Juanita Broaddrick and has NEVER said that he didn't do it; he had David Kendall make a statement for him. Thats integrity? If someone falsely accuses you of rape, wouldn't you want to deny it vehemently yourself! I am sick of the moral relativeism of people like LesterB. There is such a thing as right and wrong. It is not relative. You don't get to pick and choose. I am not going to ruin the country LesterB, corrupt, lying politicians like Bill Clinton and Al Gore are. And you will be an accomplice because you let them get away with it.

  • Oct. 21, 2000, 5:08 a.m. CST

    Clearly, you didn't read my post very efficiently...

    by LesterB

    I never said Clinton got impeached because he got a blow job in the Oval Office. I said he got impeached for LYING about SEX. Caps and everything. It's true, you just said so yourself. And yes, I think it's bullshit. This country was put through significant emotional damage over what happened. It could have waited until he left office. He didn't commit murder, he didn't commit espionage, he didn't even steal anything. He got a blow job. And yeah, he lied about it. Under oath. SO THE FUCK WHAT? People lie about sex all the damn time. Yeah, it was wrong to do it under oath. It's not so serious a crime that it couldn't have waited. In the Constitution, it says a president can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". This meant treason. It meant murder. It did NOT mean getting a hummer and then committing perjury. It was a petty attack by petty people that wasn't even legally sound. That's why it failed, sir. And if you think that it wasn't partially because he was cheating on his wife, then you obviously don't know the religious right very well. The legal language said it was about perjury. The language in the hearings was very different. It was about bullshit moralizing. They released the Starr Report so that the American people would get riled up about the President cheating on his wife. Why else would they stick in the marvelously detailed sexual acts? Unfortunately, the American people played a dirty trick on Henry "I'm a Good Person and You're Not, Even Though I've Cheated, Too" Hyde and Kenneth "Call Me McCarthy" Starr. THEY DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT. As well they shouldn't have. Juanita Broaddrick? I don't know if she told the truth or not. From what I've heard and read, she sounds like she's digging for gold. There are quite a few holes in her story. David Kendall making the statement for Clinton? Maybe he thought making a personal statement would seem too defensive. He'd be right. It comes off far better if Kendall just brushes it off like the bullshit it probably is. Once again, it doesn't change Clinton's job performance. Now, on to Ron Brown. Let me ask you this? What hit man was so brave and dedicated to his job that he shot Ron Brown on the plane, then somehow managed to get it to crash without shooting the pilot (or was there a "bullethole" in his head too?), AND willingly gave his life for the cause without even getting to spend a dime of the money this "Dixie Mafia" paid him? Or did he just happen to be a paratrooper hired by the White House? If the latter is the case, then you ARE accusing President Clinton of murder, and you just told a lie. Anybody want to form a kangaroo court and toss Gunrunner off of the talkback? As for your assertion that there IS such a thing as right and wrong, then you please tell me Gunrunner, how do I know which is which? I don't understand. Who do I listen to? There are so many choices. For instance, if I were an objective third party reading this talkback, I would have to decide if you were right or LesterB was right. You would obviously say that you were right, and Lester would obviously say he was. Who do I believe? If there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong, then there is no such thing as opinion. If there's no such thing as opinion, then the First Amendment is null and void, and I don't want to live in this country anymore. What is right for me may be wrong for you. I think there are certain absolute truths (i.e. murder is wrong), but aside from those, there is almost nothing in life that is completely, 100% definite. Where did I get my stats on Ronald Reagan's administration? A book called "The Conservative Paradox" (written by a conservative no less, R. Johnson Thomas), wherein Clinton's various legal problems are discussed and the deaths within Reagan's administration are brought up for comparison. I looked for it before I wrote this, but couldn't find it. Once I do, I will be more than happy to post the names and dates of said deaths on the board for your inspection. I stress once again, since at the end of your post it sounded like you thought I was a liberal, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. I despise liberals slightly less than conservatives, but despise them all the same. I am a Libertarian. And as for being an accomplice to the wicked, murderous, licentious, sexually predatory Clinton/Gore administration, perhaps I am. But I find that to be a hell of a lot better than being an accomplice to a racist homophobe who will, if elected, send women back to painful and often times fatal back alley abortions. If Bush does win, I hope you'll sleep well with that knowledge, Gunrunner.

  • Oct. 21, 2000, 5:43 a.m. CST

    My review of "The Contender", for anyone who gives a shit...

    by LesterB

    I've been so busy fighting off the raging conservatives with a pointy stick that I almost forgot what this talkback was supposed to be about. I finally actually saw "The Contender" yesterday, and I thought it was okay. The script was extremely weak, it didn't seem to have the pacing and rhythym of the story quite down, and without question it is among the preachiest films I have ever seen in my life. I actually found myself agreeing with Gary Oldman (something I swear to God I will never let happen again) ... it would have been more interesting if they'd showed both sides of the issue instead of painting Oldman as the bad guy and St. Joan as one of God's own angels. However, what made up for the script's weakness was three Oscar-caliber performances that absolutely blew me out of my fucking chair. The star of this movie (don't let Joan Allen fool you) is Gary Oldman. As Shelly Runyon, he is all flailing limbs and kinetic energy. He speaks softly, in an almost Reaganesque tone, and brings across the subtext (and with Runyon there's a shitload of it) with tiny physical gestures rather than big movements or the raising of his voice. The one time he does raise his voice is in the midst of an abortion debate with Allen's character, and he seemed to believe it so strongly and had so much conviction that he nearly had ME cursing abortionists. It is truly a titanic performance, undeniably the best of his career, and I hope he'll accept his Oscar when he wins it. Joan Allen, too, gives a brilliant performance, but her character is not as well-written as Oldman's, which gives her less to do. However, what she did do was fabulously subtle. She never once went over the top, though there were plenty of opportunities for her to do so. She projected silent dignity with a craft and attention to detail that is envious and admirable. Jeff Bridges gives one of the definitive portraits of a Chief Executive of the nineties. From his very first scene, where he coolly sat down in a simple wooden chair, crossed his legs, and lit a taboo cigarette, I was entranced. Every move, every gesture was motivated, and every facial expression was a window to the character's intricate mind. Christian Slater gives a performance that is not quite Oscar caliber, but definitely worth a look. He is, as I stated in another talkback, maturing as an artist and an actor, and, I hope, as a human being. The performances were what saved this film from a pan for its partisan and heavyhanded script and, other than Runyon, unforgivably cookie-cutter characters.

  • Oct. 21, 2000, 7:50 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry, I thought this was a movie talkback.

    by vroom socko

    All this political bitch slapping is driving me nuts. I personally don't care who the next president is. What I care about is the results they bring to the table. After the 80's the USA was a rather f****d up place, and now that the 90's are over, it's still a f****d up place. Does anyone else out there realise that none of morons running for president this year deserves the office. None of them is a genuine human being. Oh, as a PS, I havent seen THE CONTENDER yet, but my all time favorite film about politics is 1949 best picture ALL THE KINGS MEN. The premise of the film? A nice guy cannot be elected, to win you must be an asshole.

  • Oct. 21, 2000, 8:19 p.m. CST


    by vroom socko

    LAST!!!!!LAST LAST I'M LAST! OH, GLORIOUS DAY I'M LAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Oct. 22, 2000, 10 p.m. CST

    The Contender

    by ARABAM

    I am not a movie critic, just an average guy who knows when he has viewed a very good movie. The Contender is one of those "once in a while films" that forces one to step back and look at the state of some important issues. This film easily scores 4.5 out of 5, and should be viewed prior to this year's election.

  • Oct. 23, 2000, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Thanks flightsrgn

    by GunRunner

    I didn't even bother to actually look up LesterB's claim about a book called "The Conservative Paradox" by R. Johnson Thomas. I've checked every online bookstore, including the Weekly Standard and American Spectator booklists, which include all conservative writers, and I found nothing. So much for 12 Reagan and Bush administration officials that died mysteriously. I give facts, he makes up shit to try to counter it. But as usual the facts are on our side AGAIN. Obviously it just proves that LesterB is pretty much a fraud; I mean how in the hell could a libertarian be so gung-ho for Cliton's nuts. Its almost embarrassing.

  • Oct. 29, 2000, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Indictment on Liberals, not Conservatives!!!

    by roid_droid

    I thought that The Contender is a good solid movie and good entertainment, but it failed its mission. It blurred the distinction between a smear and fact. Was the main character being smeared or simply questioned about her past? Well, it was a smear in the Clarence Thomas / Anita Hill fashion, not the Clinton / Monica example. The Clarence/Hill case has much more consistent parallel story points. (1) an appointment and hearing, (2) rumors and accusations that remain rumors to this day, (3) the appointment made it through. On the other hand, the Clinton/Monica case resulted from an investigation of WhiteWater and a pending sexual harassment charge that turned out to have lots of TRUE facts. And Clinton has settled the Paula Jones case out of court, but not without great cost to his career. He was "responsible, but not guilty" according to the Senate hearings. If Clinton had any integrity, he should have resigned. The movie had noble intentions, but it is greatly flawed in its application to real life. The real victims in real life are Clarence Thomas and Paula Jones. Sometimes the Liberals ignore who they are because it is not in their political interests to stick up to principles.

  • Oct. 29, 2000, 9:50 p.m. CST

    people who think they know

    by sergeantphillips

    yeah, hi, a lot of people are talking about things they know nothing about and that pisses me off. i work for a newspaper, so that makes me, i guess, a part of the "liberal media" that people are always bitching about. hey, guys, you're half right. reporters and copy editors like me are liberals, because we're poor and well read, but we're peons. we have absolutely no power over what comes out in the paper. the people who actually decide what the paper's going to look like each day and what the headlines are going to say are called managing editors, executive editors, and publishers, and they make six figures and wear suits and, although they may also be well read, they are not poor and not liberal. i'm liberal and so are most of the people i interact with at work. BUT the guy who is the last person to see the paper before it goes to press, the guy who makes all the decisions, is a conservative, back-door racist with a ton of money and extremely conservative views. i've worked at six papers all over the country and most of my friends from college are in the media, so even though i'm not an expert i think i know a bit more than most of the people who spout of about the liberal media. so i feel authorized to say this liberal media thing is not only a scare tactic but a flawed one. pick up a newspaper, for chrissake. the media is not one giant monster: there's hollywood, which is liberal by and large, and then there are newspapers -- many of whom have endorsed bush for president -- television, magazines, the internet. . . . okay, and the second thing is, i have heard a lot of crap in the last eight years, but construing that clinton's affair with monica lewinsky as some form of sexual harassment is the most absurd. this is the truth, right here, because i have read a lot about this whole mess: monica lewinsky flashed her thong at the president and he invited her to his office after that. now, i think he should not have invited her to his office, he should've known better, but look, he did and he got screwed in the end. (pun intended.) so the point is, she came on to him, and, as someone said earlier, was hot for sausage. she had a history of dating older men. none of it would've ever come out if it hadn't been for linda tripp, who has since gotten half a million dollars of plastic surgery paid for by an "unnamed donor." think that donor is a democrat? riiight. so is the guy who gave paula jones a nose job. so stop trying to justify your irrational hatred of the president who has presided over the longest period of growth in u.s. history by stretching the truth and making it sound like he harassed lewinsky. you probably are one of those people who think REAGAN was the nation's best president and, while you spew moral judgments about clinton, you forget to weigh a sexual affair against the iran-contra affair. blow job. . . .iran-contras. you be the judge. and for god's sake, read about something before you spout off about it.

  • Oct. 29, 2000, 10:04 p.m. CST

    LesterB's drug problem

    by sergeantphillips

    LesterB is on crack. yeah, clinton lied about sex. but let me tell you, i don't care what goes on in the oval office OR what comes out of the president's mouth as long as i'm living in a safe, prosperous nation with a president who vetoes republican bullshit and doesn't appoint supreme court justices such as CLARENCE THOMAS and ANTONIN SCALIA. so, hey, when republicans are in office, they do a lot of lying, and there are a lot scarier things going on in the oval office than blow jobs and object insertions. things that actually affect my life, like cutting taxes for rich assholes who are rich because i buy their shit or go to their clinics. so get off crack and get a clue. the man got off and lied. big deal. you think reagan never lied? you think george w. bush hasn't lied in his campaign? everybody lies. let's look at the bottom line -- whose lies are DANGEROUS TO US?

  • Hollywood is a place without God. The only morality people who make movies are interested in is the one they create for themselves. I think because there is so much immense power involved, nobody wants to think they are bound to anyone else's system of rules. They feel that they are above God, beyond God. God is unneccesary, especially when it is a God Who tells them that they are living a lifestyle of prideful, decadent, hedonistic sin. The reason they are so angry and opposed to the very notion of God is that they know in their hearts that they are doing wrong. (The "wrong" I refer to is having sex with people to who want you to hire them, Selfishness, Gluttony, Envy, Pride, Commiting adultery, Divorcing the first time you have a fight with your spouse, Money-people cheating creative people out of their share of earnings, Treating 99% of the world with utter contempt and disrespect, Valuing financial success over artistic success and love and family) When you are guilty you can either choose to confess and face the consequences, or you can lie. Lying creates within you a self-righteousness, and machiavellian cynicism in which nothing matters but saving your own skin. That is what becomes of people who make movies. The idea that there is a God who will make them face up to their sin someday is so terrifying (For they are guilty) and offensive (For they are proud) that they deny God at every opportunity. This is what is wrong with "The Contender" My problem is not that the Dirk Dastardly, the big bad Republican was tying Nelly Truehart, the Sweet pure Democrat to the railroad tracks, my problem is that the "ideal" presidential candidate is an Atheist. The best person the people the people who made this film can think of to decide our destiny as a nation is someone who considers God to be a fairy tale. Secular Humanist Morality, of which I used to be a believer, is defined as "Anything that doesn't hurt other people is okay". This makes some sense, and it is certainly better to have some moral code that none at all, but I think it is incomplete as a philosophy. Here is the deal: The reason you and I and everyone have a concept of right and wrong is that God has given it us. (Here is where everyone is going to get angry and flame me if they haven't already. I can't prove the existence of God for you. You gotta figure it out for yourself. Here's a hint - what came before "The Big Bang?" Here's another hint - How do you explain unselfish behavior? I mean really. How do you explain love <Not lust> without God?) The reason that God has given us an understanding of right and wrong is that She/He wants us to choose right because He/She loves us. Therefore, God doesn't like it when we hurt ourselves. It is wrong to hurt yourself, because you are hurting someone God loves. Therefore, It is not enough to not hurt anyone else. Therefore, any and all sexual congress between people is not automatically okay if they are consenting. Consent does not equal right. It may be legal, but it is not right. "The Contender" asserts that God is unnecessary for a person to be good leader, because the leader will still know the difference between right and wrong. As long as the leader has faith in our constitution and doesn't break any laws, she is good. My point is there is a higher morality that judges everything in relation to everything else, and the constitution and the Declaration of Independence are not enough for a complete individual philosophical guideline for leading one's life. Separation of Church and state (With which I wholeheartedly agree, not because, as the movie suggests, it will lead to a theocracy with religious tyrants persecuting non-beleivers, but because if you allow church into government, you allow government into church. I don't want some corrupt, deceitful, anything to get my lousy disgusting client off, anything to win this big money case, anything to put this criminal guilty or not in jail, lawyer-turned-political-hack telling me how to worship) does not mean "Separation of Church and Life." Hollywood creates works that suggest that all religion is either a farce, or lame, or downright evil. Not that human beings are not all these things (Farcical, lame and evil) in the name of God, (which, in defense of God, there is a commandment against) What all this verbose ranting is leading up to is this: I didn't like the movie because I think that while your personal life is your personal life, Gangbangs are wrong. None of the good guys in the movie seemed to care about this. If you are going to debate the morality of discussing personal matters in the public arena, there has to be a concession to the fact that regardless of whose business they are, certain behaviors are, while mutually consenting, damaging to one's self and therefore wrong. Joan Allen's character freely admitted to having an affair with a married man. She showed some remorse, but only because she had hurt her friend's feelings by stealing her husband. Regardless of whether you are pals with the wife of your lover, IT IS WRONG TO FUCK A MARRIED MAN WHEN YOU ARE NOT HIS WIFE! It is wrong! The movie half dealt with this, then moved on. I don't believe that there is any excuse for that kind of behavior, and Joan's character just sort of shrugged it off. I was annoyed because this movie advanced an agenda not as part of the story, but because its creators think they have a lock on "Truth". They think that righteousness is on their side, and they put words into the mouth of Joan Allen outlining their version of right and wrong. If you are going to preach in a movie, you better have the right sermon, and they didn't.

  • Nov. 1, 2000, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Rah Rah Rah!

    by Trevi

    I enjoyed this film for the most part. It started off a bit slow. Had a few one liners that were funny, and eventually the tension grew, and I became wrapped up in the story. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the ending. I thought the movie should have ended with the president belittling congress and then walking out, but instead I was forced to listen to another Rah Rah America speach. I'm sure this did wonders to inspire most of the American public, but as a Canadian, it did nothing for me. Other than that, I enjoyed the film.