Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Massawyrm professes his thoughts upon BNAT 7 and why V FOR VENDETTA was the best film he's seen this year!

it looks good... by movieman742	Dec 13th, 2005 01:28:51 PM
I think that the v movie looks really good. i cant wait to see it. First???
Can't wait by Banky the Hack	Dec 13th, 2005 01:37:56 PM
Can't wait to see V. I just hope the Wachowski's don't try to stretch it into an ill-conceived trilogy from an awesome first movie.
Kong can't match the utter brilliance of Aeon Flux by Bob of the Shire	Dec 13th, 2005 01:41:13 PM
Right Massawyrm?
You said it best on V by victor laszlo	Dec 13th, 2005 01:51:27 PM
Glad someone else has some sense on 'Descent' -- bummer about your Kong ride though...
It's "brontosauri" if you stick to Latin. If you go back to by judderman	Dec 13th, 2005 01:54:18 PM
I've been waiting for someone to really hate The Descent. I loved it, mainly because it scared the living hell out of me, but I knew that someone not as disposed to being scared would see the various bits of which the movie was composed and realise just how goddamned silly it is. Still, I thought the women were fairly sympathetic, actually. At least the main character. And Nora Jane Noone. She's just cool.
RE:I strongly feel it by Citizen Arcane	Dec 13th, 2005 01:55:40 PM
Oh fuck me, I was afraid someone would finally say that. And I was the lone voice back in 1997 that said, "what the fuck?". I still think I'll like Kong, but that review is probably closest to what is going to be my opinion on it.
Sweet merciful Christ by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 01:57:02 PM
When did "slam Fox News" become a pre-req for discussing V? Is that the rule? Do I need to say "Fox News will rue the day V arrives ... and Cheaper by the Dozen II delivers twice as many laughs as the Martin original"? And yet, once again, I never realized that we're living in such oppressive times. Are things going that well for you the only way to add some excitement in your life is to fantasize about a fictional fascist government dictating your every move? (hmmmm) ... that notwithstanding, I am excited to hear all the positive (non-political) things being said about, I am definitely psyched about this one now.
Kong by movieman742	Dec 13th, 2005 02:01:29 PM
I honestly don't want to see this. I might go see it around Christmas time but it just doesn't look interesting. To me it looks like a summer blockbuster, not a holiday awards movie.
You're all wrong by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 02:03:33 PM
There's no such thing as a Brontosaurus.
Great review of Sympathy for Lady Vengeance by Garbageman33	Dec 13th, 2005 02:06:35 PM
Probably the best one I've seen yet. Speaking of which, I don't understand why the only film anyone seems to want to talk about from BNAT is V for Vendetta. I haven't seen that film so I can only speak of SFLV, but Massawyrm is right. It's unlike anything Park or anyone else has done. It's just an amazing film. Better than Oldboy in my opinion. To me, that felt more like a fairly straightforward revenge tale. Albeit one with a really interesting setup. This gets to the core of revenge and what it means and makes you think about whether you'd really want it or not if given the chance. Probably my second favorite film of the year.
As good liberals, we should all support 'V'! It is true by Swarmy	Dec 13th, 2005 02:08:22 PM
You know it's true. You can debate it all you want, but the truth is clear. Fight the power.
hey, Massa, good call on Kong by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 02:09:51 PM
Harry painted himself into quite the corner on this one. He doesn't have any other option BUT to love it. the only thing keeping us from that review of his is his struggle for "cunnilingus" synonyms.
"Hitler's Germany was a cakewalk compared to Bush's Amer by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 02:12:59 PM
Oh lord...
props to your Kong review by ripper t. jones	Dec 13th, 2005 02:13:06 PM
As pariahs go, you write a pretty damn fine negative review.
"But V isn by InspectorDoppler	Dec 13th, 2005 02:18:00 PM
So they weren't faithful to the comic?
Discussion Question about V by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 02:24:11 PM
I'm going back to reread it, but before I do so, I wanted your take on the following idea: for V, vengeance is his primary mission, anarchy is secondary, even incidental, and may only exist as a rationalization for his vengeance. The idea that got me thinking about this is what happens to the Voice of Fate. "Muting" the Voice was a great tactical move; however, we know the real reason why V did it. If the Voice hadn't been involved, would V have still taken him out? I'm not saying which side I fall on in the debate, because like I said, I'm going to revisit the work to look for 'evidence' for and against that idea. I was just wondering what y'all thought.
Funny. I had the "apatosaurus" jibe over on another board by judderman	Dec 13th, 2005 02:25:13 PM
my feeling is, no matter what happens, they're brontosauri, and that's that. Long after the original books citing initial scientific credit have turned to dust, the apatosaurus will still be called the brontosuarus.
Ending of V? by CrimsonGhost	Dec 13th, 2005 02:26:11 PM
Does it have a whole crowd of people rioting while wearing V masks? Because if it does, if they kept that in the film, count me out. I can't get down with that level of having my hand held...
"They by luckylindy	Dec 13th, 2005 02:34:18 PM
Seriously Massawyrm...i fell down laughing so hard at this line. Great reviews...V cant come fast enough.
A few notes by Massawyrm 1	Dec 13th, 2005 02:34:37 PM
chrth - once you see V you'll understand. The Voice of Fate in the comic, a radio "newsman" is replaced with a very Bill O'Reilly like character, and the news/propaganda machine has so many similarities that you can't see it as anything but an attack on Fox news. It is the most startling parallel in the film. Bob of the Shire - Aeon Flux was not brilliant, never said it was. It was good. I also said Kong was good. Take that for what it is.
Massa -- did they update the film, then? by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 02:37:23 PM
More TV, less radio? And how do they handle Fate, then? Is it still a single computer, a network, etc.? Or is it no longer a plotpoint?
massa is dead right on kong... i saw it monday... by NKG	Dec 13th, 2005 02:38:11 PM
in a press screening in Athens Greece.... i could not point out what exactly bothered me but the whole brontosaurus stampede scene probably best describes my problem with the film.... it looks totally fake.... there are good effects scenes like the battle with the t-rexes and there are bad effects scenes like the stampede... indeed u never get to see a crisp and clear view of naomi in kongs hands.... its a pity though cause everybody shines, black, watts, brody, serkis.... new york circa 1933 is amazing.. anywho...
Swarmy's quotes were good for a few chuckles too by luckylindy	Dec 13th, 2005 02:44:03 PM
dude...i am a liberal...and even ur attempts at comparing the world's worst supervillian (Hitler) to a third rate stooge (Bush) made me blush. Bush is not like hitler...hitler is like hitler. Stop comparing other people to Hitler. He is in a class i'd like to call "Motivated Shithead". Bush is just more of a "Shithead". God help us if he ever gets motivation or a clue.
Oh, and one more question by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 02:45:40 PM
If they O'Reilly'd the Voice, did they remove the Voice from the camp, or was he still a guard? Pretty harsh, don't you think, because I'm pretty sure Bill O'Reilly has never been a cruel prison camp guard.
Please, details by Eric Kurth	Dec 13th, 2005 02:46:13 PM
I can't believe this site has so many V for Vendetta reviews without a single one that actually addresses the criticisms brought up in those script reviews, the one here, the one by Rich Johnston, and Moore's comments. FedCo? Eggy in a basket? The army of anarchists who all dress the same? Did these things stay? Someone please tell me!
Massawyrm on "King Kong".... by El Scorcho	Dec 13th, 2005 02:51:15 PM
"It's good... But I... didn't like it." Direct quotes from his review.
WETA has . by Shaner Jedi	Dec 13th, 2005 02:52:31 PM
always had great animation. Think The Frighteners, Gollum, I, Robot(that fucking tunnel chase:100's of fx shots done in mere weeks), etc. The Workshop creates some amazing miniature work. But where they've stumbled numerous times is in the COMPOSITING of these numerous elements. Time and time again in LOTR the compositing is shoddy(still love the trilogy though). So on a pure technical level, they still need to get their shit together with the comps.
Alan Moore left DC because the Bros. W said he loved it.. by DOGSOUP	Dec 13th, 2005 02:55:10 PM
...dirty liars. Alan Moore is the guy who gave us this future. Any movie based on his creations I'm skeptical about. I'll see V, but I really don't think as of now that the Curse of Alan Moore is lifted.
Good job on the editing, El Scorcho by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 02:56:12 PM
"Thou shalt...kill..." Direct quote from the Ten Commandments. served.
Whoa whoa whoa...hold on a second by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 02:56:46 PM
What's all this talk about an army of anarchists?
And I do want to say something about LXG by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 02:57:58 PM
I thought the movie wasn't that bad, to be honest. I'll go hide now.
"It is true that we are being oppressed in America like never be by IndyCollector	Dec 13th, 2005 02:57:59 PM
If America is so oppressed then why is this film being released? I can't imagine Hitler ever allowing Raiders of the Lost Ark to be released in Germany if it came out during his time.
more notes by Massawyrm 1	Dec 13th, 2005 02:58:24 PM
Yes, they most definately updated it. Like I said, a few "details" are changed but the bulk of the events and the theme remains the same. Let's just say the "Voice" is still involved - although in a slightly different way. But it works. Eric - unfortunately, V wasn't ever on my radar very much, so I missed the script reviews. Although I can say I don't recall FedCo - and the eggy in a basket stuff works very well. Just a small bit in the film that I can't imagine anyone bitching about.
Indycollector ... by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 02:59:41 PM
I'm pretty sure Swarmy was jokingly channelling the moonbats, and didn't mean it himself. That said, your comment reminds me of the Simpsons ep where they showed the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, etc., in prison ... and you're supposed to laugh, but at the same time you have to say: If it's really that bad, why aren't they in prison?
"Terrorism" is not always wrong by Omegaman	Dec 13th, 2005 03:01:14 PM
if youre attacking an oppressive, murderous government, and not killing innocents. I don't know how much care V does to avoid that cause I havent read the novel though. But thats the whole problem with this "war on terror" idea, were not at war with teror, thats just the method employed, were at war with Islamist fanatics. But anyhow, I can't wait for this movie, I knew this would be great, and now everybody is raving about it - except the author lol. But this is the kind of story and hero that gets me fired up, somebody fighting a tyrannical government that has taken away freedom and is treating its people like shit. This should really touch a nerve with audiences, I predict a surprise huge hit.
What Park should do next... by Christopher3	Dec 13th, 2005 03:01:39 PM
"South Park The Movie 2: Scott Tenorman Must Die!"
"We chose safety over freedom. And we by jorson2	Dec 13th, 2005 03:03:13 PM
Interesting how so many people are saying we are sacrificing freedoms for safety under the Bush Administration, but they never really get into the specifics of which freedoms arre gone. Most of the V review I agree with, particularly about the terrorism tactics, but regarding the REAL WORLD exactly which freedoms have we sacrificed?
"a tyrannical government that has taken away freedom and is trea by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:03:37 PM
I didn't realize they were going to release the film in Cuba, the Middle East, and several specific-but-whose-names-curre ntly-escape-me countries in Africa?
army of anarchists by Eric Kurth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:04:44 PM
chrth - What's been said to be the final scene, people rallying around V by wearing Guy Fawkes masks and smashing stuff. There were set photos that pretty much verified this. I was paraphrasing Rich Johnston's quip on the matter. Ummm... Here it is: "The reviewer [the AICN script reviewer] also reports that at the movie's denouement, the crowd all wear V's mask. Because nothing says anarchy better than dressing up in the same uniform." Basically, the reports I'd heard about the film before all these reviews were indicating that V had been softened to merely the ghost of Guy Fawkes, out for revenge against a nasty government, with little in the way of actual Anarchy being espoused. But these reviews are saying that the film stays true to the spirit of the book. So! Some textual support would be awesome.
If I were the head of a tyrannical, freedom-stealing government by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:06:28 PM
The first thing I'd remove is the ability to anonymously criticize the government in a public forum. Hmmm. Whoops, gotta go, I have to go be oppressed ...
Thanks for that bit of info, Eric by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:08:26 PM
...I may have to go search for the original script review. The idea of there being an army of V is not very palatable to me.
P.S. "V" would make a good double-feature with... by Christopher3	Dec 13th, 2005 03:08:49 PM
Apted's "1984." Weird that John Hurt, the erstwhile Winston Smith, is now playing a Big Brotherish character.
Wait! Kong dies?!! How about a fucking spoiler warning!! by Hail	Dec 13th, 2005 03:10:05 PM
Just kidding. I didn't see someone say this earlier, so I thought I'd be the fucker to do so. And it sounds like Kong's needing a little more cowbell ;)
Anarchy bleh. by Shaner Jedi	Dec 13th, 2005 03:10:18 PM
Minarchy yeah.
Jorson and the freedoms long gone by Massawyrm 1	Dec 13th, 2005 03:13:16 PM
Here's just a short list off of the top of my head. First and foremost, as a smoker, the freedom to carry a lighter on my person on a plane so that I can have a cigarette when I step off of it. Not allowed anymore. Nail clippers are gone as well. How about the freedom of speech and the right of redress from our government. Anytime Bush shows up anywhere, any protesters are funneled off to a "Protest Zone" which is always out of sight of the Presidents route. How about the freedom to check out books from the library without the government being able to know what we're reading. Lost that for awhile and got it back against the Administrations wishes. How about the right of due process. Why are we holding people indefinately without so much as being charged. These are just a handful of freedoms we've lost. There are more.
V and why America is better than Nazi Germany by MajorOcelot	Dec 13th, 2005 03:13:52 PM
I saw the trailer a while back and didn't really know what it was about despite it looking cool, but I am definitely very excited now especially if it bashes any new network. News nowadays is unbelievably gay. I can't watch "serious" news because it make me physically feel pain. Someone needs to tell them to drop that non-regional diction crap it is a joke. Also, Swarmy, I really hope that statement is just meant to be funny because, man, if it isn't you are truly brainless. America may be in kind of a slump leader-wise, but let me go out on a limb and say Nazi Germany was way worse. I hope I didn't offend anybody with that radical statement.
"regarding the REAL WORLD exactly which freedoms have we sacrifi by minderbinder	Dec 13th, 2005 03:21:22 PM
I'm not real crazy about the government being able to secretly investigate whoever they want for no reason, track private citizens' purchases and library use, etc. Call me crazy, but the less the government interferes in my life, the better.
Well, the US has turned its back on habeus corpus. That'll by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 03:22:04 PM
And then there's the fact that the authorities can now do warrantless searches without prior or posterior notice, which means that the 4th Amendment is gone. Oh, and then there's that little thing where we maintain secret torture prisons in Eastern Europe. "Oh, but no American citizens were sent there - just non-citizens!" Well, since they're SECRET prisons, how do we know that? How would we know it, on an ongoing basis? I take it that there are people here who won't think that any freedom has been lost until and unless the point is reached where their own fat asses are hauled out of the mall food court, but your casual enjoyment of your freedom is predicated on a broad set of principles and precedents that are all under attack. Don't worry, we'll wake you when your online porn and drive-through tacos are threatened. // With regard to the Voice, I don't think his murder was vengeance. Isn't the point made that V is killing everyone who could identify him from the camp, to make sure his identity will remain secret? Isn't it described as "clearing the ground", at one point? I still think the Voice would have bought it, but if he wasn't in a position to know who V was he might not have bought it FIRST. That being said, taking out the Voice first was also convenient for V in strategic terms, so having the Voice be at the camp worked out nicely for him, didn't it?
The Wachowskis never said anything about Moore loving it. by Prankster	Dec 13th, 2005 03:22:08 PM
That was Joel Silver. He's an action movie producer--not known for their subtlety and discretion. I don't want to sound like an "insider asshole" but I did talk to a guy at Comic-con who knew Moore somewhat and said that his supposed hatred of the script had been blown out of proportion. Mostly, he's a private guy who doesn't like being put in the spotlight, which is what Silver did, hence his negative reaction. As for the whole "Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks aren't in jail, are they?" discussion, I agree it's stupid to paint that kind of level of restrictiveness existing in the US...because it blinds people to what's really going on. It's certainly true that the Bush administration isn't pulling people off the streets and locking them up for speaking their mind. It is locking people up and torturing them with little evidence, but those are all brown people who wear turbans, so who cares, right?
chrth by Omegaman	Dec 13th, 2005 03:22:56 PM
You automatically assume Im some kind of leftist or something criticising Bush, and America I guess. Nothing could be farther from the truth, well not as far from Bush heh, but America is the freest country probably ever. I don't want to sound too much like a jingoist, flag-waver... but Im as patriotic about as anyone. Those countries you mentioned are what I mean by tyrannical. You are too knee-jerk, just like 'liberals' can be. That's the only way I can mke sense of your post.
I want to play with Massa's comment but I'm going to be by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:23:51 PM
except to say this: I love how "the freedom to carry a lighter on my person on a plane so that I can have a cigarette when I step off of it" was first on the list. Due process? Meh ... I NEED A SMOKE!!! ... seriously though, when could you ever smoke when you got off a plane? All the airports I've been through were non-smoking between the gate and baggage claim.
Omegaman by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:26:41 PM
I'm just confused by who you expected to have a nerve touched: as someone else said, countries that have a legitimate fear by the content of this film aren't going to allow the film to air in the first place. The only nerves that can possibly be touched are those who already have an overreaction to the current state of things in the West. (And for the record, in case anyone cares, I'm a Libertarian, not a wingnut)
Mass by Shaner Jedi	Dec 13th, 2005 03:28:14 PM
First and foremost, as a smoker, the freedom to carry a lighter on my person on a plane so that I can have a cigarette when I step off of it. Not allowed anymore. Nail clippers are gone as well. Actually the TSA announced last week they're relaxing restrictions on sharp objects now. You can carry some objects previously forbidden.
Fluffy (re the Voice) by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:34:12 PM
It actually bothers me that the Voice was at the camp. I guess I just have a hard time reconciling the contradictory image: it'd be like Walter Cronkite running guns during the Spanish Civil War (sorry, couldn't come up with a better analogy on such a short notice). ... The problem with "clearing the ground" is that it creates a pattern by which to identify V. If V's purpose is to remain hidden, the mask should be enough. If anarchy is his primary mission, he has jeopardized it by the emphasis placed on vengeance. And if anarchy isn't his primary motive, then what compelling reason does he give us to agree with his actions? Yes, the government had done some shitty things. But I'm more interested in a V taking action against current problems (like he does by rescuing Evey) than in avenging past sins. And if one focuses on the latter over the former, then they're not a revolutionary (unless accidentally), they're just a vigilante.
You shouldn't need to be living under tyranny by Omegaman	Dec 13th, 2005 03:35:30 PM
currently for it "to touch a nerve". It should because of our past and how we had to fight for our freedom, that goes for other countries too, other western style democracies. And it should also touch a nerve because of World War II. Im sure thats why Natalie Portman made the movie. She's not living under the Nazis now, but the story still touches her emotionally. We do need to be careful though not to give away our freedoms because of a "war on terror" that is true as well. Im surprised that as a libertarian you don't take that more seriously.
I hear your pain by flossygomez	Dec 13th, 2005 03:35:57 PM
I understand your confusion at people that love King Kong, I've never really understood it myself. It's just another beauty and the beast rehash. I'm going to Kong for the spectacle of it all, expecting to be caught up in the pathos of the storyline and simultaneously rolling my eyes as I did during the whole ET phenomona. I will go see it in the theater once, maybe twice if I like the action scenes on the island. But as far as monsters go, King Kong never thrilled me. I have high hopes for V for Vendetta despite the fact that the Wachowskis really screwed the pooch (script) on the Matrix series. At the very least, it's the funnest trailer I've seen in quite awhile.
Re:I didn't realize they were going to release the film in C by El Scorcho	Dec 13th, 2005 03:36:06 PM
Nicely done.
The problem with being a libertarian by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:44:09 PM
Is that I think a lot of stuff shouldn't be impacted by the government in the first place. It's seems silly to me to argue against the government being able to track your library borrowing when public libraries are funded and supported by the government. Do I think libraries should exist? Heck yeah. But it's like work email. The company is providing you with an email account, it has a right to that email. Well, the government is providing you with that library card, it has a right to the information on the library card. Now, there is a local vs state vs federal aspect to it, but let's face it: most of the criticisms directed at the government are the results of INCREMENTAL restrictions, not full bore new ones. That's why a lot of people don't care: the increment isn't large enough for them to notice or to feel the effect. It's like gas prices. Someone who fills up his tank 3 times a week is going to notice a two-cent increase at the pump a lot more readily than someone who fills up his tank every two weeks. Sorry, I'm digressing. My point is: plenty of freedoms have already been sacrificed to the government long before 9/11 ... and not many people want to roll back to 1928.
Chrth by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 03:44:16 PM
Well, I think Moore uses the convenient artifice of having the set of people who ran the camp and the set of people who currently run the state largely overlap. I think he does this largely for plot convenience, but also because it has the effect of truncating the state. The real problem you'd have in launching an anarchistic campaign against a modern state is that modern states are hydras with incredibly deep organizations. You kill ten guys, there are a hundred thousand guys behind them in line waiting to step into their shoes. That's part of the reason that the historical anarchistic terrorism problem went away after the first World War - after the monarchies died, the anarchists could no longer delude themselves that they could succeed. When the problem is a king, a bomb seems like an answer. When the problem is a bureaucracy, you're facing a different strategic challenge. But Moore makes HIS state seem like it's made up of about twenty guys. Kill those guys or drive them insane, set them against each other, exploit their own idiosyncratic weaknesses, and POOF! State collapse. Moore makes it seem easy by limiting the number of personalities. As an American, it was easy for me to suspend disbelief as he did so, because naturally to all Americans Britain seems like a tiny little country, not much bigger than London really, where everybody knows everybody else and where one terrorist could probably take the whole lot down.
I want to be clear on who I am calling a coward by MrCere	Dec 13th, 2005 03:47:27 PM
Dear Massa - You said this: "We call men cowards for dressing in street clothes and taking shots at an occupying army." Are you an idiot or did you have a case of it while writing? Comparing the American Revolution to today's terrorists is stupid beyond words. Terrorists aren't taking shots at an occupying army, they are blowing up school children, old ladies and whoever happens to be on a bus. They are killing countrymen and often the terrorists are not from Iraq but from somewhere else. Those that are indigenous were also religious oppressors and killed people who didn't buy into the totalitarian regime. Did the colonials attack mother England and kill random people milling about? I don't recall it. Now, this isn't to say the film has a strong, timely message, just don't drag colonial America into a comparision it doesn't remotely fit. Thanks for the reviews.
holy shit, guys, studio ghibli is adapting earthsea into an anim by Holodigm	Dec 13th, 2005 03:49:03 PM
that really excites me, those books rules. continue flaming.
I love shit that's gone to piss off the Right... by Lost Skeleton	Dec 13th, 2005 03:51:50 PM
...cuz it is so damn easy to do nowadays! Go V go! I am looking forward to King Kong anyway but Massa may be right. I love Titantic...flaws and all...but it does have a lot of them. But great movies with commercial success are easy to tear apart. I can't wait for V man.
Swarmy, its hyperbolic guys like you that make it so hard for th by 007-11	Dec 13th, 2005 03:56:27 PM
People in this country are not being killed for hints of disloyalty only to have their ashes returned to their families. We don't have to walk around in fear in the streets. The Bush Administration and their business cohorts have taken advantage of this country time and time again in the most blatant ways and then lie to our faces about it, but I can tell everyone on the street they're a bunch of cocksucking motherfucking assholes and i'll still be alive without a scratch on me tomorrow. That is a luxury, yes a luxury, that we have that hardly anyone else in the world can claim, and certainly not the people that lived in Nazi Germany. Think before you speak, write, or act.
Fluffy, that's a great post by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:59:31 PM
I've been working towards that idea with V, and you're 100% correct. It brings up the question: how do you overthrow a bureaucracy? Have you read Player Piano by Vonnegut? It has a similar theme (although, being from the 50s, is dated). For me, I was able
(post continued) by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 04:02:22 PM
to suspend disbelief because of the war/depression. I can see a situation where enough is going wrong that a small cabal is able to take control. Did you know that the United States constitution has only instituted Checks and Balances at the body level, not the individual level? In other words, nothing in the constitution prevents someone from being simultaneously the President, the Chief Justice, and the Speaker of the House. Far-fetched scenario, yes, but it's happened before historically ... so that means it can happen again. Sorry, I'm digressing again.
Conservatives Will LOVE This Movie by Ill Clinton	Dec 13th, 2005 04:05:26 PM
The themes in this movie are right up a conservative's alley. I loved the comic, I'm sure I'll love the movie if it is close to faithful as an adaptation. At the time the source material was written, it was a stinging indictment of the practices of the US Democrats. To a degree, it still is, but funny how some people will see it as applying specifically to the Bush administration. Don't worry, conservatives will be at the theaters if this film is any good.
No lighters or nailclippers on airplanes.... by Lando Griffin	Dec 13th, 2005 04:16:07 PM
followed by the holocaust and slavery on the All-time oppressions list. ************************Amen dment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ****************** Well last I checked protestors still have the right to assemble and speak. I missed the part of the amendment that specifies where exactly protestors must assemble and who MUST listen to them. Then again what do I know, logic be damned, I'm just a pre-programmed jack booted thug but hell Bush=Hitler and we're all oppressed, only the enlightened know it. Now go about your lives (and by that I mean get in your expensive cars, work your fruitful jobs, type/play/post on your fancy computer with your highspeed internet when you're done go get a $5 latte at Starbucks bitch about how rough you have it/Bush made it, get home turn on your HD tv watch your complete anthology of whatever dvd, order yourself some takeout and before you lay your head on that pillow reflect on how easy those damn jews and blacks had it compared to you - damn the man keeping you down - stop to think who is the man and are you related to him? are you also part of the machine? are you as punk as you think you are? more corporate than you think you are?) nothing to see here.
"I was weeping for the film and weeping for my dream, my dream o by mocky_puppet	Dec 13th, 2005 04:29:06 PM
douche chills.
Liberal Geeks = Faux Stupidity by jackburton2003	Dec 13th, 2005 04:40:29 PM
They can't even pretend to just be stupid, they have to pretend they're not stupid by making stupid comparisons to shit they don't have the slightest knowledge about. Comparing the American Revolution to today's terrorist. Dear God. Gods like this asshole is the one hiding in his trenches during World War I pissing himself while real men went out to fight.
The issue of prohibited items on airplanes is an extremely minor by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 04:47:30 PM
Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched. Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched. Stand in line. Show your papers. Have your face scanned by biometric devices. Wait to be searched. Don't worry, preferred travelers "with clearance" will soon have SPECIAL papers that will let them wait in a shorter line. Move to the right. Register here. Please report any suspicious activity to the nearest security officer. Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched. // By the way, the 1st Amendment is a beautiful thing, but the day is coming [and it's coming right damn soon, if we get a McCain Presidency] where it will be a criminal act to walk down to your local radio station and ask to buy air time to run a political ad. And as Mr. Delay's prosecutor knows, "assembly" is just another word for "conspiracy". // Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched. Fit your children with these radio tags. Applications for the new national ID will be taken starting July 5th. Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched.
Anyone who voluntarily went over the top in WWI was a moron. by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 04:50:45 PM
Germany was at least as much of a democracy as Great Britain or the United States were. The slogans of WWI were a lie. Britain was at least as responsible for the war as Germany, and the Czar was the most responsible of all. If you died in WWI, you died for nothing. Less than nothing. Eugene Debs was wrong about every single last other thing in his life, but he was right about that. The right thing to do when they blew the whistle for the charge was to turn around and shoot the nearest officer in the face.
Kong is ok, not great by holidill	Dec 13th, 2005 04:51:56 PM
I saw this last thursday in Baltimore at the Senator theater. First it is too long, at 3 hours 8 minutes it's too long. The actors are good, Kong is amazing, but the story was ok. Plot holes abound, like how will they keep Kong sedated for weeks when it took 6 bottles of chloraform to knock him out, how are they feeding him so he does not die, when Denham left America he had a warrant for his arrest, now he's the toast of the town. The subplot between the castaway they found in the water and the black sailor, they spend a lot of time on it and then it disappears. The beginning moves really slow, Skull island has it's moments but is repitious with the multiple shots of the islanders who disappear after Kong leaves and never return, the dinosaur stampede with Raptors? There were other dinosaurs. IT looked very Jurrasic Park 4 to me. The effects I agree were weak at certain points, especially in wide shots of Kong with Ann in his hands. The last part in New York was very good but the film was just too long. If Peter had done some slicing and dicing to make it maybe a 2 hour movie, or 2 hour 20 minute movie, it may have been perfect. To me, it's just ok.
chrth by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 05:05:13 PM
As a librarian (among other things), I can't support your "heck yeah" when it comes to the government having the right to snoop and see what you've been borrowing at the library. First of all, a public library free of government intervention of any kind is (or should be) a fundamental part of every democratic society. Just because they are to a large degree funded by taxes doesn't automatically mean the government should then have the right -- as if they "bought" the library -- to keep tabs on people's reading habits. In the United States, if a book is available for anyone to buy in a bookstore or online, then the purchase or reading of that book can't suddenly be deemed a sign of a person's guilt of anything just because it's convenient for the government. I have both Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and The Turner Diaries among my many books at home. Owning any one of those could easily be construed in a worse-case scenario as "evidence" of either my intent or guilt of something. It's very un-American and an exceedingly dangerous slope to venture down. Besides, the practice of scoping out someone's list of library books is ultimately pointless. "Dangerous" books are routinely read by scholars and the curious. Terrorists could also read the books in the library (or tear out pages) rather than borrow them and leave a trail -- or even make photocopies of relevant pages. What people read proves NOTHING. If certain books actually can be considered "dangerous", then the government should have the courage of their convictions and ban them outright. They won't do this, however, because people would rightly be outraged by the very notion, so they go the "soft" route by obtaining the right to snoop, thus creating grounds for pretext (if they should need to grab someone) and lulling the gullible members of the public into a false sense of security. I understand your points, but I just don't subscribe to them.
jackburton2003... by Shaner Jedi	Dec 13th, 2005 05:05:27 PM
..Mass might've been making more of a tactics used by terrorists similiar to revolutionaries argument rather than saying they shared the same philosophy. Interestingly, guerilla warfare laregly didn't exist in ancient times because the victors would sack the city and either kill the occupants or sell them into slavery. In the case of Rome, burning Carthage wasn't enough. They had to despoil the soil.
You're not alone, Mass: I thought KONG was seriously flawed, by Film Whisperer	Dec 13th, 2005 06:14:55 PM
And mostly because Jackson is genetically incapable of editing anything out. Simply put: too long, too redudundant, too much unnecessary charactor development of supporting characters that went nowhere, the actors get lost (esp. Black and Brody after 90 minutes), CGI that didn't work (I had the same reaction as you re: the dinosaur stampede -- it looked like fake LAND OF THE LOST background work). The only thing that brought it over the top for me was the finale, which is truly spectacular. I actually don't think this will follow TITANIC, in that it won't win 11 Oscars. It's good. Just not great.
The Analogy is Valid by Southpaw Samurai	Dec 13th, 2005 06:32:41 PM
Shaner Jedi's point that Mass was probably making an analogy of methods rather than philosophy or motivation is very valid. Anyone who wants to deny how uncivilized (especially for standards of the day) and savage the American Revolutionaries could be really does need to go back and read accounts from various sides of the war and walk away with a bit more objective view of what happened. Read letters from French soldiers who came to support people who's ideals seemed so interesting and noble, but who sometimes acted completely opposite. Read journals from British officers who witnessed what felt like pure barbarism as Tory loyalists would lynch pro-revolutionary folk and their families and how then revolutionists would savagely mutilate Tory families and burn their homes. From that perspective you WILL see what our soldiers see in Iraq, wondering if there's any point to helping people who seem hell bent on just killing each other. You'll see how both soldiers of 'First World' countries lived in fear of being randomly attacked or sniped by an enemy they couldn't identify or easily find. How their spirits were assaulted as they knew popularity for the war they were stuck in was dwindling at home and there was no clear path to a final victory. And you'll understand where Massawyrm and the others are coming from. It IS a similar story, whether you are pro or anti the current situation, it's just difficult to see it from the opposite side of the coin.
Southpaw... by Shaner Jedi	Dec 13th, 2005 06:43:43 PM
...and like many "insurgencies", the revolutionaries were never the majority. They were always outnumbered(until the french came along), lacked enough manpower, lacked a real navy. That's why they could never really meet the redcoats face to face on the opne battlefield. So they had to adopt hit and run tactics(after Concord),sabotage, hyping and mythologizing of events(Boston Massacre) to make them seem worse than they were(Paul revere's drawing, with the evil, snidely-whiplash redcoats, did alot for this), and help from outsiders: indians and the french.
Must see "Vendetta" NOW! by jrbarker	Dec 13th, 2005 07:04:59 PM
I can't wait.
Finally by Joshua D. Terry	Dec 13th, 2005 07:33:14 PM
A voice of reason and objectivity on Kong. Fetish is quite the right word.
Waitaminute... Isn't "V" in England? by MondoGundark	Dec 13th, 2005 07:49:36 PM
1st of all, to make it relevant to Americans, shouldn't they have rewritten it to take place in the US? Everyone knows we can't identify with non-American actors. And...a...mask? You don't see Iraqi insurgents wearing masks...you didn't see people in Compton wearing masks during the L.A. riots... And another thing, I don't buy the idea of an intellectual revolutionary leading today's crowd. They shoulda made "V" a TV-friendly charismatic guy who gets his mindless followers do his dirty work...kinda like Regis Philbin, or Howard Stern...then again, today's rabble wouldn't get off the couch unless the house was on fire. Shaken AND stirred! CAPITAL LETTERS!
The Descent by Rowley Birkin QC	Dec 13th, 2005 07:55:43 PM
Massawyrm is right about The Descent. It's an awful movie, and cheap looking, as cheap-looking as a season 1 episode of The X-Files. The lamest thing in the movie is not the derivative gangle creature, but the "tough" Irish girl, played by Nora Jane Noone as a groan-inducing Dolores O' Riordan stereotype.
Agree with Massa and most of the people on this board who have a by Doc_McCoy	Dec 13th, 2005 08:03:36 PM
Good, not great. It's an incredible spectacle with many amazing moments, but it's full of problems. And yes, it's a huge problem that most shots that mix creature CGI f/x with human characters look awful. But I still liked it overall. The Kong vs. T-Rex fight alone is worth the price of admissions. By the way, V IS FOR VENDETTA can't get here fast enough.
Yeah, I love that story from the Revolution... by Frisco	Dec 13th, 2005 08:14:54 PM
...where General Washington had a flunky strap a bunch of explosives to a teenager with Down Syndrome and forced the kid to walk into a school and a splode himself. Hoo boy, what a great moment from our Founding Fathers! I guess it's true what they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Frickin' tool, Massawyrm.
"We call men cowards for dressing in street clothes and taking s by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 09:00:51 PM
Nope. We call men cowards for dressing in street clothes and taking shots at innocent civilians and non-combatants. Say, for instance, oh, I don't know, let's say a wedding party of innocent Muslims. Dressing in street clothes and blowing up a wedding party. Yep. That's a low-life coward. Attacking soldiers? Not at all. Not really. In point of fact, paint it how you will, last time that I checked those who attacked soldiers while dressed in street clothes were called "insurgents." Watched any news programs lately or you just getting your news by Al-Jezeera dispatch? I've got no problem with standing up to totalitarian regimes and fighting against tyranny and those who would curtail our God-given freedoms. Count me then as a revolutionary. My problem comes in two parts. One part involves the methods of the "fighting back." Blowing up an underground of innocents is no act of courage and lumps the "freedom fighters" in the same batch as those they oppose - as a group willing to sacrifice the individual for the greater good. "Yeah, yeah," they say. "This will motivate the domesticated populace!" Well, fuck that. You're no better than the totalitarians you fight. My second problem is in the equating of a political enemy with the evil totalitarian regimes you claim to despise (while adopting their means, of course). The constant battle in Western civilization between freedom and restriction is age-old and count me in the middle. In times of peace, freedom expands and the rights of the individual take precedent. But during times of war, liberties are curtailed in some small regards to better fight a battle against an ideology that wouldn curtail those liberties not for a time, but for all time. When the battle is won and the conflict resolved, the pendulum again swings back for greater freedoms. I find repugnant those who equate Western democracies and their leaders (Bush, Blair, Chirac) with the totalitarian thugs who would completely and whole-heartedly end any idea of Western freedom. Yes, remain vigilant. Yes, contest the line between freedom and necessary restriction, but you do yourself and your cause a great disservice by resorting to these outrageous and ridiculous comparisons. And, if you think that your comparisons are true and right, then why spend so much time in these Western democracies. Why not spend some time with your freedom-loving brethren in Somalia and Iraq? Put your money where your mouth is.
P.S. Outside the topsy-turvy political world of Bill Maher... by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 09:14:23 PM
What the hell is the point of those who "support our troops" spending so much time defending the bravery of those forthright souls who blow up innocent women and children at a wedding party or standing in line for a school bus. The point is not their bravery or cowardice. It is the ideas and ideals for which they exercise their "bravery." Some of the bravest bastards in the world went to war to conquer Europe and flash-fry Jews. Why don't you spend some time defending the bravery of the Nazis? Bravery, like diamands and black gold, is a commodity. It can be used to service any idea or ideal. It is the ideas and ideals that are the problem. Spend so much time defending the "bravery" of those devoted to your extinction and you're no better than those who you say went to war for another commodity - oil.
Dumbass! Misspelled "diamonds." by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 09:16:04 PM
You get the point though.
Ted Bundy was hella brave, too by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 09:18:54 PM
Entering that sorority house FULL of athletic young women with only a tree branch to protect himself as he raped and murdered from room to room in the dead of night. Oh, the pinnacle of bravery, he! You see, sir, it is the purpose to which one applies one's bravery, not the commodity itself.
I think you're confusing Ted Bundy with a different mass mur by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 09:57:21 PM
Bundy killed his victims in secret, one at a time. I can't remember the name of the guy you're thinking of - although I do think I saw him on TV a few years ago; he went gay in prison and videotapes surfaced of him taunting the camera that he partied more inside prison than he ever had on the outside. Can't remember the guy's name, though. Maybe it was Speck or something like that?
Massawyrm 1, there is no bigger tool than a political tool by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 10:10:57 PM
"The freedom to carry a lighter on my person on a plane so that I can have a cigarette when I step off of it." Are you fucking kidding me? For real? Dude, you are seriously fucking lost in some crazed la-la land. Oh, the humanity! Bush has curtailed my freedom to carry a lighter on an airplane. Not a peep from this political idiot about the freedom that is curtailed on the other side by restricting the right to light up anywhere you want (witness the Democrats and trial lawyers war on smoking and "big tobacco"). Nope, only Bush stopped me from lighting up after I get off the plane 'cause, boy, if it wasn't for him I know that them there Democrats would let me blaze cigarettes wherever I wanted. Yeah, let freedom ring! "How about the freedom of speech and the right of redress from our government. Anytime Bush shows up anywhere, any protesters are funneled off to a "Protest Zone" which is always out of sight of the Presidents route." Ah, the beautiful joy of ignorance! First, this has gone on to some degree with every president for years! I love how with political awakening comes the realization of inequities and unfairness, but only during the reign of the president during the time of our awakening. Ever been to Crawford, Texas, massa-political commentator? Two routes to Bushy's ranch. Both covered by protesters of the Cindy Sheehan variety. I guess their freedom not to show up in his breakfast nook was curtailed. Remember a dude named Clinton? He was a Democrat defender of all rightness and freedom. How many crazed protestors showed up at his speeches? Few, my good man. Few. That's to protect the president (no matter what his political affiliation) from the tender ministrations of those idiots who fall for your faulty and flawed arguments, those who believe that the other party is the source of all evil in the universe, those ignore evidence and plain, old logic. "How about the freedom to check out books from the library without the government being able to know what we're reading." Where the fuck did that "freedom" come from? Is that the same "freedom" as the one for me to be a Peeping Tom and check out your mom or your sister without the government arresting me? "How about the right of due process?" How about it, genius? I'm not writing this to you in prison, am I? You seem to be whole-heartedly against an "evil" administration devoted to world domination, yet somehow you've magically escaped scrutiny and incarceration by jackbooted thugs. What a miracle! "Why are we holding people indefinately without so much as being charged." Maybe this will answer it for you. I'll try to go slowly so that you can pick it up. Say what you want or will about Tookie Williams it took 25 years and millions of dollars to exercise the will of the state (and the people) against this American citizen. The West is currently fighting a war against a minority (let's say) of extremists in a religion that accounts for more than one billion people. So if the extremists are just one our of one thousand of this Muslims that means that we're fighting a war against potentially one million enemy. Did you support giving legal representation to every Nazi defeated in WWII? Would that have been fair to you? We'd still be trying the dying Nazis. Offering "adequate legal representation" to enemy combatants who think it brave to blow up wedding party or a line of schoolchildren waiting for a bus is simply ignorant. "These are just a handful of freedoms we've lost. There are more," you say. Please name them 'cause I've yet to hear the one that I can do without in order to preserve the bigger picture. Do you often enjoy a seven-course meal and forgo eating for weeks? No? Why not? Because you sacrifice the greater freedom and joy (the seven-course meal) for the "luxury" of those smaller freedom and joys (eating for weeks). It's a simple analogy and one even you should understand. I've noticed you didn't mention any "freedom" curtailed by Democrats. I guess that's because Democrats like FDR and LBJ never curtailed freedom. That leads me to believe that you're simply a hack and nowhere near the "free-thinker" that you claim to be. Be for freedom! That's cool. Take a moment to realize that your enemy is not a Republican president or a Democrat congress who deny broad freedom for a short time. It's an ideology espoused by a vocal minority of a large religion who would deny you ALL FREEDOM for ALL TIME. Where are your posts against this ideology? A deafing silence.
If America was rich with oil... by Rant Breath	Dec 13th, 2005 10:13:57 PM
and another, more powerful country invaded us to change our laws and leadership, those who fought against the invading army would be considered HEROES. Never mind, go back to watching the Fox news version of human history.
FluffyUnbound by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 10:18:45 PM
Nope. It was Bundy. After bravely escaping the authorities in Colorado during his trial, he bravely traveled to Florida where he bravely changed his name and bravely tried to blend in with a university population. Unfortunately, though he bravely tried to fight to fight the demons that drove him, he bravely picked up a tree branch and bravely entered a sorority in the dead of night to bravely go from room to room, bravely murdering and raping like our brave enemies half a world away in Iraq. It is for this crime that he was tried and ultimately convicted, bravely meeting his end in the electric chair in Florida. Again, bravery is a commodity exercised by men in the service of certain ideas and ideals. It is the ideas and ideals we fight, not the commodity.
Rant Breath by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 10:22:27 PM
I get my news from a variety of national and international sources and think about them. Unlike you, it seems. Where are your protests against the wars in Bosnia and Haiti, sir? How about Clinton's bombing of Iraq at multiple points? How about his call for regime change? Your equating a Western democracy with a Middle Eastern totalitarian dictatorship reveals your own lack of insight and depth. Go join your freedom fighting brothers against the Western imperialists, sir! Put your money where your mouth is.
P.S. Rant Breath by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 10:26:44 PM
Our discussion was not about the invasion of Iraq, but the larger war on terror against "brave" terrorists. If, sir, your analogy holds and America is not "HEROES," why don't you become one yourself by bravely blowing up a nearby American elementary school or wedding party of collaborators to strike a blow for the "HEROES" in Iraq?
China has the internet by Evil_Twin	Dec 13th, 2005 10:26:50 PM
Does censorship mean that much any more when anybody, with a little patience, can bootleg just about any movie off the internet? You just know that there are going to be $5 bootlegs all over Hong Kong days after V is released. The reaction from both the left and right in this country is bound to be overblown, but what happens overseas is potentially the most interesting story about the release of V.
Amen, Evil Twin! by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 10:36:25 PM
Political hacks and partisan firebrands on both sides of the aisle in this country will natter at will. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the implications for this flick in REAL TOTALITARIAN REGIMES not these straw men created to garner votes and political power for partisan hacks. This subtlety will be lost on those who claim censorship is my not being allowed to say anything that I want to say, anytime I want to say it, anywhere I want to say it, including with your money. Read a book, people! Learn something more than the latest "talking point" from your political party whatever that may be. Learn, question and think then draw your conclusions! Be free where it counts most of all - in your thoughts! One may possess all the physical freedoms in heaven and earth, but if you're not mentally free then you're never truly free at all.
V for Vagina by admkirk	Dec 13th, 2005 10:55:48 PM
StrangeCo, I don't think the conservatives on this site do much research unless you consider listening to right-wing radio, watching Fox News and, well, watching the mainstream media. As for the liberals, well, I just don't see where they are. For all the rhetoric that the conservatives use about bashing liberals and how liberals are in control of everything, I see very few people actually declaring themselves "liberal" and even less people in power in this country who could be called "liberal". Right now, America is more conservative than it has been probably since FDR. For much of the 20th century, being a liberal was a good thing. Liberals were fighting for the New Deal, Civil Rights, Women's rights, end to segregation, medicare, medicaid. Now, liberals are the devil. Liberals hate America. Liberals are the enemy. They have no morals, no patriotism. When you start to see a country act irrationally like this and abandon one political philosophy that has been working in favor of one that has been counter-productive, that is the beginning of the end. A democracy is only as good as its people and if we're voting for people who lied us into war, steal our money and swish to create government by religion, well, that is what we deserve.
V for Vwha' Happened?!?! by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 11:25:05 PM
Same old straw man argument, Adm Kirk. "[L]iberals are the devil. Liberals hate America. Liberals are the enemy. They have no morals, no patriotism." Gee, that's so different than "conservatives are the devil. Conservatives hate America. Conservatives are the enemy." These are really just overblown arguments by BOTH SIDES in order to gain votes and political power. That's not to say that there isn't a grain of truth on both sides. Can't really attack your poltical enemy as a Servant of Xenu, waging Temporal War from the Nnth Dimension and expectant to gain much ground and advance much of a political agenda. Instead, take the other side's real positions, distort them out of all reason, and attribute that to them then watch the votes pour in for four more years of a fat-cat lifestyle. Works for both sides of the aisle. Sure there are differences and sure they need to be debated and fought. But to equate the other sides position with PURE AND TRUE EVIL is silly and counterproductive. You say that to "abandon one political philosophy that has been working in favor of one that has been counter-productive, that is the beginning of the end." What's the one that's been working? Liberalism (as narrowly defined within the broader confines of Western Liberalism - which contains both conservative and liberal streams) and the redistribution of wealth has "been working?" Must be why there's no homeless or poor or child abuse anymore. The "working" of liberalism is a wonder. Next, you say that conservatives "lied us into war, steal our money and swish to create government by religion." You, sir, fall for the same old shit. Sure, be against Republicans or Conservatives or Know-Nothings or Whigs, but know your facts. ALL politicans lie. ALL politicians lie us into war. ALL politicians steal our money - that's called taxation. Do your taxes go away under a "liberal" government? I love how it's "stealing our money" when it's a Republican president while espousing the virtues of Medicare and Medicaid - two programs which "steal our money" to pay for "wars on poverty." No problem with that unwinnable war, I take it. To say that Republicans or Conservatives or Know-Nothings or Whigs would surrender us to a "government of religion" reveals your own failings to the straw man arguments of your obvious intellectual betters - they know just what to say to whip you into line.
Right now, America is more conservative than it has been probabl by StrangeCo	Dec 13th, 2005 11:46:13 PM
Anybody tell you that FDR was liberal? Thus, the whole New Deal that you praise a few sentences later. "For much of the 20th century, being a liberal was a good thing." Um, that's in hindsight. At the time of the battle for civil rights, being "liberal" was by no means the widely acknowledged "good thing," even by those who supported the end and not the means of liberals. "Liberals were fighting for the New Deal," you say, an income redistribution scheme which did little to end the Great Depression. In fact, it was the World War (which you apparently despise being lied into) that ended the Worldwide Great Depression. As such, the New Deal remains a hotly debated "good thing" to this day. Civil Rights, women's rights, and an end to segregation are all great achievements of liberalism. The problem with liberalism today (the other side might say) is the same problem that you have with Conservatives or Republicans and their war in Iraq, that is to say, a matter of overreaching. Conservatives and Republicans say that the war in Iraq was a matter of "defending America and her freedoms." They even go so far as to present their case to you in those terms, stating that Sadaam Hussein's past behavior represented a danger to America and her people and, thus, according to them, he had to be taken out. Ah, you go to far, you say! To launch a pre-emptive war is wrong! Yet, liberals today ask for "pre-emptive" action on the environment in the form of the Kyoto Protocols because "we can't afford to wait until the danger of global warming is upon us." The bad press is usually on both sides an issue of overreaching. Medicare and Medicaid are two more prime examples of this overreaching. The pendulum swing to the Right that this country witnessed in the 1980s was a direct result of the overreaching and lack of results of the 1960s. Hell, look at it on a smaller scale: in the early 1990s, Clinton sought some form of national health care, right? American people saw it as overreaching and provided him, not with national health care, but a Republican congress. When the majority of the U.S. people see Bush as overreaching (into our freedoms) they'll provide him with a Democrat congress. C'est la vie!
Did the Batboys in "Descent" sing from their namesake musical? by Lenny Nero	Dec 14th, 2005 12:06:48 AM
"Hold me Bat Boy/Touch me Bat Boy/Help me through the niiiiiiight." Don't deny your best inside, Massa.
Beast ... Don't deny your BEAST inside. by Lenny Nero	Dec 14th, 2005 12:07:18 AM
Damn drunk fingers.
Don't know if America is more conservative now, by DinoBass	Dec 14th, 2005 12:07:41 AM
but it certainly is less intelligent, with all this debate about evolution vs. creation-- er, intelligent design.
I went poopy today by IAmJack'sUserID	Dec 14th, 2005 12:38:24 AM
it was fun
Couldn't Agree More DinoBass by Ill Clinton	Dec 14th, 2005 01:07:03 AM
People STILL arguing for evolution is definitely a sign of diminishing intelligence. We are indeed living in dark times my friend.
Oh hush, DinoBass and Ill Clinton, both of you. by Lenny Nero	Dec 14th, 2005 02:01:33 AM
Not the time. Tomorrow, you can go back to this, but for now, I shall have none of it.
StrangeCo by Massawyrm 1	Dec 14th, 2005 02:05:04 AM
You talk about doing research and not being so reactionary, yet your arguments all stem from the point of view that I am a liberal democrat. On the Contrary, I'm a dyed in wool, Traditionally Conservative Republican. 5 minutes of research on this site would have turned that little nugget up. Reread your arguments. They're almost entirely the usual fallacies. Gee, I'm not as free to light up here, but try lighting up in (Country X). The minute I start comparing my freedoms to dictatorships rather than my freedoms in this very country five years from now is the day I put a bullet in my noggin. Now, while you're at it, reread what I said. I am not talking about terrorists who kill innocents, but the men we hear called terrorists every night on the news - who occasionally get the level of respect of being called "Insurgents". These are the terrorists I was referring to. Oh, and legal representation to the nazis? Again with the fallacies. I'm not talking about the guys in camp x-ray, or even camp 6. I'm talking about the provision in the Patriot act, which has been used several times, to detain AMERICAN CITIZENS without so much as charging them or granting them visits by their family or legal representation. You keep slinging your hash, man. Keep twisting the argument by diverting it from what I'm talking about. You may actually convince yourself that you're right. But you're not convincing anyone else.
Comingsoon.net says a new trailer for V is out THURSDAY! by Orionsangels	Dec 14th, 2005 02:29:41 AM

Massawyrm 1, you do some reading yourself by StrangeCo	Dec 14th, 2005 02:30:29 AM
I never called you a "liberal Democrat." Kinda touchy for a "traditionally Conservative Republican," aren't you? I addressed your points, including the bravery of whomever you point to as "brave" and reiterate to both you and Bill Maher again - who gives a shit how brave people are who blow up wedding parties and schoolchildren. If you are so myopic as to seriously believe that your five year comparison is reasonable and rational, well, sir, I'll send you the bullet myself for you're in for a lifetime of misery in a country where the pendulum swings widely from year to year (witness FDR's internment camps and JFK's war in SE Asia), but never truly abandons freedom. You've obviously been fooled by some philosophy that paints those who blow up busses as brave freedom fighters and your own countrymen as the true threat. By the way, I mentioned Democrats when discussing cigarette smoking and no foreign dictatorship. I find it strangely curious (coughbullshitcough) that the model of conservative Republicanism didn't leap at the opportunity to point out the flaws in the Democrat "attack on the freedom to light up anywhere." I addressed exactly what you were talking about. The fault, dear Brutus, is in your lack of specificity while spouting the slogans of a party with whom you don't identify (coughbullshitcough).
KONG was great. by jrbarker	Dec 14th, 2005 03:35:09 AM
I just got back from seeing the midnight show. It was fantastic. Yes, you could see the seams in the Bronto stampede scene. But other than that the fx were great.
Once again, StrangeCo by Massawyrm 1	Dec 14th, 2005 03:45:27 AM
You've strayed from what I'm talking about. Let me be crystal clear - I NEVER EQUATED THE KILLING OF CIVILIANS WITH BRAVERY NOR WITH OUR TROOPS NOR WITH AMERICANS OF ANY KIND. You, my friend, cannot seem to differentiate between "insurgents" and "terrorists" which was EXACTLY the point I was making. I have no need to attack the Democrats right now, they're doing a fine job embarressing themselves as is. As to not identifying with my party - that's the typical ReRe Right "We're the majority" group think bullshit statement. I do, in fact, identify with my party - just not the current leadership. I Identify with john McCain, Arlen Spectre, Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr. and Colin Powell. Go ahead. Tell me these people aren't republicans. Tell me the beliefs of these men no longer stand. You Tighty Righties, or psudo-cons if you will, may have co-opted the party and even the term conservative itself - but you are not the Party. You are members of it. And you're going to have to deal with the fact that there is a large percentage of us that don't like you or what you stand for - yes...in your own party. There's a reason 10% of Republicans who voted Bush the first time voted Kerry the second.
Let me be crystal clear (for the fiftieth time) by StrangeCo	Dec 14th, 2005 04:51:21 AM
What does the bravery of terrorists or insurgents have to do with shit? You've yet to answer that. Me? A Tighty Righty? Not hardly, chief. I stand on my own. I look at separate ideas and rank them on based on my own thought processes. Not what I'm fed. I find ideas of value on both sides of the aisle and, depending on the circumstance, support both sides. I stand for individual freedom AND group responsibility. I continue to ask you: where's the Reagan conservatism in your post regarding Bush's curtailing of freedom, a curtailing supported by the Democrats in Congress. See, Bush ain't an emperor, much as he, his supporters, you, or his enemies might think so. He doesn't rule by fiat. There's a little institution called Congress that he must go through to pursue many of the very ideas that you find so heinous. Congress is closely divided with members of both parties. Didn't see you attacking the other side, Conservative Republican though you be. That having been said, where's your comment about the government of religion come from, oh, Conservative Reaganite? Reagan himself courted Conservative Evangelical EXACTLY as much as Bush, if not more. Anyone who claims to be a Conservative Republican and links Arlen Specter, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush doesn't know what he's talking about. Specter, McCain, and Bush (the Elder) are members of the moderate/liberal wing of the Republican party. Reagan was a Righty from way back and so is Bush. Please illustrate to me, the ignorant outsider, the difference in Dubya's policies and those of Ronaldus Maximus. You say "I NEVER EQUATED THE KILLING OF CIVILIANS WITH BRAVERY NOR WITH OUR TROOPS NOR WITH AMERICANS OF ANY KIND" yet own review betrays you. Here are your words: "In this country we have this conceit about terrorism in which we like to forget that we invented the ideals of modern
GIVE ME NAIL CLIPPERS ON A JET OR GIVE ME DEATH!!! by BannedOnTheRun	Dec 14th, 2005 05:00:27 AM
Millions of North Koreans weep for your suffering.
StrangeCo, If You Can't See The Difference Between Bush Jr A by Ill Clinton	Dec 14th, 2005 07:48:31 AM
I suggest YOU are the one that needs to do some research. Stop repeating the thoughts of other people and be the independent thinker you claim to be.
StrangeCo posting the same old nonsense. by FluffyUnbound	Dec 14th, 2005 08:48:38 AM
"Where are your posts against the evil ideology we face?" Nobody despises atavistic Islamic fundamentalism and its rejection of modernity more than me, pal. I was pro-war at the time of the invasion and I am pro-war now [although I am struck dumb at the criminal incompetence this administration has demonstrated in waging the war]. I was so pre-war at the time of the invasion that I loudly and prominently declared the issue of WMD irrelevant; the Hussein regime, as far as I was concerned, had no right to exist, and that meant that any Tom Dick or Harry off the street who wanted to topple that regime had the moral right to do so, WMD or no WMD, sovereignty or no sovereignty, and I held further that a system of international law that served to protect the existence of a regime like Hussein's was morally illegitimate and could be ignored at will. Staking out these positions early has proved itself useful in the last couple of years, believe me. [Again, because of the absolutely ludicrous level of incompetence demonstrated by this administration.] So YES, let's go out and track down evildoers and kill them dead, if they won't come quietly. But you know what? Thinking that we should fight [and kill] our enemies is a lot different than thinking we should torture the enemies we capture or who surrender. It's inexplicable to me that people like you can't see that. It's the same difference - the EXACT same difference - between thinking that we should capture muggers and murderers, and should be willing to use the necessary level of violence to force them to surrender if they don't comply, and thinking that once we catch muggers and murderers, we should assign prison guards to the task of torturing them for fun, or for "information". And here's the problem: posts like yours make it clear that you think that authoritarianism is actually the superior governmental form, and that it's actually the safer and more productive policy. YOU find it inexplicable that I don't fall in line behind you to support "temporary" or "marginal" restrictions in freedoms, and you find it inexplicable that I don't think we're accomplishing anything by setting up a security and surveillance state on our own soil, and you find it inexplicable that I don't think that torturing captives for information is a good idea, "sometimes". This makes it crystal clear that you think that a free society is weak, and foolish, and a "luxury", and something we can only afford once every possible or potential enemy is dead. It makes it crystal clear that you envy regimes that can take these "necessary" and "prudent" actions without the encumbrance of a citizenry that has a voice and that objects to them. You may think I am putting words in your mouth, but I'm not - it's just not possible to draw the conclusions you draw without believing at some level that, "sometimes", repression is both necessary and effective. So to ask us to trust you that your actions are for everybody's good is absurd - you're too stupid to know what everybody's good IS. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that while the pathological security state that has been implemented in the US hasn't made us any materially safer, it has damaged the fabric of the spirit of the nation in innumerable ways. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that the generation of children being brought up in this atmosphere is likely to turn out to be a generation of slaves, and your casual certainty that we will "naturally" turn the pendulum back "when the crisis passes" means little or nothing once you've conditioned enough people to subservience. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that the position of the United States in the world has been undermined by the existence of Guantanamo more than it could possibly have been undermined by anything the terrorists could do short of a nuclear attack against multiple cities. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that nothing that could possibly have been gained by way of "intelligence" at Abu Ghraib could have helped the war effort as much as the revelations of the abuses there have HURT the war effort. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that the tactics you favor are LOSING THE WAR, BOTH WARS, both the war in Iraq and the "war on terror". We may still win in Iraq, because the upside for Iraqis if a stable and free state can be established there may just be great enough that they will overlook the abuses we engaged in as part of a misguided effort to use oppression to create freedom. But it's a dice roll now, and it didn't have to be, and would not have been, if closet authoritarians had not been in charge.
McCere Hasn't Ever Heard Of Native Americans by BlankGeneration	Dec 14th, 2005 09:09:44 AM
The Indians we slaughtered would have damn sure called us terrorists if that word existed in their language. We didn't kill women and children and random people milling about in the conquest of this country? Riiiiight on, man, preach it to the choir, brother.
What True Patriotism Is by BlankGeneration	Dec 14th, 2005 09:22:15 AM
True patriotism requires not only giving law enforcement and military the tools it needs, but also adequately protecting citizens against abuse of that power. And BushCo has shown time and time again their propensity to abuse that power, and in the end, that makes the adminstration's tunnel-visioned pursuit of Islamic zealots unAmerican and unpatriotic. word.
Wow, Massawyrm - You REALLY need to go do some reading about the by Dagan	Dec 14th, 2005 09:30:11 AM
Massawrym proves he doesn't even know the DEFINITION of terrorism, yet he chooses to lecture us about politics - typical. The soldiers in the Revolution were not terrorists - they were soldiers, and they fought a soldier's War. Yes, they didn't wear bright Red Coats, but they didn't HAVE them. They lined up on the field of battle and fought the same kind of War that the brits did. Terrorism is the DELIBERATE TARGETTING OF CIVILIANS in order to "terrorize" the population. By defintion, the American Revolutionaries could NOT have committed terrorism, even if they wanted to, as the Brit Civilians were a continent away. Terrorism is people putting bombs on busses and deliberately blowing up little kids - we did no such thing during the Revolution, or even anything close to that. We fought soldiers and we fought them in a stand-up fight.
Dagan?? Stand Up Fight? by BlankGeneration	Dec 14th, 2005 09:33:35 AM
Not to compare colonists with Old West settlers, but that high horse you are sitting so smugly on is about to stumble over a big pile of dead Apapche babies.
"The fault, dear Brutus...." by occams_razor	Dec 14th, 2005 10:25:12 AM
StrangeCo, seriously, who the fuck talks like that?
Who talks like that? by greatmoose	Dec 14th, 2005 10:28:18 AM
Educated people.
What will Iraqi children will learn in school 50 years from now? by Rant Breath	Dec 14th, 2005 10:38:18 AM
That George "Dubya" saved them and gave them democracy or that the American imperialist were expelled by brave patriots(insurgents). I guess as long as the United States has access to Iraq oil in the year 2055, it doesnt matter.
greatmoose by occams_razor	Dec 14th, 2005 10:55:32 AM
I'm educated too greatmoose but I don't sound like a douchebag when I have a discussion. I really think it's the nature of forums that makes people say things in a way that they would never talk like in an actual spoken conversation.
Yeah, OK, whatever, Occam. by FluffyUnbound	Dec 14th, 2005 11:42:28 AM
You know what I generally find to be the case with people who appear to have excellent writing skills but who employ a dumbed-down speech pattern? The dumb version is usually the real person. The eloquent written version is usually a put-on. Not always, but most of the time. I don't expect people to speak in perfect paragraphs, but if your writing is full of stylistic flourishes, neat allusions, and literary puns, while none of that comes across in your speech, you're probably a faker. You're either using an existential plagiarist [which would be bad] or you're deliberating hiding your intelligence in your speech [which would be worse]. I guess there are exceptions - the person who is so socially awkward that they're too afraid to speak, or the person who is a great thinker but a stutterer, or the diamond in the rough who philosophizes with the immortals but talks like a Mexican truck driver. There are always exceptions. They don't really change the rule.
Spirited and intelligent discussion? by Freakemovie	Dec 14th, 2005 12:03:12 PM
...on a talkback? No way. You guys have impressed me. But then some of you had to go and ruin it by actually believing that comment in the beginning about Hitler being better than Bush was real and not sarcastic. I mean, that's just plain a new level of stupidity. A new high and a new low all in the same talkback.....just to throw my two cents in, by the way, the further left OR right you go, the more stupid you get. Bill O'Reilly=tard. Michael Moore=turd. Moderate all the way! We make up 90% of this country and you never seem to hear from us! Moderate all the way!
FluffyUnbound by occams_razor	Dec 14th, 2005 12:47:30 PM
Don't get your jockies in a wad here buddy. All I am saying is that I am amazed at how many 50 cent words are cashed in when people discuss the color of lighsabers or how realistic the hair looks for a CG creature. I'm not saying these people are dumb, maybe their passion for what they love, that near autistic level of focus on this one certain thing brings out this hidden dictionary in their brains and they can't help but write like that. But I still think saying shit like "The fault, dear Brutus..." doesn't help you convey any point other than you sound like a pretentious douchebag. But, like you, I am just a guy out there on the interweb posting on a movie forum and the only thing that really matters right now is the office christmas luncheon I have to attend in 15 minutes so I can eat for free. Though I do have to ask, why is your name FluffyUnbound? Not a jab mind you, just curious.
Dagan..... by Shaner Jedi	Dec 14th, 2005 12:48:24 PM
"By defintion, the American Revolutionaries could NOT have committed terrorism, even if they wanted to, as the Brit Civilians were a continent away." Um no, they were British COLONIALS. WTF do you think that means? They were citizens who overthrew their own government: the british colonial assemblies,the crown,the british "occupiers", as they came to be seen as by the sons of liberty, and replaced them with an sovereign confederacy of state republics. Once again, they didn't use the tactics of muslim fundies because they were men from the enlightenment. But they did tar and feather tax british tax collectors, burn tory "sympathizers", and drove many fellow colonials from the colonies via harassment, intimidation, and sabotage.
Why even attack someone for actually using decent English? by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 02:44:29 PM
With all the cretinous, monosyllabic, mouthbreathing fucktards currently shambling through the internet, why in God's name get on someone's balls for using perfectly correct English even if it is a bit too florid for your taste? Why aren't the grammatical heretics and anti-spellers your first targets?
Quick responses then back to work by StrangeCo	Dec 14th, 2005 04:45:56 PM
Firstly, the "dear Brutus" line was what happens when you post at 3 o'clock in the morning when you have to be at work the next day. Nonetheless, I stand by the reference. Brutus was a Roman Senator (Republican) who claimed to be all about Rome (be a Conservative Republican) while stabbing ol' Caesar, the wildly popular leader of the Romans (Bush), in the back. I think the allusion, apt or hamhanded, should be quite apparent now. Secondly, FluffyUnbound, I think that you've misread me. I've got plenty of criticism for this administration and I don't remember that torture was ever brought up once. I also don't remember authoritarianism being brought up. The discussion was mainly focused around the silly claim that the Bush administration was planning on taking away all civil rights and freedoms in their march to become Emperor while praising the bravery of insurgents, terrorists, or whatever. This guy's evidence was that he couldn't carry a lighter on a plane anymore. Now we all now that the banning of lighters on a plane is solely the responsibility of the Republican party while all righting thinking Democrats have railed against it since the founding of the Republican. (That's why you see so many "smoke-ins" in protest of the Bush administration.) Additionally, literature has widely illustrated that the prohibition of lighters on airplanes is the classic firs tstep on the way to a totalitarian dictatorship. Thank God, we've got Brutus looking out for our best interest and the interests of Rome. I rightly pointed out that this was ludicrous. I am pro-defense, pro-capitalism, anti-tax, pro-civil rights kind of guy. I believe that government is best when it stays the fuck out of our business unless its to protect the citizenry and by "protect" I mean from physical death, not "protecting" us from gay marriage. I don't like to be told what to do by some "authoritarian" any more than the next guy, in fact probably less than most. I don't know where the shit all this torture shit came from, but nice post and, for the most part, I agree with it.
DocPazuzu by occams_razor	Dec 14th, 2005 04:46:35 PM
I wasn't attacking him for using decent english. Decent english conveys a point effectively. His english was all kinds of fine up until the Brutus comment and then he sounded like a pretentious douchebag, something that internet forums have enough of. Now I don't know the guy, don't know what he is like in real life, maybe he is a twat in real life, maybe not, it's kinda hard to get an idea of who someone is on a movie forum. I was just stating my opinion of his word choice. As for using correct grammar and all that jazz, it thrills me to no end to see people writing out complete sentences and having actual thoughts that don't involve "teh" or the idea of something being "gay". Doc, you wanna fight the good fight and try to correct the teeming masses who can't spell? Good luck with that, I think if we ever find away to combine porn and grammar lessons into one program we might have a start. Maybe after enough ass to mouth scenes, the kids would begin to remember what a preposition is.
StrangeCo by occams_razor	Dec 14th, 2005 04:50:51 PM
Hey, I still don't like your word choice but I completely understand the 3 am, "What the fuck?" posts. I've been there before and to an ex-girlfriend on her blog none the less....yeesh.
Wow, could I mistype some more by StrangeCo	Dec 14th, 2005 04:53:49 PM
That's "we all KNOW that the banning of lighters" and "since the founding of the REPUBLIC." Oh, and I talk EXACTLY like I write (including typos); it's weird. Shit, I gots to work. Fuck, just reread more of what FluffyUnbound had to say and, damn, I've got to respond, but later...
Reviewer = Asshole by Itchy	Dec 14th, 2005 05:05:39 PM
I'm sick to fucking death of the idiotic comparisons about what's happening in Iraq and the American fight for independence. The revolutionary war was fought over such radical concepts such as freedom, equality, justice. It was not fought in order to maintain a repressive, barbaric theocracy whose stated purpose is to kill every non-muslim on the face of the planet. And last time I read Democracy in America, I don't recall de Tocqueville reciting with approval how the founding fathers used to strap explosives to their chest and walk into nurseries on orphanages just to cause maximum shock and horror. I hate you jerkoffs who spend a couple of years getting spoonfed the standard liberal pablum at your state schools and then go running to draw parallels between every horrible regime in the history of humankind and the US. Get it straight - the USA is not, will not, and has never been the moral equivalent of Pol Pot, Hitler, Saddam Hussein or any other mass murderer.
And another thing .... by Itchy	Dec 14th, 2005 05:06:55 PM
I hate you because now I probably won't watch the damn movie ... and I really wanted to stare at bald Natalie Portman for a couple hours and imagine rubbing my nutsack on her forehead.
Swarmy... by tango fett	Dec 14th, 2005 05:47:43 PM
please tell me you are being sarcastic.
Thank GOD there is SOMEONE... by tango fett	Dec 14th, 2005 05:56:47 PM
...on this talkback who has some sense. Brownie points, IAmJack'sUserID.
"The revolutionary war was fought over such radical concepts suc by Rant Breath	Dec 14th, 2005 07:12:56 PM
Hardly. The Revolutionary War was fought to stop King George from taxing the US. Insurgents fight in Iraq to stop President George from taking their oil. I know it's my "American duty" to demonize the insurgancy but I refuse to be a complete tool.
Is enslaving people for hundred of years and nearly wiping out N by Rant Breath	Dec 14th, 2005 07:21:19 PM
the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein's rule or is it much much worse?
Once again, Massawyrm writes with his balls, not his brain. by Borgnine JR	Dec 14th, 2005 08:30:04 PM

Why on earth by Pageiv	Dec 15th, 2005 08:04:19 AM
Do you assum conservatives dont believe in fighting for liberation? If you ask me the liberals are the ones to group all terrorists in the category of being good when conservatives can see a difference. Last I read the book, V wasnt choppin heads off overweight americans or blowing up kids at a toy give a way. Most conservatives will love this movie (if its close to the book). http://www.geocities.com/pagei v71/Michigan_Partisan.html
Massawrym's review of King Kong by dastickboy	Dec 17th, 2005 10:17:10 AM
Having just watched the film last night I have to say Massa was way off. It sounds like he just wanted to find something to dislike because it is a major event film. I think it's pretty weak to pick out minor flaws in the CG when the major character is such a step forward even from just 2-3 years back (Peter Jackson's own words from his interview with Jonathan Ross). Also no character arcs from the boat were fully realised before hitting Skull Island, the crew COMPLETED their arcs on the island as they wouldn't feature in the rest of the story, and why would they? Sorry Massa, I respect that you put your critique out there and you had the balls to pull out the negatives, I just think you made a much bigger deal of them than was necessary.
Americans arguing with one another is like... by morgenes25	Dec 19th, 2005 06:43:59 AM
a debate between Forrest Gump and George W. Bush. Haha, no wonder your country is gradually losing it's power, and turning into the next Macedonia.
It's funny... by Childe Roland	Dec 19th, 2005 01:46:58 PM
...and sad to see so many apparently well-prepared and eloquent arguments launched impotently across the bows of the Replublican and Democratic flagships without either side really noticing the few decent points being made. First, the tactics American revolutionaries employed in the 1700s were unorthodox to say the least and were very much like the tactics employed by the insurgents we face in Iraq (as well as the enemy we faced in Vietnam), be they native Iraqis or foreign supporters of those people against what they perceive to be an unjustified invasion (not unlike the French were to the Colonists). American revolutionaries were fighting for freedom from being told how to run their government by the most powerful nation in the world at the time, which was concerned about the resources it would lose favorable access to if the colonists gained their independence. Not so very different than the insurgents in Iraq. Modern terrorists strap bombs to children. The colonists strapped guns and drums to theirs. As for the targeting and murdering of civilians, as a policy I don't believe it was encouraged by the colonists in their war against the British (wouldn't really have been practical, given that the war wasn't fought in England), but soon after it most certainly was encouraged in the former colonists' dealings with the native inhabitants of North America (pioneers of germ warfare, our founding fathers were, when a people not subject to their political rule were sitting on something thaey wanted). But how does any of this really matter to what's going on today? Are we trying to demonstrate how little we've learned from our own history? When examining our freedoms to determine if they are being curtailed, we don't need to look at third or fourth world nations and regimes. All we need to do is look at the constitution. This original contract with America pretty clearly states what we should be able to expect in terms of freedoms. If any of those freedoms are not present, you can bet there's been some curtailment. Bush is not Hitler. That comparison is absurd. As is any comparison of Hussein to Hitler. All three are leaders who made or allowed morally questionable and unquestionably selfish choices to be made by their governments. And all three believed they were acting in the best interests of their people. The War in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is entirely different than any military action the previous administration took in that neither of these Middle Eastern incursions were supported by the UN. We were asked to the dance, even, to a certain extent, in the bombings of Iraq under Clinton. So a direct comparison holds no water at all. These are simply facts being presented for clarification and consideration. America has always done exactly what its leaders believed to be in the best interests of its people at the time, but those interests (and, specifically, which people) have always been open to the interpretation of the administrations in power as well as the people who did not agree with those administrations' decisions. It's the way our country "works." But at least those criticizing the current decisions without attempting to compare them to past abuses by the U.S. government ("if you criticize Bush for this, why not go back in time and criticize X for that?") or to abuses by leaders of foreign nations, past or present (I wonder if Hitler knew just how famous he was going to be as the stick by which all future political evil would be measured - and comparisons between the U.S. and Rome are humorous on thousands of levels) are exercising their rights as free-thinking individuals and not trying to make excuses for something they can't support logically or morally. To suggest that anyone who criticizes the current administration should either shut up or go and fight for the other side is asinine beyond words. We are not only free to question the actions of our government, it is our duty as citizens and defenders of a free nation. Any moron can point a gun and shoot what he is told to shoot. It takes a bravery to ask "why?"
Yay for Moral Subjectivity! Yay for historical ignorance! by aceattorney	Dec 30th, 2005 04:11:26 AM
Yay @ the neolibs!

Talkbacks

Massawyrm professes his thoughts upon BNAT 7 and why V FOR VENDETTA was the best film he's seen this year!