so now you quote articles from socialist sources like WNYC?

11/1/2007 1:12:35 PM

^ Can you address the post instead of offering useless commentary on the source? In any event, I figured that you et al would find a "socialist" source to be palatable.

11/1/2007 1:25:13 PM

So the appropriate response would be to rehash this 11 page thread?

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=480582&page=1



[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 1:50 PM. Reason : So how long until we get a "'Good' Conservative Intentions Gone..." thread?]

11/1/2007 1:33:45 PM

^ Perhaps. And concerning a counter-thread, you are certainly free to post one--has this not occurred to you before?

11/1/2007 2:16:08 PM

Quote :

"Spitzer's evolving plan to give undocumented immigrants valid drivers' licenses has politicians of all stripes fuming, stumbling and shifting. "

Liberal... conservative... this is just a dumb fucking idea...

You can't drive all the illegals out (too expensive), and you can't make them citizens (after breaking the law). The only possible solutions must require a punishment that doesn't involve deportation, because at this point it's just fucking useless.

11/1/2007 4:47:50 PM

^ Yes, the plan in question is a "dumb fucking idea," as you put it, but let's be clear: it's the plan of Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY). In addition, this "dumb fucking idea" has now entangled Hillary Clinton--who in Kerry-esque flip-flop form seems to be both for it and against it:

Starting Gate: Who Gains From Clinton's Stumble?

Quote :

"Clinton's responses to the question of allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses (she appeared to be both for it and against it) and her answer to questions about releasing archived documents from the Clinton administration (not her decision, she said but it apparently is her husband's) have set off a feeding frenzy in the political world. Certainly it was a shaky moment for Clinton and one being tossed around by both her primary and Republican foes."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/11/01/politics/horserace/entry3439493.shtml

Driver licenses for undocumented: Clinton stumbles

Quote :

"A potentially dangerous new story-line could be developing in the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York for the White House: Multiple-choice answers to the same difficult question. Clinton already suffers from a certain 'if I had known then what I know now' syndrome over the war in Iraq – she voted along with an overwhelming majority of senators to authorize military force in Iraq, but now says she opposes the war. She promises to end it, if elected president, but will not commit to when all the U.S. troops deployed there will come home. Clinton also has voted for a resolution on Iran supported by an overwhelming majority of senators which critics call a predicate to war, but she maintains that she is in no 'rush to war' in Iran. And last night, during a Democratic debate, she refused to pledge that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons during her presidency – her leading rivals also demurred. But it was a question about driver's licenses for 'undocumented workers' – the politically neutral terminology for 'illegal aliens' which she prefers – that created the most trouble for Clinton during last night's two-hour debate of the Democrats staged in Philadelphia. Her leading rivals pounced on Clinton for her conflicting answers – she supports New York's plan but says it's not the best idea -- and the GOP is pouncing today."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/driver_licenses_for_undocument.html

11/1/2007 5:14:07 PM

^ Considering my options on whether or not to defend Hillary...



....







.......










Vote Obama 2008

11/1/2007 10:00:54 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw : Can you address the post instead of offering useless commentary on the source? "

would that be any way related to avoiding a detailed post and focusing on the :grr: face, then diverting the discussion with some hilariously out of context YouTube clip ? because, if I didn't know any better, I might think you've been purposely avoiding Erios.

/message_topic.aspx?topic=471788&page=14#10864894

When, exactly, is "later" ? I'm just wonderin'

11/2/2007 1:38:39 AM

Quote :

"^^ BINGO! "

If you were capable of explaining this, why didn't you?

11/2/2007 2:55:41 AM

'Anti-' doesn't sell
Though the war in Iraq is unpopular, Hollywood is finding out that Americans aren’t clamoring for anti-war diatribes.
By Jonah Goldberg

Quote :

"Hollywood has been churning out anti-war movies at a blistering pace of late, with more to come. We've already had Rendition, a tendentious, plodding assault on the war on terror, seemingly as-told-to by the ACLU, starring Reese Witherspoon, Peter Sarsgaard, Meryl Streep and Jake Gyllenhaal. There's the meandering In the Valley of Elah, written and directed by Paul Haggis, about a family dealing with a cover-up of their soldier-son's death in an unnecessary war. The Kingdom, more exciting than most, deals with an FBI team's attempt to investigate a terrorist attack on Americans in Saudi Arabia. Its anti-war credentials come from suggesting that the sworn lawmen (and women) investigating the slaughter of families playing softball are no better than the murderers. Coming next month: Lions for Lambs, starring Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep — which gives every indication of being a theatrical version of a loaded question from Helen Thomas at a White House briefing — and Redacted, a fake documentary directed by Brian De Palma, in which U.S. troops are depicted as dehumanized rapists. Next spring comes Stop Loss, starring Ryan Phillippe, the supposedly heroic soldier who refuses to fight. And there are a whole slew of anti-war books being adapted for the screen as well."

Quote :

"First, economics. Hollywood cares less and less about what Americans think of their products because as domestic movie attendance has declined, Hollywood shifted its aim to foreign markets. In America, filmmakers are at pains to insist their anti-war fare isn't anti-American. No such distinctions need be made when these films open at Cannes, Venice and Toronto. Denouncing the war isn't only good marketing in Europe, it's the fastest route to critical acclaim. Second, Americans may not be as passionately opposed to the war as the polls have led Hollywood to believe. Left-wing bloggers, hyper-rich Democratic donors and anti-war activists hate the war with biblical fury. But many average Americans are depressed by the war because, until recently, it was going so badly. The polls don't capture this distinction very well. This illuminates an under-discussed dynamic of our times. Americans are both anti-war and anti-anti-war. Polls show they are disgusted with Republicans and Democrats. Hollywood and the left generally have misread this political discontent thinking there's a mandate for their trite Vietnam-era nostalgia for mass protest and Joan Baez speechifying. But few Americans are eager to spend their money to listen to the Jane Fonda set say, 'I told you so!' for two hours. Especially not when we've heard it all before. (Indeed, Redacted is essentially a remake of his Vietnam movie Casualties of War.) By confusing the public's war-weariness with their own carefully cultivated rage they've badly overreached. Rage may be a good box office draw; exhaustion isn't. The late film critic Pauline Kael is reported to have said that Nixon couldn't have won because she didn't know anybody who voted for him. Similarly, maybe everyone Paul Haggis knows shares his hatred for the war, but he just doesn't know enough people to make a hit."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/11/anti--doesnt-se.html

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 6:07 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2007 6:07:13 AM

So how's "Pro-" doing these days?

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

11/7/2007 9:26:25 AM

Quote :

"But many average Americans are depressed by the war because, until recently, it was going so badly."

Sorry, not buying that assumption on good faith.

Also, anti-war =/= anti-military. The anti-military crowd is an exceptionally limited minority in this country. Almost everyone supports the troops. They just don't back the commander-in-chief giving them their marching order. The military has the most public credibility and support of any branch of the government.

On other words, movies that poorly depict our troops are NOT going to be received well. If film makers were unaware of this fact then they will assuredly be on the unemployment line.

11/7/2007 6:22:45 PM

Iraq war atrocity film Redacted bombs in US

Quote :

"The drama from the director of Carrie, Scarface and Casualties of War took just over $25,000 during its US opening weekend when it was shown at only 15 cinemas nationwide."

Quote :

"'It appears that De Palma is just the latest moviemaker eager to foist a heavy-handed anti-war picture on the public, and frankly some of these shrill screeds are starting to look silly,' wrote reviewer Kam Williams [emphasis added]. The film's dire performance follows the public's similarly lacklustre response to other recent releases themed around the Iraq war and post-September 11 policy. In the Valley of Elah, from Oscar-winning director Paul Haggis and based on true events linked to the Iraq war, has made less than $7 million since its September release despite a cast including Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon. The Robert Redford-directed political drama Lions for Lambs, with Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep, also sank with minimal trace, taking less than $14 million in three weeks - less than half its production cost. Even The Kingdom, starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, about an FBI squad targeting Saudi terrorists, made only $47 million, a low figure for a widely-released action movie with high-profile stars. Earlier this year, A Mighty Heart, about the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, made just over $9 million after eight weeks. Commentators say the films' subject matter is proving too close to home for many cinema-goers, who seek escapism. In some cases, the releases have just not been good enough. 'These movies have to be entertaining,' Lew Harris, editor of Movies.com, said. 'You can't just take a movie and make it anti-war or anti-torture and expect to draw people in. That's what happened with Rendition and it has been a disaster' [emphasis added]."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/27/wmovies128.xml

Ha-ha.

11/30/2007 1:22:56 PM

Quote :

"Commentators say the films' subject matter is proving too close to home for many cinema-goers, who seek escapism. In some cases, the releases have just not been good enough. "

Seems like a good explanation to me.

I also personally wouldn't want to watch a fictionalized documentary about someone being raped, burned, and then shot in the face. That doesn't sound like a fun night out to me. I don't see how that's a liberal/conservative issue.

11/30/2007 2:22:26 PM

do political movies generally do well in the first place (particularly if they don't play on the patriotic heart-strings of americans)

11/30/2007 2:26:13 PM

^^

Quote :

"'It appears that De Palma is just the latest moviemaker eager to foist a heavy-handed anti-war picture on the public, and frankly some of these shrill screeds are starting to look silly,' wrote reviewer Kam Williams."

In case you haven't noticed, these "shrill screeds" are coming from the left side of the ideological spectrum.

^ Yes. One example:

All the President's Men

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/

11/30/2007 3:20:20 PM

Quote :

"In case you haven't noticed, these "shrill screeds" are coming from the left side of the ideological spectrum. "

Does this mean that the standard Stallon/Swarchenegger/Willis mindless action flick where the good guys win and the terrorists lose constitutes "shrill screeds" from the right side? You're assuming that only leftists make ill-conceived, unlikeable, and all around BAD movies based on political idealogy. You'd be wrong.

hooksaw... buddy... compadre... you gotta stop this habit of calling out every instance of leftist idiocy as if to say "Look! I told you liberals were fucking dumb!" It just kills your credibility. You gotta remember, there are plenty conservative nutjobs out there too. A lot of them happen to be in high-ranking offices in DC. They do a lot of stupid shit too, and on a much bigger scale....

...and it's not our fault we don't have to look nearly as hard to show their collective incompetance as you do

11/30/2007 5:29:33 PM

^^ Did you miss a "^" or something? I don't see what that post has to do with mine.

11/30/2007 5:49:15 PM

^ Sigh.

1.

Quote :

"I also personally wouldn't want to watch a fictionalized documentary about someone being raped, burned, and then shot in the face. That doesn't sound like a fun night out to me. I don't see how that's a liberal/conservative issue."

2.

Quote :

"'It appears that De Palma is just the latest moviemaker eager to foist a heavy-handed anti-war picture on the public, and frankly some of these shrill screeds are starting to look silly,' wrote reviewer Kam Williams."

3.

Quote :

"In case you haven't noticed, these 'shrill screeds' are coming from the left side of the ideological spectrum. "

You're being purposely obtuse. And I'm not going to put it together for you every time.

[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 4:25 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2007 4:24:36 AM