Air America Ratings Disaster

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Dustin wrote:
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.[/quote]

Real bad example. There have been many offenses, especially lately, by sex offenders that have prompted those restrictions. Not only that, but the nature of their crime would indicate that they are still a risk because they are not “cured” of their urges. As far as the Boy Scouts, to my knowledge, they were originally an organization based deeply in religion as far as Christianity. That alone is why many of those restrictions are there for that organization.

I already wrote that I had not seen the movie but knew about the content. I have never allowed Hollywood to dictate what I believe.

Mrs. Smith? I wrote clearly in the other post that this was on the History Channel. My dad was also a history teacher. This isn’t uncommon knowledge for those with any background in that particular area of history. There is some controversy, but largely by biased organizations.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

I will accept any info and judge it for myself. I am glad you posted what you did because it provides me with more knowledge, however, I think you would do good to step outside of your box and research info that doesn’t have a clear agenda as I believe that site does. If I find anything new (as I haven’t looked yet because this isn’t exactly that hot of a topic for me to waste hours researching) I will post it.

102

[quote]vroom wrote:
Dustin,

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

[/quote]

That was all I was getting at. I guess we don’t disagree after all?

Dustin

103

Remember everyone: The Day after Tomorrow IS NOT POLITICAL. NOR WAS IT USED TO MAKE ANY POLITICAL STATEMENTS.

From MSNBC:

Moveon.org, the San Francisco-based liberal advocacy group, is organizing a town hall meeting to coincide with the movie?s New York City premiere later this month. Former Vice President Al Gore, comedian and author Al Franken and environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are among those expected to attend.

Climate coverage
? Environment
? Science
? Weather
? Search MSNBC.com for ‘climate’

?Millions of people will be coming out of theaters on Memorial Day weekend, asking the question, ?Could this really happen?? I think we need to answer that question,? Gore said in a statement.

The group?s members also plan to distribute leaflets at theaters around the country when the movie is released.

?To have a major studio release of a movie tackling a serious issue is a terrific opportunity for Americans to start talking about the reality of the problem, what can be done about it and the enormous threat that President Bush is not dealing with,? said Peter Schurman, MoveOn: People-Powered Progress executive director"

So damn easy!!!

JeffR

104

Jerffy,

I know this is going to be an advanced idea for you, heck, aren’t they all, but consider this…

It is possibly for politically motivated organizations to latch onto something that was not created for political purposes… and use it to political purposes.

This doesn’t show the reason for creating it was political, which was really the point of the discussion.

RA RA RA, GO BUSH, 400 MORE YEARS!!!

105

[quote]vroom wrote:
Jerffy,

I know this is going to be an advanced idea for you, heck, aren’t they all, but consider this…

It is possibly for politically motivated organizations to latch onto something that was not created for political purposes… and use it to political purposes.

This doesn’t show the reason for creating it was political, which was really the point of the discussion.

RA RA RA, GO BUSH, 400 MORE YEARS!!![/quote]

I am surprised that needed to be said. That is like claiming that since some “conservatives” latched onto The Passion of the Christ that it was made specifically to push conservative ideals. That doesn’t make any sense and I still don’t understand why one movie of a natural disaster is “political” while other movies of natural disasters are not political. How do you get to pick and choose? Shouldn’t they ALL be political and trying to push a specific agenda?

106

Prof X.

There is no way I can convince you of anything. It is like telling a fat person to give up the super sized fries and Coke, or talking to a Flat Earther.

OH and here are examples, but you won’t believe me, after all the Earth is flat.

Let’s see, if a tv show (or movie) is made out of a book, then any liberal bias can be ignored.

The Day After Tomorrow was not about Global Warming, and greenhouse gasses, even though they mentioned fossil fuels in the movie.

TV shows suddenly don’t matter because you cannot find an argument against it.

The military would do what they did to ET, so it doesn’t matter, because it is true. (I assume you are using the alien autopsies at Area 51 as your proof.)

You ask for movies, I give in and list a few, and instead of realizing I am only using these as examples you asked for, suddenly it is about my childhood, and hating movies. (Spin, spin, spin.)

And I need to point out again I am not a Republican. Something I have stated hundreds of times. But I will have to mention it again because you are so biased you cannot even see this statement.

Just like you believe religious movies cannot be successful, so that is the only reason Hollywood won’t make them. Why the hell would a big studio pick up a series that has sold only 60 million books? (And so you don’t forget, again I am an atheist, but I do support many of the values within religions.) The truth is that the Left Behind movies are successful, but don’t get the normal release. They cannot get the movie released through normal channels. They don’t have the clout of Mel Gibson who barely got his movie into the theaters

I pointed out a few things, but you cannot accept anything, instead calling me insane, without looking at your own blind obedience to your liberal philosophy.

Enjoy your fries.

107

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Prof X.

There is no way I can convince you of anything. It is like telling a fat person to give up the super sized fries and Coke, or talking to a Flat Earther.

OH and here are examples, but you won’t believe me, after all the Earth is flat.

Let’s see, if a tv show (or movie) is made out of a book, then any liberal bias can be ignored.

The Day After Tomorrow was not about Global Warming, and greenhouse gasses, even though they mentioned fossil fuels in the movie.

TV shows suddenly don’t matter because you cannot find an argument against it.

The military would do what they did to ET, so it doesn’t matter, because it is true. (I assume you are using the alien autopsies at Area 51 as your proof.)

You ask for movies, I give in and list a few, and instead of realizing I am only using these as examples you asked for, suddenly it is about my childhood, and hating movies. (Spin, spin, spin.)

And I need to point out again I am not a Republican. Something I have stated hundreds of times. But I will have to mention it again because you are so biased you cannot even see this statement.

Just like you believe religious movies cannot be successful, so that is the only reason Hollywood won’t make them. Why the hell would a big studio pick up a series that has sold only 60 million books? (And so you don’t forget, again I am an atheist, but I do support many of the values within religions.) The truth is that the Left Behind movies are successful, but don’t get the normal release. They cannot get the movie released through normal channels. They don’t have the clout of Mel Gibson who barely got his movie into the theaters

I pointed out a few things, but you cannot accept anything, instead calling me insane, without looking at your own blind obedience to your liberal philosophy.

Enjoy your fries.[/quote]

it’s a word that gets overused around here, but I have to say it anyway: OWNED!
And this one: BURN!

Way to be thoughtful, Mage. (insert yellow guy clapping here!)

108

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Prof X.

There is no way I can convince you of anything. It is like telling a fat person to give up the super sized fries and Coke, or talking to a Flat Earther.[/quote]

To convince me of a liberal agenda in movies, all you have to do is show that there was an agenda when the movie was being made. A movie about a “hot topic” does not mean it is a “liberal” or “conservative” movie. Also, we started this talking about movies. That is what my original post was referring to. You now start grasping for anything you can. Fine, we can talk about comic books and all other forms of media as well since you can’t stay on topic.

[quote]
The Day After Tomorrow was not about Global Warming, and greenhouse gasses, even though they mentioned fossil fuels in the movie.[/quote]

It was about global warming. You still have yet to explain how that makes it a LIBERAL movie simply because it was about a topic that liberals have promoted. Again, is Armmageddon a politically biased movie? If not, why not?

[quote]
TV shows suddenly don’t matter because you cannot find an argument against it.[/quote]

What? You brought up Will and Grace and I said they are “liberal”. You brought up the Shield and I disagreed with you. Why lie? I quoted you and spoke on each of those. Again, why lie?

[quote]
The military would do what they did to ET, so it doesn’t matter, because it is true. (I assume you are using the alien autopsies at Area 51 as your proof.)[/quote]

I asked you to show me how that movie was wrong in its depiction of what would happen. You still have yet to do that. You seem to have a real hard time simply responding directly to questions or challenges.

[quote]
You ask for movies, I give in and list a few, and instead of realizing I am only using these as examples you asked for, suddenly it is about my childhood, and hating movies. (Spin, spin, spin.)[/quote]

I wrote one line about how your childhood must have sucked if you saw ET like that and you skip everything else I wrote? I can see why you won’t quote me directly. You would actually have to answer the questions posed.

[quote]
I pointed out a few things, but you cannot accept anything, instead calling me insane, without looking at your own blind obedience to your liberal philosophy.

Enjoy your fries.[/quote]

I’m not liberal. You just claimed you aren’t conservative or republican. Why do you get to label me if I can’t do the same to you? No one has to spin anything with you. All I have to do is quote you directly and respond to each point. That seems to throw you off enough. But hey, at least you have a cheerleader.

109

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m not liberal.
[/quote]

BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT !!!

You ooze liberalism out of every pore in your body. You prove it every single time you post down here. You side with 100M at every turn. You agree with Morty numerous times a week.

A man is known by the company he keeps. And you are liberal - Kerry Liberal. Gin-Nosed Ted liberal.

Face it. Wear it with pride. Denying it makes you look like an even bigger oaf.

110

[quote]it’s a word that gets overused around here, but I have to say it anyway: OWNED!
And this one: BURN! [/quote]

Pretty weak Joe.

Rainjack, you know, whether or not you are right doesn’t even make a difference. There’s a discussion going on. Maybe it would be cool to wait and see about the points being discussed.

Why the need to brand people with labels when sometimes they really don’t fit? Is it so you can just ignore everything the person says because suddenly it “must” be wrong or biased.

Nonsense. I even read and pay attention to your crud… you old neocon curmudgeon.

111

vroomie -

This thread is 5 pages long. If you can’t pick out what the teams are by now…

Prof X is the big black guy on the way far left team. See him? He’s always on the way far left team. Has been since I’ve been reading his posts down here.

For him to pull the “I’m not a liberal” rabbit out of his ass is as sad as it is hilarious.

112

[quote]vroom wrote:
Why the need to brand people with labels when sometimes they really don’t fit? Is it so you can just ignore everything the person says because suddenly it “must” be wrong or biased.

Nonsense. I even read and pay attention to your crud… you old neocon curmudgeon.[/quote]

No - it is because he is blatantly liberal. I have no problem with being labeled as a conservative. I am one. I’m sick of this attitude around here that being independent is somehow more noble than than being who you are.

As you said - you are a liberal. ProfX denies it, but he is the only one who buys that BS. No one will hate you if you are liberal. Hspder and 100M will let you know right up front that they are liberals - they don’t seem to do so with their heads down.

If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck…ProfX’s middle name is undoubtedly Donald.

113

Sigh, you are making far too much sense these days Rainjack. I’m getting worried about my political leanings.

114

Prof X.

I am a conservative, not a Republican. Obviously you are too ignorant to know the difference.

There are liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats. Obviously this is over your head as much as anything we have been discussing here.

115

Movie example.
Runaway Jury–Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman etc.

The book involved the suit of the tobacco industry for knowing cigarettes are addictive and nasty.
The movie was changed to be a lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.
The gun makers were cast as big fat sloppy “Boss Hogg” types.
And all the actors were clamoring to be in it. I think Hoffman even did it for free or reduced.

Tobacco is far more evil than guns…but how many actors/hollywood people smoke v. are anti-gun?

116

hey vroom, how can someone be an “old neocon curmudgeon”???
:wink:

Nice turn of phrase, but still… (j/k buddy)

117

[quote]I am a conservative, not a Republican. Obviously you are too ignorant to know the difference.

There are liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats. Obviously this is over your head as much as anything we have been discussing here. [/quote]

Oh please.

ProfX certainly doesn’t need me to defend him, but damn, he does a great job of hammering you guys into shreds. He points out thinking faults, unsupported conclusions, exaggerations and so on, regardless of the heaping abuse that is tossed his way.

Yes, other people do the same as well – with respect to argumentative errors, myself included. However, the fact he makes you look silly and pisses you off doesn’t make him wrong either.

Seems to me there is a lot of label slapping and label avoidance going on around here… and lots of pots calling the kettles black.

118

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Prof X.

I am a conservative, not a Republican. Obviously you are too ignorant to know the difference.

There are liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats. Obviously this is over your head as much as anything we have been discussing here.[/quote]

It is funny how you keep turning to insults simply because you can’t defend one thing you wrote. I quoted you directly in every response to you. I asked specific questions that you tried your hardest to get around and you end with this? That was weak. Why not simply go back and actually backup your claim of most movies being liberal with an agenda. Nothing you have posted makes me believe for a second that you are so mentally superior that you can call me “ignorant”. In fact, quite the opposite. I challenged you. You faltered.

119

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Movie example.
Runaway Jury–Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman etc.

The book involved the suit of the tobacco industry for knowing cigarettes are addictive and nasty.
The movie was changed to be a lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.
The gun makers were cast as big fat sloppy “Boss Hogg” types.
And all the actors were clamoring to be in it. I think Hoffman even did it for free or reduced.

Tobacco is far more evil than guns…but how many actors/hollywood people smoke v. are anti-gun?
[/quote]

From IMDB:

[quote]The Ugly: The script is really bad. How bad you say? It took almost four writers to outline the story, which bare in mind does not follow the book at all. The dialog is great in places and bad in others, and the whole structure of the film is paper-thin which is easily to blow holes thru. The story runs out of gas in the half way point of the film and the ideas express seems more like a bias view of what the law should be than a realistic view of what the law really is. I think the biggest offence the movie makes is changing the text of the original novel and making about guns other than big tobacco. John Grisham’s original novel was hugely entertaining and down right poignant in its views about justice. This film seems like it has not idea where it’s at from time to time and lacks a coherent narrative to even try to explain the stuff that is going on right in front of you.

Even with the good points, the bad does out weight the good here. It’s a decent film because of the acting of Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman but they like the viewer are let down with a script that lacks conviction for the subject it covers and a real point of view that expresses the feelings of the reality of the gun issue.[/quote]

I agree with every word of this. The movie sucked as far as the script is concerned and the change of the plot from the original book outline is too great for words. If there was ever an anti-gun movie, this would be it. For the effort to blanket an entire movie industry as “liberal propoganda”, this may be the only film that you can actually credit with that.

120

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
Why the need to brand people with labels when sometimes they really don’t fit? Is it so you can just ignore everything the person says because suddenly it “must” be wrong or biased.

Nonsense. I even read and pay attention to your crud… you old neocon curmudgeon.

No - it is because he is blatantly liberal. I have no problem with being labeled as a conservative. I am one. I’m sick of this attitude around here that being independent is somehow more noble than than being who you are.

As you said - you are a liberal. ProfX denies it, but he is the only one who buys that BS. No one will hate you if you are liberal. Hspder and 100M will let you know right up front that they are liberals - they don’t seem to do so with their heads down.

If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck…ProfX’s middle name is undoubtedly Donald.[/quote]

While there are some ideas from the conservatives that I agree with, I would never associate myself with those who claim that label on this board (outside of BostonBarrister who is the only one I have seen manage to continue a debate for pages without immediately reverting to insults or trying to brush off what someone says by labeling them outright). Your attitude and comments imply a desire to ignore any truth, info, or beliefs that either go against what you originally believe or paint your party in a negative light. I noticed not one peep from most of you when 100m wrote what he did from the bible. Why no response? Doesn’t that at least bring some questions to the front of your brain? The responses as if the news should be discussing mass graves for the next 3.5 years instead of daring to discuss any negatives going on in Iraq is another line of thinking that makes no sense. I truly believe some of you would crush any media outlet that mentions anything negative going on in Iraq if you could. You would dole out rosy sunglasses of propoganda to every man, woman and child while painting beautiful murals of Bush in the ceilings of churches across America. You would control any thought that went against your agenda or even discussed a topic that you don’t personally support from movies to books. I truly believe that if some of you had your way, we would be experiencing the closest thing to a 21st century version of the Salem Witch Hunts with a dash of the Crusades thrown in for good measure. D’oh, 4 more years!!! I can almost hear the screams of “Get 'er dun” shouted from the southern border…as we don’t give anywhere near the same attention to Canada. I find some of it comical. I find other bits abrasive and extremely biased. The rest is downright scary. If a political party could ever become publicly drunken with power, this would be the representation.