Anyway, looking forward to some epic, Farenheit 9/11-style talkbacks to this one.

Then, there is a slow stream of people in the TB saying reasonable things like 'i hope this movie shows how he could have been an inspiration to the oppressed and downtrodden everywhere, and yet a violent killer of innocents at the same time.'

Those guys are hillarious.

Tell the truth...you bought that fucking Che "Communism killed 100 zillion people and all I got was this lousy" T-shirt and you get a heavy jelly every time you boldly wear it into the local coffee shop. Don't you? DON'T YOU?!

After having read a biography book on him now...I am excited for this film as a great character study that will present Che in the most honest light possible since Soderburgh is good at that and then folks can make their own judgments.

I think he was a brilliant man far outshining that moron Castro in both intelligence and military strategy with a genuine love for the freedom of man....who totally and completely carried out his ideas in all the wrong ways. 'Nuff said.

I understand that conservatives have to have their own heroes, but please don't put McCarthy on a pedestal, back another horse. the guy was as dishonest and unscrupulous as they come.

you wrote: "what mcCarthy was after wasn't really anyone who was a Communist or who sympathized with a Communist regime"

first off, he did go after people for just being near a communist, and people that had nothing to do with the government or any type of spying. that's a simple fact. he smeared Edward R. Murrow as being a communist just because Murrow exposed some of his lies!

but you're right that in some way, he may never have really wanted to go after them. it was just a great way to bolster his career. too bad that lying and deceit sometimes actually do receive a comeuppance. in this case, disgrace in life, and a rightful place in history as a euphemism for despicable and fallacious political attacks.

"Although there are some cases where Venona or other recent data has increased the weight of evidence against a person named by McCarthy, there are few, if any, cases where McCarthy was responsible for identifying a person, or removing a person from a sensitive government position, where later evidence has increased the likelihood that that person was a Communist or a Soviet agent."

that's from John Earl Haynes, an expert on political history, and most notably, soviet espionage in america in the middle part of he 20th century...

You think Bush Cheney and our congress aren't a bunch of "greedy fucks"? It's called "being a politician".

Do you have any concept of the level of human rights violations being perpetrated this very moment by the USA?.

There's a word for your last post Ray, and that word is: hypocrisy.

Judging by this trailer, which is all I have to go on for the present, I would say that Soderbergh appears to have gone for more of a realistic portrayal of Che Guevara than a romanticised one, but we'll see.

you're like the moon conspiracy theorists who go, "oh you think they really landed on the moon. have you even seen this photo that shows the shadow pointing 4 degrees the wrong way from the flag? I guess not, yeah, good luck believing we landed on the moon."

the historical consensus, by a VAST MAJORITY, say that MCCarthy was not only deplorable in his tactics, despicable in his personal life, but completely inneficient in affecting ANY legitimate counter-espionage gains during his tenure.

you can disagree, but if you hold him up or defend him, you must do so on an ideological level, because I'm sorry for the facts are not on your side.

you can't simply say "facts are facts" and boom, QED, you've made a point. that's a child's argument tactic.

in fact, I'd be surprised if you believe we landed on the moon. do you?

)p.s. when you use the phrase "libtards", it's a little hard for anyone that wants to speak with you rationally to continue to do so...luckily I have experience working with children who think name-calling is a legitimate form of debate)