Instead we get this movie of the week sounding lionizing of GW Bush, the chickenshit little toadie who never did jack shit for himself. That "Axis of Evil" conversation is laughable. Is that what we're supposed to believe happened? Give me a fucking break, he sat back while he was spoon-fed every 'idea' this administration has had.

[crickets]

"Farginghype 7-11" didn't stop Bush from being re-elected - if anything, it motivated voters to support him against hypocritical Hollywood - so how Stone thinks rushing this fantasy film out in time for this go-round mystifies me. Bush isn't on the ballot and if he thinks a legitimate war hero like John McCain is going to be harmed is delusional. Given a choice between a moderate man who has served and sacrificed for his country; a lying harridan who is half of the team that has made $109 million (largely from Arab interests) and facilitated pardons for Puerto Rican terrorists in exchange for votes; and a corrupt Chicago gangster who has sat for two decades in the pews of a Black Nationalist "church" and exposes his young daughters to paranoid conspiracy lies about AIDS and 9/11; people will chose the war hero every time.

When Theo Van Gogh was murdered by an Islamofascist, Hollywood said nothing. When South Park wanted to satirize the rioting about cartoons depicting Mohammad, they were censored by Comedhimmi Central. But when Hollywood wants to pretend that they're soooooooo brave and "speaking truth to power", what do they do? Pressure Castro or Chavez? NO!!! They bash a lame duck President who will just turn the other cheek and leave office in nine months. Real brave! No one has dragged Tim Robbins and Sean Penn away in the middle of the night, never to be seen again? Michael "When's lunch?" Moore and Oliver "JFK, mein leige!!!" Stone are making movies unchecked and have their minges tongued by their fellow travelers. There is more risk in picking fights with Amish than bashing Bush.

Stone is a loon who clings to the fantasy that if JFK hadn't died, he would've stopped the Viet Nam war he started and Stone wouldn't have been traumatized. Wrong!!! If Daddy Joe Kennedy hadn't stolen the 1960 Election with his Mafia pals in Chicago, Nixon would've won and the war may not have started in the first place, or been better fought. Stone is a kook and a hack. Anyone who can make a buck naked Rosario Dawson into not-enough-to-turn-"Alexander" -into-a- watchable-movie doesn't deserve to film a kindergarten play, much less a major studio picture ever again.

I've actually MET Bush. He's not THIS much of an idiot.

HA!

Take your blind patriotism, your willingness to bend over and get ass-fucked by the corporate-owned President, and your tired old "libs", "libbies" and "libtards" comments and go share them with the rest of the 29% who still want to suck Bush's dick.

71% of the country HATES the President now. You're seriously fucking outnumbered, and at this point you're just the fucking fringe. Even my 70+ year-old lifelong conservative parents (who lived through the Great Depression and World War II) are distancing themselves from the King of All Assclowns.

Seriously. To paraphrase a great man, "You ain’t leading but two things right now: Jack and Shit. And Jack just left town.”

Why do liberals hate President Bush? Because he's a villainous, selfish, weaselly, cowardly, greedy, terrible human being who has fucked this country and left it in far worse shape-- and less populated by young Americans-- than any President since World War II, and FDR had good reasons for losing troops in that war. There's a far fucking cry from a regime nearly conquering the world, and a tin-star despot in a shithole oil-producing country with no decent weapons or army to speak of.

So please, take your sanctimonius, paranoid, xenophobic, bigoted asses over to Free Republic and give EACH OTHER handjobs. We're not interested, and considering you're in the minority by a Big Fuckin Margin, you can't gang up shout us down like you're used to doing in a debate you can't win.

Over there. Freeper feebs. Go. ---->

Nothing to worry about anymore...

Oliver Stone is fucking crazy if he thinks liberals will see this movie. We're Bushed-out. He's insane if he thinks conservatives will see this movie. The hardcore Bushies will be offended at the mere mention of "Oliver Stone" and "Bush" in the same sentence, and the ones who are sick of G.W. will avoid this like the rest of this.

Oliver Stone is making this movie for an audience of one: Himself. All-too-often, Stone likes to pull his own dick in the filmic sense, and he frequently forgets that movies need the attention of more than a handful of people in order to be worthwhile.

This is Oliver Stone's anti-fanwank, and I won't be putting a moment of my time into it at theaters, or on home video.

Ever heard of Vietnam? I'm sure as a good lib you have. Who took the USA there? How many young men died there?

As for the vast majority being against Bush, that's because he's alienated the fiscal and social conservatives by joining hands with Dems and signing huge spending bills, and alienated the left simply by breathing. I'm not a fan of his domestic policies, but that doesn't mean I hate him or think him scum as you do.

but most of us monkeys haven't chocked on a pretzel.

Too often, conservatives have this mental image of liberals being tree-hugging hippies, and they don't think we have the wherewithal to stand up to them when they start throwing a tantrum. As long as we avoid being hippy-dippy idiots, and keep the conversation at a level just a notch or two higher than theirs, we've got the high ground and all they have is a failed President who will go down in history as the worst President ever.

Whether you back Hillary, or Obama, or even McCain, you HAVE to recognize that Bush has been terrible for the United States and the world. Anyone still defending him at this point is a tinfoil hat-wearing, fringe freak who can't accept that they're wrong, and would rather see the country go down and everyone suffer than admit that a conservative President was an utter fucking failure as both a leader, and as a human being.

I'm no fan of McCain these days, now that he's been whipped into shape by the Bush boys, but I at least respect that HE was at war and can respect the deaths he'll most certainly cause overseas. Bush doesn't seem to even give a shit unless it provides a good photo op or fluff piece.

Just get to the polls. Be vigilant. Whichever Democratic nominee wins, you HAVE to support them if you want the end of this right-wing nightmare. Hillary and Obama would both would be a hundred times better than another Bushie in the White House. Stick with the main goal, which is to push them the fuck out of power and regain our motherfucking civil rights that Bush's team stole. We're the people in charge, and it's time we had a President that understands that they work for US, and not one that thinks they're King of America.

We are a republic, and one I'm (mostly) proud of. The bad guys may treat this place like it's a plutocracy, but that can be changed because the system was made to invoke such change. The founders weren't fools. They knew our system would become corrupt, and they built the tools to fix it right into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They made a government that CAN right itself, if the People so will it.

There was once a time when you didn't have to even be a lawyer or politician to become President. The idea was that anybody with good ideas, and a willingness to serve the People could be considered a viable candidate. Maybe we need to stop looking to governors, senators, congressmen, and famous people, and start picking people who are just smart, or wise, or good-hearted.

Maybe the problem with politics is politicians.

Vietnam was a shitstorm, to be sure, but the war profiteering, excuses to kill civil rights domestically, and shabbiest treatment of veterans all occurred since Bush was in office.

And I won't even BEGIN to discuss the fact that he has appointed lobbyists and corporate insiders to every environmental and security post... Even if it's a post they spent their career opposing.

Take it to Free Republic. They still swallow this shit and beg for more. Bush could squat on your lawn and leave a steaming pile for you to clean up, and you'd call him a hero for doing it. Nobody else is buying it, though.

Bush allowed Ted Kennedy to write No Child Left Behind. That's joining hands is it not? He signed the McCain Feingold bill limiting free speach, didn't he? I said I'm not a fan of his domestic policies, didn't I?

Whatever. "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him." That's from the Bible, by the way. I'm just going to go back to banging my sister and saluting the Confederate flag. Excuse me.

Every President has it's haters, and unfortunately, we live in a time where people can bash and hate and hide behind the anonymity of the internet.

How many people were able to voice their hatred for LBJ? And LBJ had JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinated and continued to keep waging war in Vietnam. I'm willing to bet that if the internet existed among the general public, at the time, LBJ would have been seen as the worst President ever.

Nixon is seen as one of the worst, yet without Nixon, we would have had no trade with China, which was huge to our economy and theirs.

The current Bush is seen as one of the worst, but he is hailed unanimously for his work with AIDS in Africa. He also has had the most culturally diverse administration in American history, something that if he were a Democrat he would have received MUCH more praise for.

My vote for worst ever would have to be LBJ, that guy is linked to three major assassinations of beloved political and social leaders, plus he did nothing to stop the Vietnam war, a completely senseless war where we lost literally 12x the amount of Americans we have lost in Iraq.

Bush would be a close second, but since he is the standing President he is easily the most hated at this time, but worst ever? Come on, read some real history and get some perspective.

And I would hope that people on this TB, regardless of their opinion of Bush, would admit how simplistic and un-subtle that material was.

I hope the release of these pages leads to either, 1) a complete re-write, or 2) scrapping of the project altogether

To add to what ZoeFan has posted: Saddams own generals thought Saddam had the weapons. That speaks volumes as to why the information was wrong by everyones intelligence communities. Saddam was obviously one of histories worst dictators, but it also needs to be said that he was one of histories greatest con-men too.

Other than taking the fight to the Islamofascists and cutting taxes to get America out of the Clinton recession, I can't think of much, if anything, that Dubya has done that's much good. I didn't vote for him in 2004 (voted Libertarian) because he was exploding the size of government in ways that fascist Dems could only dream of with his accomplices in the Stupid Party (i.e. GOP). There was a time when Republicans opposed this sort of crap and rode to power in 1994 with Newt Gingrich leading the way in order to cut back on the socialism. Today, the GOP is "Dem Lite" and have totally pissed-off REAL conservatives.

What the fascism-loving liberals here (and at Digg and Daily Kos) are spewing are lies and slander. You useful idiots are so consumed by Bush Derangement Syndrome that you imagine that you're living in a police state when we clearly aren't. Our borders are unsecured because Dubya thinks Baby Jesus will return as a Mexican anchor baby or some such nonsense. He restricted free speech with his pal McCain with so-called "campaign finance reform". He has busted the budget trying to show how "compassionate" he is with our money. He's been a typical DEMOCRAT except that the Dems have gone so far to the extreme fascist Left that he (and McCain) look conservative in comparison. Hell, Stone's hero JFK would be called a "neocon warmonger" by today's fascist liberals.

"71% of the public hate Bush"? WRONG! 29% approved of his JOB PERFORMANCE. You can't spin stats to mean what they don't. I don't approve of his performance, but I don't hate him like you terminal BDS sufferers to. I don't think this so-called "war" is being run right either. A real war would've been over by now. This bullshit "compassionate warfighting" crap that Dubya is doing has our brave soldiers riding around waiting to get blown up and afraid of being charge with war crimes for daring to shoot back. It's pitiful that the poisons of fascist liberal brainwashing have sunk in so deep that WWII - which saw us nuke two Japanese cities and firebomb Dresden - is called "a good war", but if there is a single collateral casualty today, it's time to surrender, run away, and try everyone in government at Nuremberg.

Instead of focusing on Dubya REAL failures, you maroons live in a hysterical fantasy world in which Keith Olberman tells you what to think and then shriek like magpies in an effort to silence reasoned voices. You are more concerned that a terrorist be able to plot your deaths in private than that you stay alive. Liberalism is a suicidal ideology based on a delusional belief that if you bend over and grab your ankles for every brute, you'll be loved. No, you won't. You'll just get fucked in the ass. Fortunately, there are still a few people dedicated to protect your worthless asses from your own suicidal tendencies. Be thankful for us sane folks. We're keeping you morons alive.

The sad thing is, Stone is capable of much greater films. He should return to his roots, imo, and look at Vietnam again ('write what you know', I suppose).

I could also see him doing something worthwhile about the Bay of Pigs fiasco, or the death of Marilyn Monroe, for example.

Unfortunately for my war mongering friends, policing the globe and initiating pre-emptive attacks on sovereign nations actually makes us LESS SAFE. How long can we expect the rest of the world to stay off our backs? How long until they feel that our recklessness makes us a threat and part of an "axis of bad guys", ourselves? Quit kidding yourselves.

Just like Socialists are the Conservative Boogey Man. Hey, wait a second...

So, he created his screenname to first talk smack about BATMAN BEGINS and then post a lot of armchair politics and bullshit Alex Jones-type stuff?!

Alrighty then...

Still here? Yeah, figured you would be. I don't know why the world thinks it's OK to demand that we not inflict our values on them while demanding that we adopt their failed socialist policies in order to more closely emulate them.

NO END IN SIGHT is a good film as well.

OH NOES!!!

I'm really not concerned with Carter's Christian lifestyle - his UFO sighting intrigues me though...

"You can maintain your conservatism and disagree with the war. It's ok. American politics are resilient enough to handle a bit of counter-intuitive creative thinking....No matter how you slice it, this war is bad for us.

"Ultimately conservatives are conservative because they have something to conserve. Well, this war is swiftly stripping us of everything we would want to conserve as a world power, as a beacon of democracy, as a wealthy nation, and as a civilization. It's a mistake, a blunder, a wrong turn. We've made them before, don't worry, our collective manhood won't shrivel up and disappear the instant we admit we're fallible. The test of real strength and resolve now is actually having the balls to own up, take responsibility, and turn this ship around before we smash into the iceberg our 'leaders' and the neo-con punditry (not to mention talkbacker apologists like cchhrriissm) are convinced isn't there. While they're busy re-arranging the deck chairs, we should be taking over the engine room."

A-frickin-men.

At the risk of stepping between this shitstorm, all I have to say is, If you're a conservative, a real conservative, (not a neocon bootlicker), and you're feeling conflicted about Bush and the Iraq war, just remember there's another way to look at this. The most frustrating thing for me is reading an otherwise rational, fair-minded post that is just screaming with that internal struggle- you know the one- when your values are totally at odds with what you can see with your own eyes. Bush does not represent conservative American values. He represents a rogue, radical element of conservatism that is no longer conservative at all. The neocons are an extremist group, the equivalent of the radical left, and just as loony. I lean conservative in most things, although I won't ever completely align myself with any predetermined ideology, (I'd rather think for myself) these days I consistently find myself agreeing with liberals when it comes to the Iraq war. Not all liberals, mind you, but Fluffy's posts have been particularly correct. I'd rather agree with my conservative brethren, to be honest, but these days, even the smart conservatives seem to be twisting themselves into increasingly painful-looking intellectual pretzels in order to accommodate the pretense that we're not failing in Iraq in every way that matters. I'm just here to make a suggestion: You can maintain your conservatism and disagree with the war. It's ok. American politics are resilient enough to handle a bit of counter-intuitive creative thinking. In fact, its not really that counter-intuitive, if you take Fluffy's argument about the cost effectiveness of the war. I've tried to justify this occupation a hundred different ways to myself, but nothing ever works. No matter how you slice it, this war is bad for us. Ultimately conservatives are conservative because they have something to conserve. Well, this war is swiftly stripping us of everything we would want to conserve as a world power, as a beacon of democracy, as a wealthy nation, and as a civilization. It's a mistake, a blunder, a wrong turn. We've made them before, don't worry, our collective manhood won't shrivel up and fall off the instant we admit we're fallible. The test of real strength and resolve now is actually having the balls to own up, take responsibility, and turn this ship around before we smash into the iceberg our 'leaders' and the neo-con punditry (not to mention talkbacker apologists like cchhrriissm) are convinced isn't there. While they're busy re-arranging the deck chairs, we should be taking over the engine room.

No. It's purely Nolan bowing to paid placement and ignoring the fans. WHy not just put some flames on the Batmobile while he's at it?

You better watch your mouth.

Turdburglar.

"There's cum on them."

In line with your William the Turd post, turd base is easier to achieve than third base with a girl.

Just drop ass or a duece when you hang out with a girl and viola, you reached turd base.

Hey I didn't make this stuff up, check urban dictionary.

BTW, tombodet, I love the visual of Glenn Beck in a Hefty bag.

They have a review of the full script there, and they mention the axis-of-evil section specifically (exactly as it appeared on these leaked pages).

Double Standards: the pinnacle of Democrat ideals.

Libs: keep on bashing Neo Con Freaks.

Cons: keep on basing Libtards.

http://tinyurl.com/5sklg6

Yeah, sure, let's be fair about Bush's legacy because we all have opinions, right?

Oh, and then, while we're at it, how about a Food Network special on the merits of a Shit Sandwich? Because, you know, there ARE people out there who deliberately eat shit. (Sorry if I just spoiled anyone's lunch/life with that bit of news.) Just because the vast majority of the rest of us think a shit sandwich is an atrocious idea doesn't mean we should all be partisan about it, right?

Or not. A shit sandwich is a shit sandwich, and W has been an unmitigated disaster for this country.

This president - along with a lackey GOP congress for six years and a weak-kneed Democratic congress for two - has redistributed from the poor to the rich upwards to $3 trillion while needlessly spilling the blood of thousands of Americans and upwards to a million Iraqis, sending hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas, and quite possibly plunging the nation into the Great Depression 2.0.

But hey, at least he wasn't banging an intern!

"Finish chewing your pretzel first."

Also can we please stop it with this crap about Nazi's being left wing because they had "socialist" in their name.

If a remarkably bovine animal- complete with udders- came up to you and (given that cows can't talk) said "I'm a trampoline" would you think it a trampoline?

Titles/ labels are not indicative of the actual nature of something.

AnimalBraneBalls is a prime example of this- the name changes, but the vile nature of the beast does not.

Speaking of which, has anyone read or seen interviews about Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism? It is absolutely hilarious. The man has no concept of Fascism and makes the most absurd connections. For instance, because Fascists promoted health in the body and some liberals believe in being healthy...LIBERALS ARE FASCISTS! Or, because Fascists believe in never ending wars and because liberals termed the phrase "war on poverty"...LIBERALS ARE FASCISTS! Anyway, it is a wonderful demonstration of an intellectual lightweight on the conservative end of the perspective. Here's an interview:

http://tinyurl.com/5z8wej

Anyway, my favorite part is when the interviewer actually quotes Mussolini and Jonah Goldberg criticizes the interviewer for "going to the text." Yes, because textual evidence is a bad thing. Anyway, it's pretty funny for anyone who's interested.

Funnily enough- if the "Fascist Left" idiots were to substitute Fascist with Totalitarian I'd have no problem.

But "Totalitarian" is just not as emotive as "Fascist"

I remember seeing a hilarious clip somewhere of Jon Stewart trying to interview Goldberg, but he was so frustrated by his unrelenting circular logic he simply couldn't handle it. I remember Stewart at one point looking at the ceiling, beyond belief, then saying "That's literally like saying- Hitler had a moustache, therefore men with moustaches are fascists." The interview wasn't aired.

Men like Jonah Goldberg are paid to muddy the waters of debate, to make it difficult for reasonable people who disagree over reasonable points to actually have a civil conversation. Very few people actually believe that liberalism leads to fascism, but many people understand that to promote such an absurd notion (and to actually find enough material to fill a book!) will get people's blood up and stop reasonable discourse. It's a last, desperate attempt by people with no intellectual arrows left in their quiver, so we should be suspicious of whomever raises these types of arguments. They're either blindingly stupid people, or they have an anti-intellectual agenda. Scary on both counts. The best way to deal with both types is to back away slowly and not engage.

So stop pretending you're well read...stop presuming to be intelligent...quit pretending that you know what's going on!!! Only the strong survive and getting all tantrum-y will just get you laughed at and pummeled with rocks and garbage! Learn to swim...learn to fight...fight for the cause!

BATTLE ROYALE!!!!!!!

I have read the book in question and I disagree strongly, what he is attempting to do is move the goalposts so that Fascist is a wholly leftist term.

and although he is very clear with the use of totalitarian and collective terms, the book is itself a fine example of circular argument and merely gives the likes of BrainAnimalBalls an excuse to trot out their usual psuedo-politco-philosophical claptrap.

What is truly hysterical is noted racist/ advocate of genocide Animal crackers has started calling other people "racist". You despicable bastard.

Did you know that Martin Luther, yes he of the Lutherans, namesake for Dr. King...he was an intellectual giant in his day....not too mention a big dude (rumored at 6'4" and well above 200lbs give or take)...when this guy was debating someone with an plainly idiotic point...he would physically attack them! The man was a GENIUS!!! There must be no laws for civility in partisan politics!! Looks at some of the Asian governments...those parliament types are constantly beating the shit out of each other right in the government halls and auditoriums! Enlightened awesomeness for everyone!!! So come all ye ill-tempered sportsfans!!! Come and have your Battle Royale!! Whoever is left standing can be king of the hill! Plus you can say "I kicked that [political party affiliation of loser] pantywaist's fat ass!!!!" and no one will disagree with you! Now that's awesomeness we'd all like to have a bite out of!! Along with some delicious Krispy Kreme donuts!!!

You know you want it....we know we want it....so bust it sportsfans!! BATTLE ROYALE NOW!!! Come on dudes...you gonna let some teenage pinheads from Florida show you up with their beating video? Start the chant (sung to Beastie's "Bobby Rydell")

BATTLE ROYALE!

BATTLE ROYALE!!

BATTLE ROYALE!!!

I don't see why conservatives support the war. It's a terrible failure, in every way. For those of you that think that an expression of military might is an end unto itself, how do reconcile the fact that we've borrowed $4 trillion since 2002 from Saudi Arabia and China in order to finance our grand display of power? We're currently spending about $16 billion a month to pay for our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. How is this maintaining our sovereignty? Assuming you believe the current story- that we're spreading the gift of democracy to the beleaguered little country of Iraq, and further- that we're winning (I wonder just how much longer we can stand to keep winning) even if this is true, I for one no longer believe it, is it worth it? Is it worth selling our country to the same societies that are, according to the current wisdom, our ideological enemies? How can we feel pride at the sight of an armed American convoy entering an Iraqi village when we know that the Saudis are paying for it? Are the Iraqis worth it? How is this an expression of sovereignty? how can we be proud of this? How can you defend it as a conservative and a patriot? Are you really so easily manipulated that you'll forget to look at the bill, or recognize the face of the person extending your credit, for the sake of a fucking parade?

At this rate America won't belong to Americans anymore within our lifetime. Imagine if Saudi Arabia or China decided to call in their debt? We wouldn't be able to pay it, and they would own us outright. They won't even have to declare war, and if they did, we'd have no way of financing our defense anyway. So go on, you proud conservatives, you noble patriots, keep banging the war drum and looking down your noses at the cowardly liberals and the pansy democrats. They obviously aren't real men, the poindexters with their calculators and spreadsheets, they don't know what it is to be a real man, to sit in an armchair and cheer when Bush goes on tv and tells the terrorists to "Bring it on."

Be a real man, a real conservative, and a real patriot, grow some balls and demand the end of this fucking idiotic war, before we're all speaking Chinese or Arabic. Fools.

Anyway, I respect your knowledge, and please, please, tell me I'm wrong. If we're in Iraq to secure the last real currency in order to keep America running, I can maybe live with that, as fucking evil as it is, but don't tell me the war in Iraq is worth anything if it means we're hastening the end of our world as we know it.

I guess I simply refuse to believe that a country like the US can't manage both, even though it seems like a difficult test to point to a time in history when that was the case. Also, I don't trust the Neocon administration, I think they're manipulating conservative values to their own ends, and that paying lip-service to traditional conservatism is a method by which they keep us sedated while they rob the house. I don't think they represent my interests, I don't think they represent the interests of anyone unless you're in the top .00001 percent of the country's wealthiest.

I guess my point is, not all social spending is wrong, America has always been somewhat liberal in that regard, and the same argument goes for conservatism and military spending. A common balance between the two is what the country is all about. I see the numbers, I watch the news, I listen to Bush talk, and I can't help thinking that this is not what we're about, something is deeply wrong. It transcends right vs left bickering... I wonder what it really is.