Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:53 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
American Politics 
Author Message
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 444
Post Re: Are Movies on Their Way Out?
Vexer wrote:
Yes I like the current administration, though I really don't see what the hell that has to do with anything I just said...no he dosen't "kill innocents" on a "daily basis" with drones so unless you actually have something to "back up" a statement like that, i'd suggest you not say things like that)


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1153 ... -so-little

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... ive-years/

I bring that up because you are slamming one administration for killing innocents but support another that does the same.

Vexer wrote:
Moore is not an "idiot" just for putting that animated segment in there, again what would be the point of misleading people into thinking someone else did it? That's what I call Insane Troll Logic


You can have that opinion, but again... Matt Stone disagrees with you. http://youngcurmudgeon.typepad.com/blog ... _on_t.html

The reason I believe he intentionally was trying to mislead is because he has a history of that that is well-documented of intentionally misleading viewers. He's a filmmaker, not a journalist or genuine activist, so he's allowed to mix stuff up if he wants, but he's going to get called out on it.

Vexer wrote:
So I really don't see why you care so damn much what my opinion is. :evil:


Okay, Vex: this has been explained to you several times, but this website you are on right now is a message board, where people put up their thoughts and discuss them. When someone disagrees with you or calls you out or argues with you, that's the entire point of the exercise and if you don't like it you should leave and not post anymore, or start a blog and deactivate commenting, or whatever. It's completely absurd and ridiculous how you whine about people caring about your opinion every time someone disagrees. I genuinely don't think you're an arrogant dude, but it comes off as incredibly arrogant that every time someone disagrees with you, you get pissed off and scoff at them and act like it's a personal attack if someone cares about an opinion you posted in a totally public forum when in fact they're just trying to have a discussion. If you're not capable of discussion or don't desire it, again, this just isn't the place for you and that's fine. But I'm not doing anything wrong by trying to discuss stuff and no amount of angry smilies is going to make me feel bad.


Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:02 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3741
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Are Movies on Their Way Out?
Whatever, I still don't believe Moore was trying to intentionally mislead anyone and I really don't care if Stone disagrees.

I'm not slamming the Bush administration for the deaths of innocent civilians(the blame for that falls on the soldiers themselves), i'm slamming them for getting us into that war in the first place, Obama got us out of the war, so that's reason enough for me to like him. If you've got a problem with that, then oh well, I really don't know what to tell you.

It seems like 95% of your posts are responses to my posts, and I find that rather unusual, you just seem to have a real problem with anything I say, whether it's an opinion on a film or something else. I don't care if you feel bad or not, but that is what I would call absurd and ridiculous.


Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:08 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 444
Post Re: Are Movies on Their Way Out?
Vexer wrote:
Whatever, I still don't believe Moore was trying to intentionally mislead anyone and I really don't care if Stone disagrees.


As I've said repeatedly, you're more than welcome to that opinion. I just think it's silly to call Stone an Insane Troll for disagreeing with you.

Vexer wrote:
I'm not slamming the Bush administration for the deaths of innocent civilians(the blame for that falls on the soldiers themselves), i'm slamming them for getting us into that war in the first place, Obama got us out of the war, so that's reason enough for me to like him.


So, wait... is it killing of innocents that bothers you, or the Iraq war? Because earlier you said it was the civilians. In some ways Obama got us out of that war, but he still kills civilians regularly. Why is that more acceptable to you? That's my confusion.

Vexer wrote:
It seems like 95% of your posts are responses to my posts, and I find that rather unusual, you just seem to have a real problem with anything I say, whether it's an opinion on a film or something else. I don't care if you feel bad or not, but that is what I would call absurd and ridiculous.


Do you understand how arrogant this sounds? I feel absolutely no need to defend myself or my posts, because I know that at least 95% of them have nothing to do with you. This place does not revolve around you. Yes, we've had our disagreements, and I've also come to your defense multiple times. I've also had spirited debates with MGames, Petey, Kunzicle, Phil the Phal, Edtallica, Knob Holloway, JackBurnside, Sugar Daddy Ken, Dr. Chocolate Sex, NotHughDancyEither, Markity Mark, and even iloveeverymovie. I promise it's not just you, homeboy. If you don't want to address my points, that's fine, but just ignore them, don't come back with these flimsy accusations.


Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:33 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2533
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: American Politics
Far be it for me to stir the pot, but hasn't the use of unmanned drones increased under this administration?

Whatever Obama is, he's fundamentally not much different from Bush in effect. I actually don't like Obama. An arrogant academic who has coasted through life, from community organiser all the way up to President.

I remember the speech he gave last year, when he said that successful business people didn't achieve it all by themselves. Which is fair enough to a point. But there was a brilliant retort by someone whose name escapes me, who said "when I was working 16 hours a day for no wage trying to get my business off the ground, he (Obama) was getting government grants for encouraging people to apply for welfare".

Whatever your political hue, I think we should all agree that we need real people with real world experience to lead us in future.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:44 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3741
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: American Politics
I really don't see how Obama is "arrogant" at all, and he certainly hasn't "coasted" through life.

I saw nothing wrong with his speech, I certainly hope you're not insulting people for relying on welfare.

What do you mean by "real world experience"? :?


Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:51 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2533
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: American Politics
Vexer wrote:
I really don't see how Obama is "arrogant" at all, and he certainly hasn't "coasted" through life.

I saw nothing wrong with his speech, I certainly hope you're not insulting people for relying on welfare.

What do you mean by "real world experience"? :?


Of course he has coasted through life.

And no, I wasn't insulting those who need welfare, I am making a point about the arrogance of his speech. Of course business owners have benefitted from those around them. But Obama doesn't seem to get the effort and risks undertaken to start up a company, and let's face it, he wouldn't. To varying degrees he's been on the public payroll his whole life.

So while people were actually busting their ass to get on in in the world, Obama was embarking upon more and more creative ways to marry people to state dependency. It's the only way he knows. The only thing he understands. The only real world experience he has.

He's a careerist politician. The west is full to the brim of them.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:21 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3741
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: American Politics
NotHughGrant wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I really don't see how Obama is "arrogant" at all, and he certainly hasn't "coasted" through life.

I saw nothing wrong with his speech, I certainly hope you're not insulting people for relying on welfare.

What do you mean by "real world experience"? :?


Of course he has coasted through life.

And no, I wasn't insulting those who need welfare, I am making a point about the arrogance of his speech. Of course business owners have benefitted from those around them. But Obama doesn't seem to get the effort and risks undertaken to start up a company, and let's face it, he wouldn't. To varying degrees he's been on the public payroll his whole life.

So while people were actually busting their ass to get on in in the world, Obama was embarking upon more and more creative ways to marry people to state dependency. It's the only way he knows. The only thing he understands. The only real world experience he has.

He's a careerist politician. The west is full to the brim of them.

I really don't see how he was trying to "marry people to state dependency" that just makes no sense whatsoever :?


Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:30 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: American Politics
NotHughGrant wrote:
So while people were actually busting their ass to get on in in the world, Obama was embarking upon more and more creative ways to marry people to state dependency. It's the only way he knows. The only thing he understands. The only real world experience he has.

The only politicians who aren't expressly acting in the interests of the state seem to be the Libertarians, a party overrun by cranks and weirdos, and the Greens, a party overrun by, well, hippies and people like me.

At least welfare for the poor is essentially benevolent, despite being used as a political bargaining chip every two years or so. The far larger issue--both in terms of dollar value and negative impact--is the massive subsidization and subcontracting of the private sector, which is a fancy way of saying welfare for rich people.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:59 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2533
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: American Politics
Ken wrote:
NotHughGrant wrote:
So while people were actually busting their ass to get on in in the world, Obama was embarking upon more and more creative ways to marry people to state dependency. It's the only way he knows. The only thing he understands. The only real world experience he has.

The only politicians who aren't expressly acting in the interests of the state seem to be the Libertarians, a party overrun by cranks and weirdos, and the Greens, a party overrun by, well, hippies and people like me.

At least welfare for the poor is essentially benevolent, despite being used as a political bargaining chip every two years or so. The far larger issue--both in terms of dollar value and negative impact--is the massive subsidization and subcontracting of the private sector, which is a fancy way of saying welfare for rich people.


Welfare is a necessity in the form of richer people subsidizing poorer people through various mechanisms. But those mechanisms are key, and I don't like seeing a Harvard Phd making a political career out of it.

The single best idea for welfare came via Milton Friedman - negative income taxation. We can debate the rates, but the issue with this is that it's too simple. And there's too many vested interests in the welfare industry.

Over here, there is a debate about what the minimum wage should be. It's currently about £6.20 an hour, and many people think it needs to be about £7.50 an hour for people to live.

Guess what the minimum wage would be if we removed minimum wage employees from income tax and NI liability ... about £7.50 an hour. This is the insanity of tax and welfare in a nutshell.

Employees on minimum wage pay tax, and then have the opportunity to claim some back through an expensive and damn near incomprehensible state-bureaucracy. This is so the state can run said bureaucracy and garner loyal voters to their cause. By the state I mean the Labour Party in particular, although the Tories also lack the will to fully dismantle it when they get in.

Not only does this make no economic sense, it is also immoral IMO. But I would expect this kind of thing in the UK, it would be sad to see it happen in America.

I agree with you about cooperate welfare BTW. But this is just a crude mechanism for the state to guarantee a return in taxation. Because smaller companies are seen as more risky.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:51 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: American Politics
SCOTUS upholds freedom of speech for our richest, most powerful, and tells the rest of us to go to hell. Yay!

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:17 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 444
Post Re: American Politics
Vexer wrote:
I really don't see how he was trying to "marry people to state dependency" that just makes no sense whatsoever :?


Whether you agree or not, the idea makes perfect sense: the president wants as many people on welfare as possible, as many people on government-run health care as possible, etc. He wants the government to invade and control people's lives more than any previous president and that cannot factually be denied. Whether or not that's a good thing is the question.

NotHughGrant wrote:
Far be it for me to stir the pot, but hasn't the use of unmanned drones increased under this administration?


As the articles I posted mentioned, it has increased dramatically. It's been said many times, but anyone who claims to hate Bush II but love Obama is mind-boggling to me. They both kill innocents with impunity. They both lied their way to the the White House with promises they never intended to keep. They both clearly value their personal brand and legacy more than the American people, and they're both pretty ineffective in office. The ways they differ are pretty pale to me in light of these types of similarities.


Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:12 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: American Politics
This video is cute. Pre-election, the interviewer went around and asked Obama supporters what they thought about various Obama policies. The catch is, he told them the policies were Romney's. Their reactions were predictably negative.

Sadly, from a glance at the YouTube comments, most of the people responding to the video completely misunderstood the point.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:22 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2533
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: American Politics
I heard a term the other day that would have made me laugh a few years ago. Corporate socialism. It reeks of half-witted conspiracy theories when you see it written, and especially when you hear it spoken.

But it is how government operate all across the west. Large companies are ludicrously subsidised by taxpayers' money in schemes including ad hoc taxation rates and more specifically, government contracts. These are designed to eliminate the competition and keep the treasury tills rolling with lower-risk tax intakes. Government don't want many smaller companies filling the voids because it's difficult for governments to assess financial risk this way.

Subsidise to the hilt a handful of larger corps, guarantee a lower risk tax intake (fuck actual competition, that is to say 'capitalism'), and when the politicians retire, are kicked out of office, or found out to be running a cartel of drug dealing rent boys; they can then get a Directorship at one of the said companies and become (even) richer.

In economic terms, this could actually be described as fascism. But that word is (somewhat predictably) associated with something else now.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:12 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3741
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: American Politics
Shade2 wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I really don't see how he was trying to "marry people to state dependency" that just makes no sense whatsoever :?


Whether you agree or not, the idea makes perfect sense: the president wants as many people on welfare as possible, as many people on government-run health care as possible, etc. He wants the government to invade and control people's lives more than any previous president and that cannot factually be denied. Whether or not that's a good thing is the question.

NotHughGrant wrote:
Far be it for me to stir the pot, but hasn't the use of unmanned drones increased under this administration?


As the articles I posted mentioned, it has increased dramatically. It's been said many times, but anyone who claims to hate Bush II but love Obama is mind-boggling to me. They both kill innocents with impunity. They both lied their way to the the White House with promises they never intended to keep. They both clearly value their personal brand and legacy more than the American people, and they're both pretty ineffective in office. The ways they differ are pretty pale to me in light of these types of similarities.
I find your post "mind-boggling" the two are barely anything alike and Obama did not "lie" his way into the White House with "promises he never intended to keep".


Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:57 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1746
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: American Politics
Vexer wrote:
"mind-boggling" ... "lie" ... "promises he never intended to keep"


Come on mann...I said please.

But I'm not here to be a wiseass; I'm here to help. Because that's what I do. Allow me to post a sample of my writing; this is part of an analysis of news media and politics:

Quote:
This competition hardly exists anymore; most cities do not even have competing newspapers, and television news has a reach that Hearst could only dream of. As corporate media with their respective agendas has taken hold, and most competitors have been pushed out of the media marketplace, dissent – even moderate dissent – has been squashed.

This became very prevalent after the events of Sept. 11. Comedian Bill Maher’s late-night ABC show Politically Incorrect was cancelled after he made remarks which disputed whether the 9/11 attackers were cowards. Several days later, President Bush’s press secretary Ari Fleischer remarked that Maher’s remarks were “a terrible thing to say…all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.”

It was one of the first shots fired in the Bush Administration’s “our way or the highway” response to the 9/11 attacks. The networks went to great strides to out-patriot one another, and dissent against the (at the time) popular president was pushed to the side. In the buildup to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, dissenters were shunned, and the media largely accepted the administration’s rationale for the war. Or as Bill O’Reilly put it, “it is our duty to shut up once the fighting begins.”

A long debate could be had as to whether pressure from the Bush Administration or corporate pressure was most responsible for the stifling of dissent following 9/11. It was likely a mixture of both. Phil Donahue summed it up nicely: “Antiwar voices were not popular. And if you’re General Electric, you certainly don’t want an antiwar voice on a cable channel that you own; Donald Rumsfeld is your biggest customer.”


That's how you use quotes to illustrate your point, my man.

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


Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:05 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1429
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: American Politics
Yeah but at least "mind-boggling" is so unexpectedly used that it is hilarious.


Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:18 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 444
Post Re: American Politics
Vexer wrote:
I find your post "mind-boggling" the two are barely anything alike and Obama did not "lie" his way into the White House with "promises he never intended to keep".


I gave you four specific ways I believe they're similar. Care to offer any things that make them different?

Here's some facts: Obama has broken (as opposed to simply not kept) at least 115 promises made during his campaign. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... se-broken/

I suppose you could say at least some of those are not lies, just unkept promises, but I see little difference. If he made a promise he was unable to keep he should have been better informed and not made the promise. One or two or even five could be slips of the tongue, or misunderstands. Once we cross 50 (or 100) it's a pattern.

He also straight-up lied quite a bit, though. He said there wouldn't be anymore wiretapping on citizens. He said that if workers are denied bargaining rights he would "walk the picket line with you." It happened, and he didn't. He said he wouldn't bypass congress. He does. He said he was always against war in Iraq, which wasn't true. He said he didn't have lobbyists, except that he definitely did. And so on.

Those are facts. You can argue your case in light of them, but you can't deny them. I'm happy to debate with you, but dismissing those making an actual case doesn't make for any real discussion.


Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:05 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2533
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: American Politics
Vexer's casual rebuttals mean far more than your mere facts.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:47 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: American Politics
Want to know the true insidiousness of the two party system? It isn't just that it squeezes out all but two candidates per race.

The only way you can get decent people to compromise their values to the point where they'll entertain the idea of voting for lesser evil over greater evil is by hobbling everybody else in the running. That's what the two party system is: turning the election into the equivalent of a fixed horse race, with billionaire campaign donors as the equivalent of organized crime. Why do we tolerate this?

This is why you see a marginalization, both de facto and deliberate, of any other candidates in the running aside from the nominee of each major party. It's also why anybody with a corporate media soapbox to stand on is in such a hurry to shame people for taking any of the third party options, or even the ultimate taboo option: actively choosing not to vote.

Whittle it down to just two choices and hammer it into people's heads that those are the only two choices worth making. Then they will find a way to rationalize away all the horrible things about their candidate of choice that they would otherwise never be able to stomach. This is how self-styled liberals can sleep at night after voting for a right-wing authoritarian like Barack Obama.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:33 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3741
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: American Politics
Ken wrote:
Want to know the true insidiousness of the two party system? It isn't just that it squeezes out all but two candidates per race.

The only way you can get decent people to compromise their values to the point where they'll entertain the idea of voting for lesser evil over greater evil is by hobbling everybody else in the running. That's what the two party system is: turning the election into the equivalent of a fixed horse race, with billionaire campaign donors as the equivalent of organized crime. Why do we tolerate this?

This is why you see a marginalization, both de facto and deliberate, of any other candidates in the running aside from the nominee of each major party. It's also why anybody with a corporate media soapbox to stand on is in such a hurry to shame people for taking any of the third party options, or even the ultimate taboo option: actively choosing not to vote.

Whittle it down to just two choices and hammer it into people's heads that those are the only two choices worth making. Then they will find a way to rationalize away all the horrible things about their candidate of choice that they would otherwise never be able to stomach. This is how self-styled liberals can sleep at night after voting for a right-wing authoritarian like Barack Obama.

Personally I disagree, I don't at all feel bad about making my choice at the polls and most people in general don't.


Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Big_Mike, Google Adsense [Bot] and 2 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:  
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