Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:57 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum" 
Author Message
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Vexer wrote:
I think you're wrong about one thing Ken, there's a HUGE difference between Obama and Romney.

That's like saying there's a huge difference between three dollars and four dollars.

If you define three dollars as chump change and four dollars as incredible wealth, of course it's a big difference... but only by that bizarre standard.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:00 pm
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Ken wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I think you're wrong about one thing Ken, there's a HUGE difference between Obama and Romney.

That's like saying there's a huge difference between three dollars and four dollars.

If you define three dollars as chump change and four dollars as incredible wealth, of course it's a big difference... but only by that bizarre standard.

So I guess you're not voting then?


Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:32 pm
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Vexer wrote:
So I guess you're not voting then?

That is a distinct possibility. There are a couple third party candidates who look appealing, but it's tricky to research them because information about them is sparser compared to the mainstream parties.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:28 pm
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Jarwulf wrote:
thered47 wrote:
I realize there are certain issues that perhaps Democrats and Republicans are remarkably similar on. I mean, the fact that Obamacare was derived from the Massachussettes Romneycare plan and originally endorsed by numerous conservative groups before a democratic president managed to pass it, is a good example of this.

But as a gay man, I cannot see any similarities between the two parties. One has declared me unworthy of any basic human rights, the other, while far from perfect, at least tries occasionally to acknowledge that us queers are human beings.
-Jeremy



Gay Marriage and antiDODTism are hardly 'basic human rights'. One is at its base a game of semantics the other concerns organizational policy. You can argue until you're blue that they're justified but that doesn't put them on par with freedom of speech or religion.



I never said they were, even though one might imagine that the right not to be discriminated against based upon arbitrary factors, might be considered a basic human right, and is not merely an issue of semantics and organizational structure. But then what constitutes a basic human right might be considered an issue of semantics as well.

I'm intrigue by your argument that "Freedom of speech is a basic human right" but being able to express one's true identity in a professional manor in an employment setting without fear of recrimination is not. You're basically saying that Freedom of speech is a basic human right, but not in all cases.

Plus, if the republicans were able to, they'd go a whole heck of a lot farther then simply propping up DOMA and un-repealing DADT. If the Republicans were given unlimited power, they'd bring back anti-sodomy laws and repeal what few employment anti-discrimination laws there are. What little progress there has been since Stonewall would be swiftly undone.

Furthermore, Republicans have repeatedly condoned the execution of lgbtqs in African countries.
http://womenborntranssexual.com/2012/08 ... cute-gays/

If saying "killing gays is cool with us" seems like a minor issue to anyone, let me know why you think so.

-Jeremy


Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:13 pm
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
thered47 wrote:
Jarwulf wrote:
thered47 wrote:
I realize there are certain issues that perhaps Democrats and Republicans are remarkably similar on. I mean, the fact that Obamacare was derived from the Massachussettes Romneycare plan and originally endorsed by numerous conservative groups before a democratic president managed to pass it, is a good example of this.

But as a gay man, I cannot see any similarities between the two parties. One has declared me unworthy of any basic human rights, the other, while far from perfect, at least tries occasionally to acknowledge that us queers are human beings.
-Jeremy



Gay Marriage and antiDODTism are hardly 'basic human rights'. One is at its base a game of semantics the other concerns organizational policy. You can argue until you're blue that they're justified but that doesn't put them on par with freedom of speech or religion.



I never said they were, even though one might imagine that the right not to be discriminated against based upon arbitrary factors, might be considered a basic human right, and is not merely an issue of semantics and organizational structure. But then what constitutes a basic human right might be considered an issue of semantics as well.

I'm intrigue by your argument that "Freedom of speech is a basic human right" but being able to express one's true identity in a professional manor in an employment setting without fear of recrimination is not. You're basically saying that Freedom of speech is a basic human right, but not in all cases.

Plus, if the republicans were able to, they'd go a whole heck of a lot farther then simply propping up DOMA and un-repealing DADT. If the Republicans were given unlimited power, they'd bring back anti-sodomy laws and repeal what few employment anti-discrimination laws there are. What little progress there has been since Stonewall would be swiftly undone.

Furthermore, Republicans have repeatedly condoned the execution of lgbtqs in African countries.
http://womenborntranssexual.com/2012/08 ... cute-gays/

If saying "killing gays is cool with us" seems like a minor issue to anyone, let me know why you think so.

-Jeremy

Yeah, I don't care what people's beliefs are, disagreeing with gay marriage is one thing, but supporting the execution of people in third-world countries just for being gay is simply unforgiveable. There's NO excuse to support something that draconian and barbaric, that's on the same level as denying the holocaust ever happened.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:22 pm
Gaffer

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:20 am
Posts: 19
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
thered47 wrote:

I never said they were, even though one might imagine that the right not to be discriminated against based upon arbitrary factors, might be considered a basic human right, and is not merely an issue of semantics and organizational structure. But then what constitutes a basic human right might be considered an issue of semantics as well.


Nah, nobody would say that cats are being denied their basic rights if one sued the government demanding that they be reclassified as dogs. Nobody is going to break into your home and brainscan you to determine what name (you) call your particular union, nobody cares. This is mainly about telling the government what name it should pick rather than a direct right of noninterference.

Yeah, the people on the other side are probably there mostly because they're uncomfortable with homosexuality and/or they think the lobby has gone to far but that does not change the fact that this is more a symbolic surrogate fight over a name.



thered47 wrote:
I'm intrigue by your argument that "Freedom of speech is a basic human right" but being able to express one's true identity in a professional manor in an employment setting without fear of recrimination is not. You're basically saying that Freedom of speech is a basic human right, but not in all cases.


I'm not endorsing them but limits to expression even fervent expression in the workplace is very well established legally. You can't work at Hooters in a burka, publish the Taliban's newsletter as an American soldier, or tell your customers at McDonald's that the local Sizzler is a much better restaurant and not expect some repercussions.

thered47 wrote:
Plus, if the republicans were able to, they'd go a whole heck of a lot farther then simply propping up DOMA and un-repealing DADT. If the Republicans were given unlimited power, they'd bring back anti-sodomy laws and repeal what few employment anti-discrimination laws there are. What little progress there has been since Stonewall would be swiftly undone.

Furthermore, Republicans have repeatedly condoned the execution of lgbtqs in African countries.
http://womenborntranssexual.com/2012/08 ... cute-gays/

If saying "killing gays is cool with us" seems like a minor issue to anyone, let me know why you think so.

-Jeremy


pure speculation, probably true for some but every group has crazies. Also your link's jump from condemning Obama to kill the gays is pathetic.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:39 pm
Profile
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Jarwulf wrote:
pure speculation, probably true for some but every group has crazies. Also your link's jump from condemning Obama to kill the gays is pathetic.


Agreed. There's plenty of problems with Republicans, but statements like

thered47 wrote:
Republicans have repeatedly condoned the execution of lgbtqs in African countries


...is like saying "gay people repeatedly turn into murderous porn stars." Your assessment of what Republicans "want to do" is as silly, misguided and speculative as some Republican's views of you as a gay man. Come on, dude. People groups are made up of people, and people will have different ideas and won't agree with each other on everything.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:44 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 974
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
You know, I'd be curious as to what JB feels about gay marriage, DOMA and all this. Something tells me he supports it (he's criticized homophobes in some of his reviews and bashed I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry for its unsubtle switcheroo on the subject). But I'm just curious.

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:42 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Vexer wrote:
I disagree with James on Obama, trrue he didn't accomplish as much as I had hoped, but he still did do plentty of good, the health care reform bill helped out a lot of people, including myself, he brought the automotive industry back in Detroit, I think he definitely deserves to run the country. I agree on Romney though, that guy is truly pathetic, no sane person would vote for him.


With you 100% on this, Vex. Congressional gridlock isn't partially why more wasn't done, it's a large part of why.

As for the Hobbitt being split into three movies, it still perplexes me how each LOTR got one movie each while this one gets three. They're going to have to add extra material of their own. Jackson is one helluva director so I'm sure he can make it work. Still, one movie or two would've been best.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:08 pm
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
moviemkr7 wrote:
You know, I'd be curious as to what JB feels about gay marriage, DOMA and all this. Something tells me he supports it (he's criticized homophobes in some of his reviews and bashed I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry for its unsubtle switcheroo on the subject). But I'm just curious.

Unless I've misunderstood him over the years, JB seems to be economically right-of-center and socially libertarian. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. Given that, I'd bet that he'd agree with what most of us here seem to think: our government has no business treating non-heterosexuals as second-class citizens.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:30 pm
Gaffer

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:20 am
Posts: 19
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
moviemkr7 wrote:
You know, I'd be curious as to what JB feels about gay marriage, DOMA and all this. Something tells me he supports it (he's criticized homophobes in some of his reviews and bashed I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry for its unsubtle switcheroo on the subject). But I'm just curious.



Obviously he's chowing down on deliciously homophobic Chick-Fil-A as he drives to the sign shop to buy supplies for Saturday's protest at the puppy cemetery.

Actually I'd be surprised if he didn't support gay marriage on some level based upon his other views that can be distilled. If he wants to avoid overt politicism more power to him. Enough critics and cultural pundits wear their stripes on their sleeves constantly or can't seem prevent themselves from showing them from time to time ie Ebert for instance.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:56 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 440
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Quote:
As for the Hobbitt being split into three movies, it still perplexes me how each LOTR got one movie each while this one gets three. They're going to have to add extra material of their own. Jackson is one helluva director so I'm sure he can make it work. Still, one movie or two would've been best.


The extra material is already there in that Tolkien refers to some events in the Hobbit that are alluded to and later elaborated in the appendices at the end of the book.Here is his quote;

Jackson justified the then imminent move to make three films: "We have incredible source material with the appendices. Because 'The Hobbit' is obviously the novel, but then we also have the rights to use 125 pages of additional notes that... expanded the world of 'The Hobbit' that's published at the end of 'Return of the King.'"

Jackson provided further explanation on Monday in a Facebook post, arguing that the extra story material he is drawing upon may forever be kept under wraps if he doesn't use it now: "We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance."


The thing that perplexes me is how will Jackson incorporate all that material into the trilogy. Will he intersperse it through the three movies or will one whole film be about the side story. It is hard to say if that is a good decision storywise or not to stretch it out to three films but it sure will be profitable as the essay pointed out with an extra movie bringing at least half a billion dollars to Warner Brothers at a minimum. It must have the bean counters at the studio giddy with delight.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:27 am
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 87
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
So James, what's your opinion on people who say they come to your website just for the forum since they believe that you've lost you're edge in your writing.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:10 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:49 pm
Posts: 230
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Vexer wrote:
Jackson can try and say he's trying to "stay true" to the book all he wants, but like James I find it very hard to believe that money had no part in his decision to split the film in thirds.


If the result is 3 good movies, I don't really care what the motivation was.

OTOH, if the main motivation is money, then that decreases the likelyhood that the result will be good movies.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:28 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 87
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Quote:
I'm probably going to vote for the Socialist Party.


Quote:
There are a couple third party candidates who look appealing, but it's tricky to research them because information about them is sparser compared to the mainstream parties.


Image


Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:51 pm
Profile
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Yeah, I just can't take the socialist party seriously, IMO if you vote for them, you might as well not be voting at all.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:56 pm
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Who brought up the Socialist Party? (Which, incidentally, hasn't existed since 1972.)

If you don't truly believe in who you're voting for, if you view it as Team A vs. Team B, then you might as well not vote. Frank quitely, people who treat it that way have an insufficient understanding of what voting is supposed to accomplish. They're contributing to a problem that they themselves probably hate.

There is only one way--exactly one way, and no more--that regular American people can shake off the corporate stronghold on politics that manifests itself as the two party system. And that is to disregard the two party system altogether and vote strictly for what you believe in. The people who don't do that are sticking themselves with it.



Incidentally, that is one of the greatest Simpsons episodes of all time. "We are merely exchanging long protein strands. If you can think of a better way, I'd like to hear it."

Edited for rudeness. Sorry, guys. I must have been PMSing or something.


Last edited by Ken on Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:23 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1752
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
I don't view voting third party as throwing my vote away. The way I see it: Why should I vote for a candidate who doesn't represent my views?

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:58 am
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 87
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Two Points:

1. It was Sexual Chocolate who said that he would vote for the Socialist party a page before.

2. It was a joke. You know, funny ha-ha. I noticed there people on this thread that were considering voting for a third party candidate and I thought the reference would be appropriate. I saw my advantage and I took it. That what heroes do.


Last edited by Raf on Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:39 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: August 28, 2012: "FAQ: Addendum"
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
I don't view voting third party as throwing my vote away. The way I see it: Why should I vote for a candidate who doesn't represent my views?


Agreed with that. Back in 2004 I voted for Libertarian Michael Badnarik in the presidential race. A lot of people when they found that out would say "You wasted your vote". No I didn't. I voted for the candidate I thought was best.

The 2012 race is just like the 2000 and 2004 ones. 2 canddiates. neither of whom deserve to lead the country. But one will.

Like JB I'm all over the map politically. There are areas I would consider myself to be pretty liberal in, other areas I'm more conservative. I'm pretty close to Libertarian overall I would say.

Which doesn't mean I'm a 100% supporter of the Libertarian party. I agree with them on quite a few of the issues. But I can't get behind their view that leaving everything 100% up to the private sector would work. The Green Party has some good ideas. But on the whole they're too in favor of big government to get my vote.

I once found politics interesting and often amusing. Today, like JB, I find it to be disgusting and depressing.

The best type of third party to me, the one that really could break the two-oarty gridlock, is not another extremist one on the left or right. But one that could take the better ideas of the two main parties (the fiscal conservatism of the Republicans, the social liberalism of the Democrats) and compromises in the center.

As far as Obama V Romney goes, if I had to pick between them I'd choose Obama. I'd be flat out lying if I said I wasn't disappointed by him. But Romney does not seem like a preferable alternative. He's more of a guy who will say what it takes to get elected as was so accurately pointed out. Watch him talk to someone who's anti-tax. He vows he will cut taxes if you vote for him. Watch him talk to someone who cmplains about not getting neough government funding. He promises he will get them the funding. Which one do you really plan to do Mitt? There's a reason his first name rhymes with shit because he's full of it.

But until we can break the two party gridlock, we're going to be stuck with lesser of two evils candidates.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:43 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr