I'm not sure this guy really understands political art. Chinua Achebe once wrote something along the lines of the following: unless you are willing to criticize your own political leanings as well as the opposition's, then you're not making art you are making propaganda. That's why the Daily Show can spend a week destroying the Democrats and then a week destroying the Republicans. They might choose one side over the other but they realize that both need to be mocked.

He doesn't sling shit to suppress points of view. He seems to do it cause he wants to be a prick.

it will be interesting to see how well this film does to be honest. I bet you fox network hawks this film like a motherfucker. is it a fox production?

Also, remember when the Joker says that no one cares when a truckload of military men are blown up so long as it's not them? Think about how many conservatives claim we haven't been attacked since 9/11 when our soldiers are facing attacks daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's acceptable to sacrifice soldier's lives so long as it not ours. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. All of these deaths would have been preventable if the majority of Americans believed that the life of a soldier and the life of an Iraqi are of equal worth to their own.

Sure, there are moments when the film is problematic, but I think the majority of the movie supports a liberal point of view. After all, Batman concedes that Dent was the better man because he was capable of fighting evil within the system.

Thank God a conservative wasn't in office during those two moments in history or else the U.S. would have been screwed.

Yeah, of course, I meant to distance Charlie Sheen from everybody else. I just added to my list and forgot to change the number. Sorry about that.

As far as Clinton, he wasn't president when 3,000 civilians were killed on U.S. soil. When that happened Bush should have realized we needed to keep a tighter lid on our own weapons. He didn't and thus more people died because of terrorism even after 9/11.

Besides, Clinton was on the offensive against Al Qaeda long before Bush lifted a finger to stop them. He bombed their training camps and worked with other countries to try and get Bin Laden. Bush didn't do anything in his first year in office to keep the pressure against Al Qaeda, even when he was given a memo stating that Bin Laden planned on attacking within the U.S. and was warned by Richard Clarke. As I've noted before, Bush deserves some blame for not preventing 9/11. He is a truly incompetent president.

What?

This comes down to what is foreseeable. It was less foreseeable for Clinton that years after he left office someone would use our own bioweapons to attack U.S. citizens, but for Bush this was readily foreseeable because we had just suffered a terrible U.S. attack.

If it makes you feel any better, it was smart of Bush the first to not enter Baghdad and destabilize the country. I disagreed with him on many, many issues, but at least he wasn't as wholesale incompetent as his son.

Obidawsn, Clinton never knew where Bin Laden was and he never called off an attack on Bin Laden. These are fabricated incidents they used in that Path to 9/11 made for tv film, not historical incidents. Richard Clarke himself, who was working at the CIA, said that the incident depicted in the movie never happened. For some people lots of people take this fictional story as fact.

The people were massacred. Our military was shamed on the world's stage. The talk on the street was not, "wow don't mess with the US" but "kill a few of them, and they'll run home." So the mission statement for every fringe lunatic warlord became, "kill a few US soldiers."

Lets say some guy breaks into your house tonight. He kills your kids, rapes your wife, and steals your HDTV and Xbox 360. You get a good look at him - he's your next door neighbor. You call Obama for advice, and what does Obama say?

"I think both of you can share equally in the blame here. Invite him over to dinner and talk. Get to know him. Find out what you have in common."

You hang up and call McCain. He says, "I would call the police."

Honestly, why would our enemies waste time scheming to kill American civilians in America, when they have a lot less distance to travel and fewer obstacles to overcome killing American soldiers in Iraq? Who's going to walk across the street and ask their neighbors if they can use their bathroom when they have two perfectly suitable toilets in their own house?

I agree that pulling out of Somalia was a huge mistake and that Clinton is a douchebag, but if you're going mention his tremendous error, I'd appreciate it if you mentioned that Reagan did the same thing in Lebanon.

This movie, by the way, does sound like it'll be bad, and I'd consider myself more conservative than liberal.

Oh, and some people hate Michael Moore because there really are a number of people who believe everything he puts in his movies is fact and can't be argued with.

Bill-O says it's a disgrace that the media doesn't respect the privacy of Bristol and the redneck but he was all over Jamie Lynn Spears calling her a pinhead and blasting her mother for being an irresponsible absentee parent.

And to hear these conservative pundits go off on the "liberal media" for sexist attacks on Palin? Really? She's been under fire for less than a week and you take issue with that? I'm no fan of Hillary but she has been been lambasted by the right for 15 years. She's been called "bitch, Hitlery, Shrillery, a feminazi," you name it. That thin-skinned, indignant hypocrisy is too much.

And lastly, as far as disrupting us, yeah, there's the REAL mission accomplished. Look how paranoid and divided we've become. We focused so much on the war on terror, we forgot to address things at home. The mortgage crisis, the credit crunch, retail sector in the toilet, ballooning unemployment, a weak dollar. I'd say the terrorists are quite proud of the chaos they continue to cause over here without any further effort.

As for Obama not loving country, damn, here we go again. Why is it wrong to point out faults? How is that not loving a country when you want to see it be better?

The same way they have convinced their base that Obama and most liberals are elitists when Cindy McCain speaks at the RNC in an outfit worth twice as much as my house.

Good article Dr. Huffufufr. I'm open to watching the movie only if it's funny. Is it funny, and funny enough to Netflix it? The trailer tells me a different story.

Obama's deep into the issues now, and well past the hyperbole train the Right is rolling out.

Here is the problem, are you out to make a funny movie, or are you out to make a statement. I get the feeling its the latter, which means it won't be funny.

But for those who say you can't be funny as a conservative, apparently never watch South Park, cause those guys can be hilarious in showing out some of the ridiculous hypocrisy of the left. MAN BEAR PIG!

I also like how someone put TDK, 300 & T-Formers as right wing movies, going up against Stop Loss, Lions for Lambs & Redacted as left movies. Now that is fair & balanced!

But only idiot Americans would hear the McCains call Obama an elitist in their designer clothes and countless houses and buy into it. Only idiot Americans would see a pregnant 17-teen year old girl and a Downs baby paraded into the spotlight as an attempt to prove "we're just like you" and buy into it. Only idiot Americans believe Bush and McCain when they say "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" and think it makes sense. Only idiot Americans tolerate a party that proclaims it's all about family values when countless representatives are being busted for having affairs and then forgiven as if it was nothing. Only idiot Americans listen to a politician quoting lines from the Bible about how homosexuality is a sin and gay people will never be allowed to marry if Republicans have their say but then goes to airport bathrooms to sexually solicit other men.

There is no more hypocritical a creature than a modern day conservative and that is not debatable.

But what cracks me up is the hypocrisy who make sure to remind us of how horrific the atrocities of McCarthysm was, almost comparing that to the Holocaust or something really atrocious (peoples can't work, cause they went to a communist rally, oh nos!). And then these same individuals get very bristly if a film doesn't share their worldview. Ever read Daily KOS' review of TDK and their assertion that it was fascist propoganda? People also thought the same about 300, and Zack Miller is hardly a conservative.

I happen to think it's more meaningful to convey love of country and inspire Americans face-to-face, intimately, than to make grandiose speeches on the Senate floor.

I'll bet if he did as you say he should, you'd accuse him of using the Capital as a campaign stop.

I can't stand Dubya, but if Stone's biopic and possible criticsm turn out to be crap, doesn't make me wrong in my dislike.

So in the same vein, those who share some of the beliefs of this film should not be judged on the merits of this movie. Seems to me people get lumped into categories unfairly, all the time, and EVERYBODY DOES IT!

You enjoyed Lions for Lambs, support Obama, and thought Farenheit 911 was worthy criticism? You must be a socialist, liberal, douchebag who wants to pay %90 taxes and let the government rule our lives!

You enjoyed The Passion of the Christ, are voting for McCain, and found some interesting topics under discussion in Ben Stein's Expelled? You must be a fascist in training, who has been brain-washed by the conservative christian right, and believe the earth is only 5000 years old, believe Jesus is a magic wish-granting fairy, and jack off to images of Ann Coulter every night.

Its amazing how often sentiments of the above are thrown out every day on these talkbacks.

Find me a single conservative willing to laugh at the inherent silliness of belief itself, to laugh at their own faults and hubris, to simply not take themselves and their religious and political beliefs so serious as to be willing to hurt anyone and everyone to defend the seriousness of the belief instead of put on a big grin and laugh about what it is to be human. Try all you want. There is no such thing. Conservative humor is attacking and laughing at the damage after the attack. Laughing at weakness and understanding. Laughing at people and never with them.

Here's to hoping this movie slides beneath the radar into the rest of the pile of hateful thoughtlessness that is conservative humor.

And I think it is hilarious most of the time! But let's not act like conservatives are the only ones who bash others.

I am trying to think of a liberal comedian, one who tends to make fairly political jokes in their schtick, who doesn't attack or at the very least mock conservatives. If you know of one, let me know.

Anyone that self absorbed and ridiculous deserves to be mocked, and mocked by a third rate comedian no less (even if it isn't funny.)

And before anyone says, "well Moore doesn't represent me!" then how come MSNBC, CNN, Larry King, etc. go to him for reaction to the RNC or McCain, or Palin, everytime something happens? He may not speak for the Dems, but somebody in the news media sure loves to get his reaction as though he does.

BTW, did anyone see Letterman the other night when he mentioned he didn't know if he could support someone who could conceivably be President, who couldn't take 5 minutes to explain birth control to their daughter...

But regarding ITVOE, that shit is based on ACTUAL EVENTS. so don't give me that shit it doesn't rpresent reality. And I'm glad you handled the war fien and are doing well, but many have not, and I think it's dishonest of you to deny they are. As of the end of August there was 62 confirmed suicides amongst active duty soldiers and another 31 suspected and still being investigated. It's going to be an all-time high. so don't tell me everything's jus tpeachy and that Elah is a propaganda film.

Appeasement is defined as "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous"

So if you want to put Chamberlain's actions into some sort of context - just 20 years previous Britain had been devastated by a war which took a million British lives. Including 100,000 civillians. Roughly the equivalent of fifty 9/11 attacks. Was it any wonder Britain wanted to avoid another war at all costs?? But to say Chamberlain shone Hitlers shoes - it was only 6 months later that he declared war on Germany! For fucks sake.

Appeasement has now become a byword for cowardice, for buying temporary peace at someone else's expense. But lets look at how this may have applied to Iraq. Instead of Bush pushing ahead with the war, what if he'd have tried to negotiate peacefully? Perhaps he'd have realised that Saddam did not have any WMD, that Iraq did not pose any immediate threat to Britain or America, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and by diverting resources away from those who were (in Afghanistan) we have simply allowed the real threat to fester.

I take issue with this part of the film, and the idea that "liberals" will never consider war to be an option. The point is that war must always be the last option and that absolutely was not the case with Iraq. Thats why I opposed it, regardless of why we're now told that we have to stay there.

It does kill me to see Transformers listed amongst other "traditional conservative" films, like 300 and the Dark Knight, but I guess I can see the logic...

Now I'm a believer. I don't just watch the big speeches, I watch everything about him and McCain.

You know, everything McCain said last night was a lie. He is closely aligned with lobbyists and special interests, and his running mate even more so. And he's not even hiding his loyalty to the elite and his disdain for the middle class. Obama raising taxes on everyone? Bullshit. Non-partisan tax experts agree that McCain's tax plan has no benefit for the poor and middle class, whereas Obama's gives immediate relief to them.

And that exploitation of 9/11 last night said it all - that is what the Republican Party is all about. It's not a sincere love of country - it's the cynical, hypocritical, exploitative embrace of ideals and events in order to attain, and keep, power.

If I were a true Conservative, I'd vote for Ron Paul before I cast a vote for McCain.

And Billy - did you like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers? Both Spielberg and Hanks were prominent at the DNC.

Later dude. Have a good weekend.

I'm NOT saying that liberals can't admit a war movie is no good, they may say its shit, but for reasons other than what you point out. They may say, "well, it wasn't as authentic as it could have been, or the direction missed some beats, but the main heart and soul of the pic is accurate."

Then again, as I pointed on the MILK talkback, what accurate, "conservative" pics do Repubs have to look at. Michael Bay waves the flag in super slow-mo every chance he gets to remind us that "flag waving is American!" Rambo? Die Hard? Schwarzzenager flicks? "If I'm not me, whodahell am I?"

I agree with the above post that mentioned Black Hawk Down. I think that was an awesome example of a look at war, without too much politics involved.

Oh I forgot my namesake and We Were Soldiers. Yeah, uh...no comment.

I also know the modern repubs love their saint reagan but I think he's the one that started the dilution of the true Conservative party into the modern form which, in many ways, is anathema to traditional Conservative values.

That pure bitch slap Paul handed to Guiliani during the debates was so brilliant but yet the simpering modern neo-con politicos and their sycophant "journalists" cheered that creepy douchebag and ultimately chased Paul out of the process. Barry spinning in his grave I tell ya! Spinnin!!!

John McCain was not my first choice either as a Conservative. I will not vote for Ron Paul because that is a vote for Barack Obama and I will not vote (directly or indirectly) for that man, so McCain has my vote. Palin pretty much won me over to McCain.

To me Ron Paul isn't a true conservative, he's an isolationist who thinks we should go back to some sort of small time agrarian society where government supplies a military and builds roads, and thats about it.

Funny how the people who believe in that way of thinking are always wealthier land owners in places like Texas and Alaska.

He's so crazed, he has no time for the space bar. WHOA, watch out, that dude is crazy ready for Inglorious Bastards, I mean HE IS READY!

But he doesn't think anyone on this site cares what you think about politics, they are too busy wondering if he is ready for that movie or not.

Apocalypse Now
Black Hawk Down
Three Kings
Band of Brothers
Saving Private Ryan

you wanna explain that one a little more? cause I thought Sicko was a pretty important movie, considering the crisis of health care in america, especially for children.

bottom line: satirize all you want. anything's fair game. but funny is funny. and not is not.

But I was speaking with a friend of mine who is more conservative, his point was that he felt that day (and the reaction of the world) proved that there are enemies abroad who wanted to harm us, and when you see the cheering in the streets from young Arabs burning American flags, that we have to recognize the threat and react. He feels like the response from so many prominent liberals was to blame America instead, to talk about how we caused that day, how its all our fault and that the "chickens had come home to roost."

I don't believe that, I do believe there are terrorists who wish me harm, and misguided and brainwashed people who somehow think that America is a great devil. But we don't stop those mis-informed people from thinking that by shooting missles up their ass. We don't improve our image to the world by running around invading countries and bombing people.

Afghanistan was a justified cause in my mind. Iraq appeared to make sense, until further information came to light and it became apparent that we had overestimated Saddam. Now we have a mess to clean up and I don't envy any politician who has to figure out what we do there.

I fervently support anyone, like Bill Braski, who has had to put their life on the line for our country. And I wish agitators like Ward Connolly would keep their hatefull spew to themselves. But I don't believe that the politicians have had our best interests in mind, I don't believe that 9/11 can just keep being used as a reason to attack anyone we please. Michael Moore is a propogandist, plain and simple, but that doesn't mean that everything he says or presents is wrong.

The more the repubs use 9/11 as a rallying cry for their own, the more it pisses off the libs. But the more the libs take a cavalier attitude towards actual evil in the world, then the more it pisses off the conservatives who feel that they aren't living in reality.

We talk about straw men, well both sides seem to build them up very well, and its a vicious cycle that needs to stop. Reality is needed for many, please take a moment to stop pretending what the "other" side believes and just recognize what your "party" may believe and how you might want to change it.

Thus the centrist has spoken and will shut up.

accordingtojimrulz - indeed! I wonder if any Republican/Con could say anything about where they stand at all without saying "Nine Eleven" or "September Eleventh" or mentioning that at all. At this point, probably not. Indeed, it was a tragic event that should be remembered with reverence. But define our entire lives by tragedy? Define everything we do from this point on by the fear invoked? Define every relationship with every other country in the world by one incident? Worse yet, it helps no one to do such a thing. Time passes and 9/11 becomes nothing more than a historical event in history textbooks to the generations that follow. Instead of mourning our loses and learning from our mistakes and moving on and being better people than those who attacked us, we lashed out so violently and so angrily and so bitter and brutal that we squandered our cooperative allies and become lone wolves of imaginary justice.

AICN is about movies, and I ask you to think back on the great films that address tragedy as the defining moment of a character's life. Films that explore in both directions what the results and consequences of a tragedy can do people. Ask yourself if this is what you want from the tragedy of a brutal attack. Do you really want to be paranoid, angry, bitter, resentful and distrusting forever now? Do you really want your only friends in the world to be the kind of people that will skulk about with you as you secretly torture people and get absolutely nothing from it? Because if you do, then you have no moral or ethical high ground on your enemies. You simply are becoming your enemy to fight as they do. Isn't the point to be better than them? To outwit them and outsmart them, and more importantly, to out human them? I would hope so. But if all you want is to lash out and make time stand still over and over on that horrible day, then you chose that for yourself. You chose to let something horrible define you and your existence. If that is what being conservative is about, then you can have it, friends. You can have it.

Okay, not really, but damn, I love that movie.

As for your assertion that they're "a group that pays legal fees for terror suspects and pedofiles [sic]," yes, that is the truth. As I said, they believe that everyone should receive equal treatment under the law, as stated by the Constitution. Just because you find someone's actions morally reprehensible doesn't mean that we should be allowed to take away their civil rights.

Also, the ACLU has fought on behalf of Christians who have felt their civil rights to have been violated. You'll probably feel this to be a biased website, but it does document this very thing: http://tinyurl.com/ya88tg. As I said, they defend everyone's constitutional rights. They even spoke up for long-time opponent Rush Limbaugh when his medical records were seized as evidence in his drug case.

Is it health insurance? look I agree it isnt proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that universal health care is the exact answer we need, but instead of calling everyone for it socialists, why don't you people man upa nd give some facts and figures about exactly why. And while your bitching about spending of government dollars, why don't you wait until you arent pouring good money after bad into a war with no discernable end.

And meanwhile, when your bitching about socialism remember you are the party of illegal spying, throwing people in foreign jails for no good reason and keeping them there illegally, and the party in which the economy tanked, the dollar lost all its value, and made us impotent to imposing world threats. How exactly can this reviewer be taken seriously and not at a right wing lunatic when he starts right off saying that socialists have taken over the Democratic party. Does he really mean that literally? At least when democrats call conservatives fascists it's meant as a metaphor.

I guess I'll have to read Don't Think of an Elephant, but it sounds to me that it's more of your interpretation of said book than the actual intent of it. You seem to be making the mistake of equating liberalism with socialism.

As for the reference book, I understand that it's a slim volume, but I haven't had time to obtain and read it yet, having just heard about it just today. And the book you mention is not about the ACLU, nor is it written by a member of the ACLU. Unless we're not talking about the same book here, I'm not sure how it proves your hypothesis that the ACLU is pushing a socialist agenda.

You provide no documentation of statistics to show that the ACLU takes an anti-Christian stance "9 times out of ten." Personally, I have nothing against public Christmas displays. I just wonder how many of those people who get all huffy about the ACLU's attempts to remove said displays would be tolerant of a Ramadan display or a pagan Winter Solstice display on public property.

AWESOME!

I'll watch it and no doubt laugh at it almost as much as I laughed at the Fox News 1/2 hour News hour.

At least it can't be worse than disaster Movie though... can it ?

Bottom Line. If it isn't as funny as Team America then it simply won't do as well as that Movie did.

Because as we all know every War is exactly the same in every particular. From it's causes to it's inception to it's execution. Hilarious AND poigniant Zucker.

And HOW are the Terrorists satirized ? I want to see these fucks brought to task about their maniacal blind devotion to their interpretation of Religion by cleverly juxtaposing them their actions with the overwhelming majority who don't strap bombs to themselves.

Or highlighting how these back to the 12th century assholes use the internet and other advanced technology to further their goals yet scream about science and cultural evolution as the work of Satan

Or how banning cartoons and "idolatrous" imagery is hypocritical bullshit when they run around worshipping posters and statues of their own religious extremist "heroes" and use propaganda (including cartoons) to spread hate.

Or how the female is treated in society by some of these fanatics and showing how far they would get in a society without women.

Or... you get the picture. There are 1000 ways to satirize extremists do it effectively and still be very funny.

If the limit of Zuckers "satire" is showing Terrorist "slapstick" running around the desert falling over a lot and shooting themselves in the face then it's hardly worth doing. A Terrorist blooper reel skewers, attacks and shows us the truth about absolutely nothing.

Most Americans are liberal, they just do not identify as such. If you ask them their positions they tend to line up more with liberals than conservatives. However, the Democrats still manage to lose every fucking time and while I believe the objective money is on Obama, in my heart I am fearful the Republican propaganda machine will win again because the Democrats doesn;t have the balls to point out McCain's and Palins ridiculous lies.

So why have these Christmas hating Hollywood atheist zealots like Zucker and O'Reilly taken the Christmas out of the title ?

If only there was someone who could investigate this and bring it to the publics attention as yet more proof of the "War on Christmas!"

That's what gets people so upset; the liberals are the ones making sense, but the conservatives are still winning people over. I'm more baffled and terrified by this than angry.

And conservatives, please stop mistaking "belittling our political leaders" for "belittling our country". Back in the 90s, nobody went around saying that "if you hate the President, you hate America." Because everyone, on BOTH sides, KNEW it was a stupid argument, no matter who's in office. Today, people are not only making such stupid arguments, they're believing those arguments. It's stupid. Stop it.

I mean, I might as well try to bring the troops home by saying: "Jesus was the Prince of Peace. Therefore, anyone who supports the war in Iraq, hates Jesus." Will that sway the conservatives? It's the same type of logic, right? Sheesh.

Now, fuck off.

(Though it was pretty clear from the trailer that it was certainly aiming with great determination to be one of the most colossal piles of shit ever made.)

It's been sad, to say the least, to see my own party become a source of shame, embarrassment and even disgust, for me over the years... and the knee-jerk intolerance and complete unwillingness to even CONSIDER seeing this film only demonstrates how innately hypocritical modern-day liberalism truly is.

Freedom of Speech and tolerance only as long as you agree with US. Democrats have truly BECOME the enemy they claim to hate. Animal Farm, anyone?

Ok, I have to say that regardless of how this movie is as a comedy (and I want to see it since I've always loved the Zucker type of broad, goofy comedy), you made me laugh out loud with that line, Mori. Good one.

As for myself, I will admit I can get a bit heated at times discussing politics, which frankly is why I usually try to NOT discuss them. Usually I just try to nod my head and say "Hey, vote how you want. I'll vote how I want. Ok, now that we've settled that, let's talk about geek movies!" But since it IS a presidential election year, I guess there's a tendency to slip up and talk politics more often.

But I will say this, too. YES, it's an election year, but, NO, I refuse to buy into the frantic and shrill shrieking THAT THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIME AND BY ALL THAT'S HOLY THE FATE OF THE EARTH AND THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN ALL KNOWN EXISTENCE HANGS IN THE BALANCE!!!!! Sorry, I'm old enough to have heard that bit every 4 years and you know what? The world just keeps on spinning.

All in all, I'm sure this will be another squeaker -- as of today McCain is literally TIED with Obama in the polls due to the Palin bounce -- so somehow after months and month of campaigning, it's like the clock got reset and NOW the election season is on. So I'm sure as always Election Day will make for a great pizza & beer night kicking back and flipping through all the news channels to watch all of the commentators' heads explode as once again they try to be first and try to call a major election within 30 seconds of the voting booths being open!

Sorry, it may be politically incorrect to some, it may be low brow to others, but it's fucking funny to me and that's good ol' style Zucker AIRPLANE, TOP SECRET and NAKED GUN kind of humor. So why am I going to see this? Because I have a good hunch that I will be able to sit there with a large popcorn and soda and it will make me laugh out loud for a while. What more do you want from a comedy?

Fucking cunt.

Bush has so far spent over $500 Billion on the war, at an ongoing rate of $10 Billion a month, and run up the National Debt to over a record $9.5 Trillion. Billions in tax money have gone into the pockets of private military contractors. How has the nation improved with this expenditure? Was the money wisely spent?

I really don't understand the absolute fear people have of investing in our nation. They call it Socialism. Do you really rather your money go into war than into schools? Into healthcare? Into rebuilding and building new infrastructure?

This is the radical idea that Obama represents.

Similarly, if you simply ask most americans what their positions on a variety of issues are, rather than asking them "are you liberal" you will find they are liberal.

Me, I'm now sticking to what I said up above and going "politics light" till I'm actually in the voting booth since this year seems like it is REALLY going to get people's emotions worked up. And we all thought the last 2 elections were heated. Man, what is election day going to be like this time around???

But our first use winner is DannyGlovers_Dickblood! Cue music booming over the AICN convention hall speakers and balloons and confetti falling from the rafters!

Or we could end up as dipshits, cunts, douchebuckets, dingleberry-feeding parasites, and anal rape victims ... as uaual.

But most important of all, as BSB suggested, we can get back to talking about Michael Bay and TRANSFORMERS 2! Will it be shit or not? I feel an all-new 10,000 post TF thread coming up!!!

Furthermore if you are unhappy and distrustful of having decisions made on your behalf by the intelligentsia perhaps you should avoid living in a representative democracy.

Okay, altogether now... For the THIRD time: The abortion "issue" MAY have been "resolved" in Europe and other places around the world, and to a person such as yourself, who obviously is predisposed to AGREE with the legality and easy accessibility of abortions, it must, indeed, seem "obvious" that the correct choice, har har, was made. And you've made clear your comfort with allowing others, who have apparently convinced you as well as themselves of their intelligence, erudition and infallibility, to take decisions such as these on your behalf and in your supposed best interests, since, it may be concluded, you feel yourself unable to the task of deciding for YOURSELF, exactly what it is that you should BELIEVE. Congratulations, all in all, you're just another brick in the wall.

However, and this is something I get down on my knees -- literally -- and thank God for every day, America is most emphatically NOT Europe, nor the rest of a world living under a hegemony of conjoined egoism and pseudo-intellectualism. Here, in THIS country, which is (as you rightly point out) a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, we, the people -- even the least informed, educated and respectable among us -- have not only the RIGHT, but the DUTY to use our franchise to effect change in our leadership, so that, rather than merely submitting ourselves to their infinite wisdom and sacrosanct authority, we "GET A VOTE," literally, in who speaks on uor behalf, and for how long. It is every American's obligation to ensure that THEIR voice, unwashed, illiterate or misbegotten though it may be, is heard even in the highest offices and the darkest corners where power is wielded. Which is, by the by, precisely WHY abortion is STILL an issue in THIS country. Those who oppose the limitless wholesale availability of abortions continue to elect persons to high office who will take into account THEIR opinions and beliefs, who have kept this "issue" alive here long after the enlightened liberal despots who make policy in YOUR part of the world ran roughshod over all who might disagree with them, let alone have the courage to contradict or argue with them.

And, by the by, I, for one, am not so certain that black and white children -- or brown or yellow or red or pink-and-purple polka-dotted children -- SHOULD be MADE to attend the same schools. Don't get me wrong -- I think it should be the right of ALL to receive, if desired, the same publicly funded education as everyone else does, and in the same classrooms, if possible. The more everyday contact different ethnicities, genders, cultures, faiths, etc., have with one another, the less likely it is that enmities and conflicts will be born of ignorance and misunderstanding. But there's also an argument to be made -- and it's BEING made, by the by, quite a bit, these days, even by the otherwise very, very "liberal" -- that schools with a more, shall we say, homogeneous population are far more adept at meeting the unique needs and challenges of that population, in a way that helps preserve the legacy and cohesion of a certain group of people. Now, I for one think the drawbacks of such a parochial (not in the Catholic-school sense of the word) education, for the society as a whole, far outweigh any benefits that might accrue to any particular subset of that society, "minority" (an increasingly irrelevant and even inaccurate term) or otherwise. But, it's a conversation we Americans are still having, more than fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, in PTA meetings and district boardrooms and city council chambers and state legislatures from El Paso to San Diego and most points in between, and quite a few outside the southwestern U.S. as well. However, I digress.

I'm happy for you, you seem to live in an extraordinarily utopian world where no one challenges the decisions of higher-ups because they're, well, higher-ups, and that seems to suit polite little lemmings like yourself just fine. It sounds rather like Room 101 to me, but, then, that's the point, isn't it? But, I have no need to ask YOU: "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?" Clearly, you don't, or can't, or won't. More's the pity.

So, when your infallible leadership decides that, shortly after attaining mandatory retirement age, you are no longer an asset to that Orwellian society you pledge such fealty to, and commands that you dress yourself up in tin foil and go for a ride on Carousel, don't bleat about how YOU should have had a chance to plead a case for your continued existence in this world. Remember, YOUR GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICIALS ARE NEVER WRONG. I'm quite sure that, sixty-odd years ago, Europe was full of zipperheads like you who were shocked, shocked to discover that Berufsbeamtengesetz led inexorably to the imposition of a "final solution," that Ernst Rudin really provided a framework for eugenics when he authored the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring, and that Lebensraum actually meant global domination. Proving my point: That once a people ceases to challenge its leaders or the decisions they take on behalf of the self-disenfranchised, they become mere cogs in a great machine, whose purpose is to ultimately chew them up and fashion them into something "better." And zoologists think only ostriches bury their heads in sand. Enjoy your Kristallnacht, partner, you've certainly earned it.

Oh, P.S.: Only Democrats elect so-called "intelligentsia" in a representative democracy. The rest of us tend to elect people who more resemble the common man, for better and worse. Which is sort of the point: I don't live in an academic meritocracy. Yet. You do, apparently. Good luck with that.

Bubblehead.

Bubblehead.

Perhaps you have highlighted a big difference between our countries - about what sort of people we elect into office. There is an understanding here that we, the people, elect people to vote on our behalf. Being a representative and not a direct democracy, this means that the people who represent us make decisions on our behalf. We trust that they make them having the full regard for the facts. We trust that they use their judgement and their intellect. If we judge that they do not, we do not vote for them again. But the next person we DO vote in will usually be someone with enough upstairs to make a well reasoned decision. There is a certain understanding that the voice of the majority is not necessarily the voice of right. We do not rule by mob. The majority, after all, tend to be ill informed and reactionary. The type of people that when whipped into a frenzy over paedophiles on the loose will attack a paediatrician. Perhaps you want to have the great unwashed rule your country. To be ruled by one of the guys. "He don't care much for book learnin' - just like us!". Perhaps this is why you have elected the President you have for the past 8 years. How has that been working out for you? Its interesting to contrast that during this time we were lead by Tony Blair, who despite his many faults, you were certain that when he opened his mouth he would be able to construct a coherent sentence.

But to claim yours is a country where the people will always rise up and protest, where mine just sits back and allows its govt to trample all over it. Well - lets look at the issue of Iraq. I was amongst a MILLION people marching on the streets of London to protest against that illegal and wholly unjustifiable war. I didn't sit back idly and accept the bullshit I was being fed. Neither did anyone else here. And yet, for all those in America who now claim to object to the war - the silence from across the pond at the time of its inception was deafening.

But to your point about opinions - good for you, stand up and be counted. I have opinions too, but I also have the good grace to know that mine are not always right. For as we know, opinions are like arseholes. We all have one, but some stink far worse than others.

Not in all cases, just the ones I cite. Where the resolution reached so long ago is such an obvious one - abortion/segregation/female suffrage.

Not like you're doing what you've accused us of going to do (before we've actually done it) of course.

Actually, now that I think of it, I haven't actually insulted Mr Zucker yet at all!

Liberals are the same as socialists? You're insane.

The reason this film isn't funny is because it isn't good satire. GOOD satire works from the established reality of something and then smashes it. You don't build idiotic strawmen. This movie looks to be half-on/half-off. The Cuban stuff looks good, but the "Ban 4th of July" shit is just moronic. Slavery is not an economically rewarding system with modern capitalism and would have been phased out eventually anyway, so the Civil War point is bunk. (although I'm sure terrible racism would still abound) Also, what with the "serious" moments. What the fuck? When has Zucker ever done serious? This doesn't bode well.

And if you think the Democratic party is even remotely leftist I really don't know what to say to you, except OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!

Excellent. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. I'm glad we can finally begin to really COMMUNICATE with each other, instead of just beating each other over the noggin with the same old stick. [Grin]

I get (and, actually, got, from jump) that you were referring to doctors / scientists, and not merely government personnel (though they can be, and often are, one and the same, particularly when it comes to national health and welfare bureaucracies, even in America. And there's nothing wrong with that, either). And it's true that they are certainly more LEARNED than folks like you and me and pretty much everyone we know, particularly in their particular field of expertise. I mean, heck, I trust airplanes, too, and I don't know thing one about building 'em, right? Because I have faith / trust that, at SOME level, there's someone watching out for me who really is qualified, sane, responsible, and has MY best interests at heart. (Either that, or I just figure that there's not a damned thing I can do about it, anyway, that flying in airplanes is one of life's necessities and since there's too many people involved in making and maintaining and operating 'em to hold accountable, well, I might as well jump, and take the same ignorant chance as everyone else in the world. You make the call.)

And -- my opinion, here -- that's perfectly fine, reasonable and defensible when it comes to very very technical matters, like ensuring the cars we drive won't blow up on us when we tap the brakes, or making sure that the bridges we cross won't tumble into modernistic sculptures of bent steel and shattered concrete, or trusting that the X-ray machine is working properly and isn't zapping our gonads into inert, fleshy marbles. The difference, here, is that, perhaps, you have a CLINICAL view of abortion, and I have a MORAL one. Your view of the subject is more empirical, if you will -- like, Look, either the mountain is there or it isn't, and we know it is, because we have instruments and scientific data and generations of accumulated knowledge that tells us so, plus, what we witness with our own eyes. For you to encounter someone who then wants to discuss whether the mountain SHOULD be there, or whether it being there is good or bad or indifferent, or how the mountain is immoral, must seem a lot to you like that riddle Tom Baker's Doctor used to stump and aggravate his cohorts with: "If the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides, why is a mouse when it spins?" [Grin]

It's funny, though, I don't really consider myself to be TOO bleedin' arrogant, although I certainly reject and despise what I consider to be FALSE "humility". But, that's neither here nor there, really. An educated man is not necessarily a sensible one, and the world is full of very highly pedigreed twits. When it comes to issues that affect ME, though, while I'm full willing -- all evidence to the contrary -- to admit I may not hold a Ph.D. in the field, and therefore may not be the "best qualified" to offer an informed opinion, that will not impede me for one moment in EXPRESSING my opinion, because, again, it affects ME. Which isn't to say I'll embrace my own ignorance, exactly; I try to make a point of seeking out more experienced and contrary points of view, and am happy to trade the momentary shame of having been wrong, for the benefits of gaining a more enlightened perspective. This just isn't an area where you've convinced me MY opinion is wrong. (Yet.) At the end of the day, I'd rather follow my own errant conclusions, than trust blindly in the dictums of others. And, yes, that includes matters of faith, too.

That whole bit about "[T]he people who know most looked at the issue, then used their expertise to make a decision - one that I wholeheartedly agree with" reinforces the assertion I made earlier, btw, what you were ALREADY predisposed to this perspective, so, really, your agreement with your society's "policy" regarding abortion should come as no surprise. Which is fine. I, myelf, am predisposed to agree that the earth is roughly spherical, so it should come as no great shock that I find the existence of earth-orbiting artifical satellites, glocal telecommunications, GPS devices and Google earth imaging pretty much in-line with my own prejudices. However, I should point out, there are people, even in this day and age, who would argue -- vehemently -- that my baseline assumption, that the earth is round, amounts to a fairly ignorant and untested assumption, and that all these other technologies are nothing more than fanciful mass hallucinations. They're called Flat Earthers, and many of them, amazingly enough, live in Europe. Go figure, right? [Grin]

However, I digress. What all this is to say, is that being PREDISPOSED -- prejudiced, if you will -- to have already concluded a thing, it's really no great accomplishment to find yourself in agreement with authority figures who PROMOTE that thing, or to concur with evidence or data SUPPORTING that thing. Hey, look, I believe in gravity ALREADY, so I tend to believe someone when they inform me that failing to climb a ladder properly might very well make me fall down go boom. Doesn't make me enlightened, though. It just means that your statements dovetail with conclusions I've already made. Q.E.D., right?

Your point about the "difference between our two countries" is a valid one. A "representative democracy," amazingly, is not ALWAYS "representative." There's a difference, you see, between an AGENT, who is empowered by the citizens who elected him/her on the basis of their OWN judgment, to take positions and make decisions THEY feel compelled to, on the basis of their OWN conscience... and a true DELEGATE, who (in theory, of course) is empowered not to follow the whims of their OWN heart, the meanderings of their OWN thoughts, but to REPRESENT THE OPINIONS AND VALUES AND WISHES OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS IN THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY THEY ARE ELECTED TO. Most of the "rest" of the world follows the former model; historically, America is more in keeping with the latter, though that is changing.

I would ask you what, exactly, a "well reasoned decision" IS, when you've made it clear that your representatives have more grey matter and a higher number of floors upstairs than those who elevated him/her to office; wouldn't that also mean that you, the voters, are totally unqualified to comment on the viability of your elected agents' positions and decisions? After all, you voted for someone who could think and reason FOR you. What makes YOU a just or informed authority on their actions? Oh, well. The great thing about circular logic is, it has SUCH a pleasing shape.

Wow, here it is: " There is a certain understanding that the voice of the majority is not necessarily the voice of right." Congratulations, my friend, you don't live in a democracy. You live in an OLIGARCHY, one of commendable complicity, and if your immediate reaction is to argue, well, don't argue with me, argue with the Great and All-Knowing Wiki: "Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of organization by (ostensibly) the best and the brightest." But, never mind, we don't need no education. Your comments about the administration of George W. Bush are fine by me; in a total of nine biennial elections, and four Presidential campaigns, I have NEVER been more profoundly and consistently disappointed in a candidate, as I have been by Dubya. And I voted for the man, twice, and raised more money for him than I've earned. [Shaking head] There have been times, many, MANY times, when I wish I COULD have voted for the honorable and courageous Mr. Blair, much as I disagree with his notions of fiscal management, asset redistribution and societal justice. I would rather have a person of good character and sound judgment who I DISAGREE with as Chief Executive, than one who I CAN'T TRUST, who happens to be in-line with my own positions, any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. As John Adams famously observed: "Just because the mob is WITH you, doesn't make it any less a mob." But, heck, I used to like Jimmy Carter, too, before he began believing his own press and became a senile, stark, raving, anti-Semitic moonbat, more's the pity.

By the by, I DON'T claim that "[mine] is a country where the people will always rise up and protest" -- but I DO assert that it's our DUTY to do so. Truth is, two and a quarter centuries on, our Great Experiment, that the People, if given the ability, will always desire to influence their government, and with their own best interests at heart, is, tragically, tottering on the brink of failure. I've seen so-called "representative democracy" fail, and badly, on four continents, now, whether it be by voters who were whipped up into a lowest-common-denominator, demagoguery-seasoned fascist frenzy by empty rhetoric and vapid, Hallmark-card sloganeering, or by people like who, who actually BELIEVE they're still living in a "democracy" that "represents" the PEOPLE, instead of merely participating, blithely, in what amounts to a non-hereditary monarchy of men and women in sharp suits and with impressive degrees. [Sigh] I served in uniform for over a decade, and for every single day of that period, really thought I was helping to preserve DEMOCRACY. More and more, I wonder if 'Generation Kill' had it right on the money, and if I was really just preserving people's right to go on not giving a fuck. Truth is, I'd rather be surrounded by people who disagree with every single thing I say, and are unafraid to tell me so, than a society of the disinterested, the dispassionate and the self-disenfranchised. (So, I applaud you for standing up against the Iraq War, at least. I genuinely wish you could find that same passion and apply it to other principles, to actually USE your franchise, even if I disagree totally with what you would do with it.) If I want to be surrounded by zombies, I'll go down the street to the local Alzheimer's treatment center, or to an Obama rally, or I'll just go teach my Introduction to American History class, I guess.

[Sigh] I'm actually tiring of this conversation... One can only bludgeon someone with the club of common sense for so long before it becomes burdensome, even if you're scoring frequent and occasionally quite satisfying hits with it. The funny thing about this is, as I stated in another post, I'm not even in FAVOR of wholesale criminalization of abortion, here or anywhere else, for an entire host of reasons I really don't feel up to getting into right now. Maybe another time. But your dismissal of sincere "debate" -- to be distinguished from, say, outright contrarianism -- as unnecessary, just because you and all your fellow citizen widgets of Fredonia moo and bleat complacently when the farmer herds you into your nice, comfortable little pens, is, frankly, the height of institutional, apathetic vacuousness. Go right ahead and let your "betters" take ALL decisions, make ALL policies, inaugurate ALL doctrines, on your behalf -- you don't have any faith in your ability to contribute anything to the (mythical) discussion, and, after trying to beat some sense into you for a day and a half, I'm actually prepared to agree with you. You don't matter, your uninformed, unwashed, unnecessary opinion doesn't matter, and anything you might possibly have to say about ANYTHING, except perhaps for your dinner order or the clothes you'll put on in the morning, doesn't matter. You, my friend, are a perfect amalgam of ignorance and apathy, in that [1] you don't know, and [2] you don't care. Well, look at the bright side. If you win tonight's lottery, you may be whisked away to The Island.

Thank God you were never a writer for 'Star Trek'. Can you imagine? "Captain's Log, StarDate 13777, square root of eight, carry the three. We're in orbit around a very interesting planet that's on our star chart, and is sending out transmissions picked up by our sensors, and our universal translator is able to turn what they're saying into our language, and we can understand them. They've sent up twenty ships to rendezvous with us, and they appear to be friendly, and we wouldn't mind a chance to resupply and have shore leave, actually. However, the great and powerful minds at Starfleet Command, who wouldn't BE great and powerful if they weren't, you know, so great and so powerful, have decreed, in their infinite and incontravertible wisdom, that this planet is not of interest to us, so, we're not interested. And these aren't the 'droids we're looking for, either. Kirk out." Can you imagine seventy-nine episodes of THAT?!?

I would encourage you not to have children, or at least not to raise them, since I imagine they'd stand a fair chance of turning out to be movable furniture just like yourself, but it's really none of my business. Go ahead, spawn to your heart's content. At least THAT's a decision YOU can take, on your OWN behalf -- unless you live in China, of course, where you'd fit right in, actually. If ignorance is bliss, well, I hope you're happy.

Bubblehead. P.S. You observed, not terribly inventively, that "opinions are like arseholes," and that "some" (mine, I suppose) "stink far worse than others." Fair enough. But, it's a funny thing about assholes -- they may not be pleasant to look at, always, especially in the course of performing their primary metabolic function... but, to sustain life as we know it, they're also very, very NECESSARY. We couldn't really live without 'em, in fact, even the really really odiferous ones. In fact, my vegan friends tell me that the STINKIEST assholes are also the healthiest. How about that? Maybe you should take time to smell the roses.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t ol/news/world/europe/article47 04089.ece

'Kay, SOMEONE's gotta say it: YOU BASTARDS!!! (Vwiy ubliyukiy!!!)

...Hell, it don't matter. Like David Brin chronicled in his 1990 novel, 'Earth', the world ends Wednesday, anyway, not with a bang, but a Hoover...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci encetech/article-1053091/Meet- Evans-Atom-end-world-Wednesday .html

So much for letting all those learned and educated people run the world, eh, Cedar? [Grin]

Personally, I feel the need to listen to some R.E.M. right about now. Who's with me? It's five o'clock, somewhere...

Bubblehead.

Although of course, we must not forget that "withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy".

Thanks for wasting all our time, most especially yours.

Bubblehead.

With the exception of Fred Phelps and his batshit cabal of inbred hatemongers, I would postulate that just about EVERY American, in their way, "supports" the troops, the commitment and professionalism and sacrifice of our armed forces, as well as their families. The main difference between (post-2005) Democrats and Republicans, generally, is HOW to best "support" the troops.

Though I was, and remain, in favor of the President's (and Congress's, natch) decision to invade Iraq in 2003, I have never looked unfavorably upon those who oppose the war, then or now, for ANY reason I can call to mind: disagreement over the purported "threat" Iraq posed to the U.S., its allies, and interests; favoring diplomatic courses of action over military initiatives; belief that we could not afford the war effort; a desire to not inflame the passions of other nations and their peoples against the U.S.; the desire to preserve American and Iraqi lives; and so on. These are all perfectly valid, entirely reasonable political and ideological perspectives, and there are many, many others, besides.

Key to this debate, I think, is the pseudo-Clintonian question, "What does 'support' really MEAN?" A person who claims to support the troops may believe that this means they support their MISSION, even when that mission is capable of inflicting harm on the troops... even when that mission may be borne out to be contrary to the troops' own best interests. Conversely, you can also be said to support the troops by being totally against ANY mission that places them in what you consider to be an unreasonable amount of physical danger. Both are perfectly viable stances.

For the record, Republicans don't have the market cornered on "warmongering," any more than all Democrats are pantywaists. The fact is, all wars that result in victory are inevitably deemed by history to be "good" wars, no matter the rationale for their commencment, by those who win; and all wars, no matter how necessary or unavoidable they may have seemed at the time, that are unsuccessfully prosecuted, are considered to be failures. The truth of the matter is, that war itself is the failure of humanity to act charitably, reasonably or responsibly. Though wars are won and lost, military conflict itself is NEVER a victory, in and of itself.

At least, that's my opinion.

Bubblehead.

This reviewer is an ass, making uninformed comments about things he hasn't even seen. Lions For Lambs is not a left wing movie by any means. It makes an excellent argument for service (civil or military) and also makes one of the best arguments for the war, while conceding mistakes were made. This ignorant reviewer is passing judgment on something he has not seen.

I am not sure how you can say that Lions for Lambs is not leftist or anti-military when Redford is quoted in Entertainment Weekly saying that he is anti-military and anti-war. Those are his words so it seems clear to me that his reasons for making the film were not to make a case for service or at least were a direct shot at the war in Iraq. He made the choice to protest that war by attacking the people who serve in it. Not good no matter what your politics are.

This doesn't even begin to cover actors (would you like to discuss Clooney?) which you brought up. Or other entertainment personnel (most of whom belong to unions, 'nuff said.)