Air America Ratings Disaster

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]The Mage wrote:

Oh and I am not upset, I am just amazed at your ignorance. (I can’t wait to see how you spin that statement.)[/quote]

There’s no need to spin anything. I asked questions. You avoided each of them because you know that your generalizations don’t hold water. The military is not always seen as an evil entity. The majority of movies made are not “liberal” movies. A movie about a global disaster due to global warming is not a LIBERAL movie. It is a movie about a global disaster. Does this mean that the movie Under Seige with Denzel Washington was a conservative movie because it depicted an attack by terrorists in New York well before 9/11? No, it was a movie about a possibility. You can’t back up your claims…so you back out of this with nothing but personal attacks. My “ignorance” just pointed that out to you.

82

There is a Hollywood bias, not so much
“pro-liberal” or “anti-conservative”. Those are generalizations which don’t mean much.
What Hollywood IS against is, for the most part, family values, which can include religion. For the most part, they’re out of touch with their audience.

I recommend Hollywood vs America for a pretty good argument about this. Here’s a review from Amazon.com

"If you’ve wondered why in the world so many anti-American, anti-family, anti-religion movies manage to earn Oscars, this book is for you.

In it, Michael Medved takes a long hard look at the stuff produced by the movie industry and shows that there’s a pattern to it all.

It’s not “greed” and “profit.” Despite the attempts of numerous left-leaning folks to smear capitalism and the free market, it isn’t “corporate greed” that drove the movies down into their current state. As Medved shows, lots of studios could have done much better at the box office if they had produced moral and uplifting films that respected (not “promoted,” just “respected”) the values held by the vast majority of Americans.

No, the movie industry is just out of touch with its market. And why? The culprit isn’t “greed” but a false idealism.

What Medved shows in effect is that the moviemakers are playing to the chorus – looking for accolades from their peers based on their alleged “artistic achievement.” And that achievement is based on a view of “art” that most of us probably wouldn’t find congenial.

Medved shows that there is an overarching pattern in what’s been coming out of Hollywood for the last three of four decades. Its destructive “art” (with some exceptions that should have taught the industry something about its customers) tends deliberately to take traditional religion and morality as its intentional target, and regards the trashing of those values as a “success.”

Disagree? Then let Medved convince you. Watch him summarize, e.g., Hollywood’s recent portrayals of clergy and other religiously devoted people, and then ask yourself what would have happened if the movie industry had similarly targeted, say, gays and lesbians. If you give the obvious answer, then you’ll know there’s a powerful bias at work in the “entertainment” world."

83

[quote]Sonny S wrote:
There is a Hollywood bias, not so much
“pro-liberal” or “anti-conservative”. Those are generalizations which don’t mean much.
What Hollywood IS against is, for the most part, family values, which can include religion. For the most part, they’re out of touch with their audience. [/quote]

That makes much more sense than claiming that every movie that even depicts a theme that might be held by a liberal makes it a “liberal” movie featuring “liberal ideals”. The Day After Tomorrow being depicted as a “liberal movie” is ridiculous. I guess Jurassic Park was also against conservative ideals since they depicted evolution of birds from dinosaurs. I may not agree that the themes in movies are not due to corporate greed.

I think the current Marvel comics movie rush shows this to be the case in most instances. They have lost touch with their audience in large part because their audience has lost touch. You have hordes of people who have the attention span of a gnat all crowded into movie theaters simply waiting for the next explosion or the hint at a nipple. Every once in a while you get a “Lord of The Rings”, but that isn’t often.

84

[quote]vroom wrote:
Facts: Athens and Sparta had some of the most strict rules involving homosexuality. Men guilty of this who tried to hide it could be punished with banishment or even death.

The US has pretty strict rules about drug use, including steroids, so obviously it never happens, right?

The reason the laws are so strict is because somebody is trying to stop a rampant activity.

Think about it…[/quote]
And virtues aren’t virtues if everybody demonstrates them.

85

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Just a question though, you actually saw the movie and believed he just threw in the concept for no reason?
[/quote]

That’s what it seemed like to me. It was gratuitous. As I mentioned above, Alexander is known to have had hundreds of concubines. Yet, the movie focused on him having relations with his best friend (I’d have to do a search, I can’t remember his friend’s name).

[quote]
Have you bothered to do any deeper research yourself beyond simply that which confirms what you want to believe?[/quote]

I have done some research on the subject. It’s why I mentioned the movie and pointed out Stone’s agenda.

No doubt there were gay men in the Ancient Greek armies, just as there are in the U.S. Army today. My point was simply that it was not any more prevalent than it is today.

Dustin

86

Are trying to ‘eff’ with my mind or what?

So, what about Top Gun. The military was pretty evil in that one. Also, in The Hunt for Red October, that evil military was a big problem.

The movies always show the US saving the world. As a Canadian, I claim media bias. How come movies like Armageddon don’t use the Canadarm to throw something and save the planet? Hmmm?

Yes, I’m kidding. The whole argument is stupid and asinine. The movies are created to play with our emotions, good or bad, yank us around, and make us happy for paying.

Terminator was good. Showing evil technology, out to kill humanity. I can’t wait till AI arrives, then it can claim a movie bias against artificial beings.

What was the topic again?

87

[quote]vroom wrote:

If you pry open that mind of yours you’ll see that I wasn’t changing the subject at all… but trying to shine a little bit of light on a few things.
[/quote]

It seemed as though you were changing the subject, perhaps not intentionally. I fail to see how current drug laws are akin to the laws against homosexuality in the Ancient Greece.

[quote]
If you are going to close your eyes when I do that, then feel free to simply argue whatever you agree with instead of reality.[/quote]

You said that current drug laws are in place to stop a rampant activity. You then said that is what Ancient Greece was trying to do with their laws, stop a rampant activity. The reality is that wasn’t the case. It was not rampant in Ancient Greece.

Dustin

88

Dustin, is your time machine the one like H.G. Wells had?

ProfX, I admire you bro. You stick to logic and more importantly reality.

Hey you know what? You don’t like Hollywood! Get Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell to start bankrolling movie productions. Enlist Mel to get in on the action put your money where your mouth is and make the movies you want to see… just as censored and sterile as you want em to be. You don’t like Hollywood don’t give em your money.

89

vroom wrote:

“Yes, I’m kidding. The whole argument is stupid and asinine. The movies are created to play with our emotions, good or bad, yank us around, and make us happy for paying.”

How many examples do you need before you’d think the argument wasn’t asinine? Examples have been provided, Vroom, how much proof do you need?

"What was the topic again? "

I was wondering the same thing. I think it was about Air America. :slight_smile:

Vroom and Professor X,

Here are some links that discusses the myth of rampant homosexuality in Ancient Greece.

http://www.grecoreport.com/citations_pertaining_to_homosexuality.htm

http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm

http://www.grecoreport.com/homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm

Dustin

90

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
You don’t like Hollywood don’t give em your money.[/quote]

It really is that simple.

91

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Dustin, is your time machine the one like H.G. Wells had?
[/quote]

Nah, I just do my own research and don’t allow Hollywood to give me history lessons.

Is the above statement all you have? Do you want to debates this or just hit and run?

[quote]
Hey you know what? You don’t like Hollywood! Get Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell to start bankrolling movie productions. Enlist Mel to get in on the action put your money where your mouth is and make the movies you want to see… just as censored and sterile as you want em to be. You don’t like Hollywood don’t give em your money.[/quote]

I’m way ahead of you. I don’t give filthy Hollywood my money. I did go to see Star Wars last night, but I didn’t have to pay for the ticket. :wink:

Dustin

92

[quote]Dustin wrote:
vroom wrote:

“Yes, I’m kidding. The whole argument is stupid and asinine. The movies are created to play with our emotions, good or bad, yank us around, and make us happy for paying.”

How many examples do you need before you’d think the argument wasn’t asinine? Examples have been provided, Vroom, how much proof do you need?

"What was the topic again? "

I was wondering the same thing. I think it was about Air America. :slight_smile:

Vroom and Professor X,

Here are some links that discusses the myth of rampant homosexuality in Ancient Greece.

http://www.grecoreport.com/citations_pertaining_to_homosexuality.htm

http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm

http://www.grecoreport.com/homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm

Dustin [/quote]

Guy, stuff like this:

[quote] The teachers of the boys shall open the school-rooms not earlier than sunrise,

                and they shall close them before sunset. No person who is older than the boys 

                shall be permitted to enter the room while they are there, unless he be a son of

                the teacher, a brother, or a daughter's husband. If any one enter in violation of

                this prohibition, he shall be punished with death. The superintendents of the 

                gymnasia shall under no conditions allow any one who has reached the age of

                manhood to enter the contests of Hermes together with the boys. A gymnasiarch

                who does permit this and fails to keep such a person out of the gymnasium, shall

                be liable to the penalties prescribed for the seduction of free-born youth. Every

                choregus who is appointed by the people shall be more than forty years of age.[/quote]

…as an example of law of that time period doesn’t strike you as odd? I am going to research this more because I am now interested, however, you seem to be looking real hard for reasons to believe that this did not take place at a high occurance level when any history I have heard of the time period suggests otherwise. I’ll get back to you on this topic because I am at work now.

I am amazed that you think all of these “laws” were thrown together for no particular reason simply because they had nothing better to do but deny something that was a low occurance.

93

No Dustin, I really don’t care to debate if ancient greece was full of homo’s or not. I honestly don’t care. I just thought it was a little arrogant of you to act like you had first hand knowledge (not from history books). Just my two cents no disrespect. :slight_smile:

Now if you had said the Mexican army was full of fags (not that there’s anything wrong with that) I might have gotten my skivvies in a knot. ;(

Laters dude.

94

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
No Dustin, I really don’t care to debate if ancient greece was full of homo’s or not. I honestly don’t care. I just thought it was a little arrogant of you to act like you had first hand knowledge (not from history books). Just my two cents no disrespect. :slight_smile:

Now if you had said the Mexican army was full of fags (not that there’s anything wrong with that) I might have gotten my skivvies in a knot. ;(

Laters dude.[/quote]

I bet they aren’t married! :slight_smile:

95

Umm, okay, but I have to tell you, if a woman is told by a greek man that “I’m greek”, she can be pretty assured that he’s hinting he’s going to do her up the ass.

I wonder where that concept comes from?

Stick your head in the sand, its a popular belief that greeks go up the backside, and you know what, greeks, at least around these parts, are part of perpetuating the belief.

As to what happened back then, I think you have to be really careful about thinking you’ve found an unbiased authoritative source…

The point is, and you seem to admit that you don’t even grasp it, that laws are passed to stop activities that people are already doing!

Laws aren’t passed because nobody is doing something.

You know what, we should outlaw weed, just in case someday someone thinks they might want to smoke it. I can just see the ancient greeks, yeah, you know, what if someone screws someone up the ass, that would be real bad. We should pass a law against that before it actually happens.

Think man. Think.

Sigh, sorry for the hijack, but such a blatant unwillingness to open your eyes is simply frustrating.

96

[quote]Professor X wrote:

…as an example of law of that time period doesn’t strike you as odd?
[/quote]

Why do you think the Boy Scouts do not won’t gays in their organisation, whether they be scouts or scout leaders? Perhaps, they don’t want them to be corrupted. Perhaps they want them to build camp fires and shoot bows and arrows much like ancient Greek boys would have done, instead throwing issues of sexuality in their face.

Are sex offenders, registered or not, allowed to go near schools? Yes, I do find that law interesting, but we have similar laws that exist today.

Good, that was the point of posting those links. I want you to come to your own conclusions, not what Hollywood or Oliver Stone said happened.

[quote]
however, you seem to be looking real hard for reasons to believe that this did not take place at a high occurance level when any history I have heard of the time period suggests otherwise. I’ll get back to you on this topic because I am at work now. [/quote]

I didn’t have to look hard for those links actually, I’ve read them before.

What history have you heard? Did you learn this in Mrs. Smith’s class in high-school? I’m not trying be a smart-ass, I’m legit curious as to where you’ve read this.

[quote]
I am amazed that you think all of these “laws” were thrown together for no particular reason simply because they had nothing better to do but deny something that was a low occurance.[/quote]

Many states still have laws on their books prohibiting sodomy. Is that because it was/is happening in such a high occurrence. Remember the sodomy ruling in Texas a couple of years ago and all the hoopla that was in the media about it? Was the state of Texas trying to prevent a certain activity that was rampant?

Professor X, thanks for taking the time to read those links. I’m sure you are one of the few that have. There certainly is alot of info in those links that backs up my assertion. If you find anything to the contrary please post some links.

I just graduated with an undergraduate degree in history. Ancient Greece isn’t necessarily my strong point but I do have a base knowledge of the time period. One thing I have noticed is that when people look at history they look at it through contemporary lenses. One can’t apply current mindset or beliefs or traditions to those of a civilzation that existed thousands of years ago.

When reading Homer’s Illiad, is one to think that Achilles was gay because he was so heart-broken over the death of his younger cousin in the Trojan War. Achilles even dreamt of his young cousin after he was killed.

Something that occurred within the Hellas thousands of years ago, and we are going to draw conclusions of whether homosexuality was rampant based off of contemporary mind set. That is intellectual dishonesty plain and simple.

Dustin

97

[quote]vroom wrote:
Umm, okay, but I have to tell you, if a woman is told by a greek man that “I’m greek”, she can be pretty assured that he’s hinting he’s going to do her up the ass.

I wonder where that concept comes from?
[/quote]

That is crap Vroom. Did you just make that up? That is so dumb, it’s almost funny. I’ve never heard anyone say that and If that is all you can come up with as a rebuttal then I’m through responding to you.

[quote]
Stick your head in the sand, its a popular belief that greeks go up the backside, and you know what, greeks, at least around these parts, are part of perpetuating the belief. [/quote]

Where does this belief come from? Did you read the links I provided? A Greek male provided evidence to the contrary in the aforementioned links. Any facts to back up your above statement, or just some faggots around “these parts” that happen to be Greek?

You know Vroom, here in Oklahoma, the only gays down here are of Canadian ancestry. rolls eyes

If you can find anything to the contrary I’d be happy to read it. As it is, you have provided no links and no evidence to back up anything you’ve said.

I haven’t seemed to admit anything. All my posts have been sparkling clear. For the 26th time, I never said homosexuality didn’t occur in ancient Greece, I said the belief that ancient Greek males were all gay is a myth and I provided evidence to back up my statements.

Look at my resonse to Professor X. We still have laws in certain states of the U.S. prohibiting sodomy. Does that mean these states are trying to prevent a rampant activity?

[quote]
You know what, we should outlaw weed, just in case someday someone thinks they might want to smoke it. I can just see the ancient greeks, yeah, you know, what if someone screws someone up the ass, that would be real bad. We should pass a law against that before it actually happens. [/quote]

Please provide links to info that proves my assertions wrong. Your analogy is atrocious and holds no relavence to the conversations. Please read what I’ve said already and provide facts that back up what your saying.

[quote]
Sigh, sorry for the hijack, but such a blatant unwillingness to open your eyes is simply frustrating.[/quote]

Your unwillingness to read and comprehend my posts is frustrating. You have not provided one iota of evidence or any links that backs up any of your statements. All I see is “well, laws are put in place to prevent something from happening”. That doesn’t cut it Vroom, you can do better than that.

Dustin

98

[quote]The Mage wrote:

Oh and I am not upset, I am just amazed at your ignorance. (I can’t wait to see how you spin that statement.)

Professor X wrote:
There’s no need to spin anything. I asked questions. You avoided each of them because you know that your generalizations don’t hold water. The military is not always seen as an evil entity. The majority of movies made are not “liberal” movies. A movie about a global disaster due to global warming is not a LIBERAL movie. It is a movie about a global disaster. Does this mean that the movie Under Seige with Denzel Washington was a conservative movie because it depicted an attack by terrorists in New York well before 9/11? No, it was a movie about a possibility. You can’t back up your claims…so you back out of this with nothing but personal attacks. My “ignorance” just pointed that out to you.
[/quote]

Actually I had to put that statement in because I know exactly how you would have spun it.

Now it suddenly dawns on me you don’t even know what liberal and conservative means. That is also why you are such a staunch liberal, and yet do not accept the term. It is not a derogatory term any more then conservative is a derogatory term.

Now you mention one of the movies I mentioned earlier, (which you say I didn’t mention any movies, but now you discuss one of them) The Day After Tomorrow.

First do you remember all the hoopla about the movie? And how the Democrats were almost treating it like it was proof of global warming? It wasn’t just a disaster movie, it was a political statement about the humans causing global warming, and trying to give us a, “wake up call”.

Interestingly enough, the original book it was based on, if I understand right, didn’t have a thing to do with global warming. Just something based on what they say is a true historical event from very ancient history.

You do realize that the dangers of global warming are a liberal issue don’t you?

Now you dismissed The Dead Zone television show, never arguing that the things I mentioned were in there, but instead justified it by saying, “it was in the book”. So what? It is still in there.

You want other shows? Will & Grace, Murphy Brown, anything on MTV.

Bad cops? The Shield.

Movies? The people vs Larry Flint. Pleasantville. (Damn repressive Republicans.) If These Walls Could Talk. Bad Santa.

Bad Military? Resident Evil and RE2. E.T.

Was “To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar” a liberal movie? (Hey, I was almost an extra in it.)

What good does this list do? This is exactly what I didn’t want to do. There are a lot more movies.

The best example would take me months to flesh them out. “This scene in this movie is placed this way specifically because the director wants to influence you this way.” That is an impossible situation to get into, and is not necessary.

But you are coming along, to at least accept a light part of Sonny S’s comments. But this is exactly what I am talking about. He even stated practically the same thing I did, which you dismissed.

But I disagree with his assessment about this not being a liberal/conservative agenda. That is exactly what it is.

Is this going to keep me from seeing movies? No. Am I going to worry about this? No. But I am aware of it, and will not be influenced by it.

99

Dustin,

I don’t think anyone is trying to say anything about “all greek males being gay”. That is just stupid.

The example I gave was actually a man and a woman, and honestly, there is a large greek community around here, and they joke about it.

Perhaps they are all deluded and perpetuating an incorrect myth. I’ll grant that’s possible.

100

[quote]The Mage wrote:

Now you mention one of the movies I mentioned earlier, (which you say I didn’t mention any movies, but now you discuss one of them) The Day After Tomorrow.

First do you remember all the hoopla about the movie? And how the Democrats were almost treating it like it was proof of global warming? It wasn’t just a disaster movie, it was a political statement about the humans causing global warming, and trying to give us a, “wake up call”.

Interestingly enough, the original book it was based on, if I understand right, didn’t have a thing to do with global warming. Just something based on what they say is a true historical event from very ancient history.

You do realize that the dangers of global warming are a liberal issue don’t you?[/quote]

Hell, did you read the book? In the movie, the premise surrounded this being a repeat of events that occurred millions of years ago and brought on the first ice age. Even according to you, that is in direct line with what the book was about. Also, because certain groups may latch onto a movie doesn’t mean that the movie itself was designed as a huge informational ad about what will happen in our future. Several scientists also reported that the particular outcome in the movie, which again was based on events that started the first ice age, were unlikely to occur but not completely impossible. Your line of thinking is on par with acting as if the movie Armageddon had an “agenda”. The possibility of an asteroid hitting the Earth is a great possibility as well. It may not happen in our life times, but eventually, the chances are great that it will happen again one day. Is making a movie about the possibility delving into politics?

[quote]
Now you dismissed The Dead Zone television show, never arguing that the things I mentioned were in there, but instead justified it by saying, “it was in the book”. So what? It is still in there.[/quote]

I read the book and understand that the character portrayed is very similar to an “antichrist” character who is the opponent to the main character. Never once is it portrayed that this was a “Republican” and the book was written LONG before any of the major current party issues and discord were present. You are basically getting pissed at an idea that was first formed in the early 70’s and trying to apply the concept directly to the events of today and crying foul. That makes little sense to me.

[quote]
You want other shows? Will & Grace, Murphy Brown, anything on MTV.[/quote]

This was about movies, right? I agree that Will and Grace may be seen as liberal and I don’t watch the show. The topic doesn’t appeal to me nor does the image it portrays. Again, how did we jump from MOVIES? I am also willing to bet that Will and Grace’s largest audience is probably made up of women and gay men. However, that is just an assumption of mine.

[quote]
Bad cops? The Shield.[/quote]

I actually have that show on DVD and to apply the label “bad cop” to him is a little simplistic and shows you either don’t understand the content or possibly simply can’t relate.

[quote]
Movies? The people vs Larry Flint. Pleasantville. (Damn repressive Republicans.) If These Walls Could Talk. Bad Santa. [/quote]

Pleasantville was anti-Republican? It has a very clear message, however, party affiliation damn sure wasn?t it. What about the other movies made them “liberal”?

[quote]
Bad Military? Resident Evil and RE2. E.T. [/quote]

While ET had a clear anti-government stance as far as how an alien would be treated, are you saying it was misrepresentation? If an ET was found just like that, he wouldn’t be researched and dissected? I would actually dare you to show how that movie was wrong in its depiction of what would happen in that circumstance. Perhaps it isn’t “liberal movies” that you hate, but the possibility of the truth. Childhood must have sucked for you if this was how you saw that movie. One more fact, the guy who played “the Government agent” was, as explained by Spielberg, supposed to be a caring individual for the alien. he was originally intended to have a much larger role because he always wanted to venture into space and see the stars. He was not an evil character. Also, you could argue that Resident Evil was against major corporations, not the military. In the movie, the military is left to clean up the damage done by the Umbrella corporation. Nothing committed in the movie as a negative was a result of direct military action, not even in the sequel.

[quote]
The best example would take me months to flesh them out. “This scene in this movie is placed this way specifically because the director wants to influence you this way.” That is an impossible situation to get into, and is not necessary. [/quote]

Well, it is necessary if you are claiming that all of these movies had an AGENDA and were not concept pieces. Like I wrote before, according to you, EVERY movie has some sort of agenda if it happens to contain any topic that is “hot” right now. I disagree with that statement or that line of thinking. I think people like you look really hard for anything that doesn’t agree with your political stance. If you look hard enough, you can make yourself believe anything. That doesn’t make it true. That means it is your job to prove that each of these movies had an agenda. You make it seem as if certain topics should be off limits simply because it may make your party look bad in some way. How ridiculous is that?

[quote]
As Medved shows, lots of studios could have done much better at the box office if they had produced moral and uplifting films that respected (not “promoted,” just “respected”) the values held by the vast majority of Americans. [/quote]

Again, as written before, if this was the case and religious movies are an untapped cash crop, the Left Behind series would be a blockbuster hit. The truth is, the majority of Americans are not that interested in running to the movies for church.

You haven’t proven any of that. You have simply named movies that pertain to certain topics. None of that implies an AGENDA. Like written before, that is as insane as claiming that Jurassic Park had a clear anti-conservative agenda.