Print Page - Another stupid commercial

Ah, the silly "Drug War" is on again. Now they're trying to guilt people into quitting drugs by making a connection to terrorism. Yeah, that's going to work. It's true that heroine and cocaine are tied to terrorism and violent cartels, but there's an ad out where a kid narrates the connection of a guy smoking a joint to a crime syndicate. Um, over 90% ovf the weed in America was grown in America, and over 60% was grown in a guy with dreadlocks' closet. By telling lies like that the truths they tell become less believable. It reminds me of those anti-drug commercials they play on Saturday mornings, depicting potheads as junkies sleeping in the gutter. Most stoners are too lazy to get up off the couch, let alone go to an alley.

...Meanwhile, Al Gore's attorney general ordered DEA raids on California clinics for (legally) distributing marijuana to terminally-ill patients, while Al Gore's party debated whether or not they should drop any pretense about their support of "states' independent rights," and Al Gore's behavior raised questions again about the possibility of renewed drinking and drug abuse.

Whoopsie, did I write "Al Gore???" Silly me.

Alcohol-based delirium? Or cocaine-based delirium? You decide:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee....(long pause)...I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...(pause)...that says, fool me once, shame on...(long pause)...shame on you. Fool me...(very long pause, confused worried look)...you can't get fooled again."
--Our Vegetable-In-Chief

Thank you, Flange--but I think Ellison is one of the biggest, hairiest, most flatulent a**holes on the face of the planet. However, if I am "somewhat deluded," feel free to offer evidence. "Yeh...but Gore is, like, all stiff, and stuff" doesn't even begin to cut it. As is turns out, he was right about the Federal budget ("But...it's okay, 'cause the President hit the, like, Trifecta!!"), and--as Georgie Porgie himself admitted, before his leash was tightened--Gore was right about Global Warming. I'd wager the next couple of years will maintain this pattern. Too bad he's such a poor campaigner--after all, we all know THAT is what's most important.

...You've all signed up for military service, right? It's The Patriotic Thing To Do, and hasty wars require many bodies.

All that said, I love the brand-new Ikea "unböring" commercial (http://www.clipland.com/clipland.shtml?What=500000100)--directed by Spike Jonze of "Being John Malkovich"--in which the young lady gets a new lamp. It makes good fun of the idiotic emotional manipulation most movies, TV shows, and commercials (and political campaigns) are based on, and hopefully, this will be the beginning of a new trend AWAY from chest-thump ding-dongism.

Check it out through the link, if you haven't already seen it on the tube--then see how this (http://www.suntimes.com/output/lazare/cst-fin-lew191.html) "reviewer" for the Chicago Sun-Times reacts. I don't know which is funnier: the whole concept of newspaper "commercial reviews," or how completely this dork misses the point of the thing. You either like it or you don't; you don't need a review that takes as long to read as it takes to watch the stupid thing.

"Is there no room in this world for the man with the 105 I.Q.?"
--Homer Simpson

Why? Are you going to alert the authorities? Or is the word "telly" now some kind of unpatriotic buzzword? (Look out, I don't have the soiled, shredded remnants of an American flag on my car's antenna either--I'm obviously a terrorist! Booga booga booga!)

Well, at least this time you said "please," instead of issuing a command, which never, ever works. Ever. See, I'm such a Commie Rat I've spent six years overseas in the US Military, and now that it's over--yes, Honorable Discharge, thank you--I don't take any more orders.

But I will note that your original post related to America's earlier Phony War (The War On Drugs!!!), and most of my replies (sorry, "left-wing rants," *snicker*) also related to that. YOU were the guy who brought Gore (and Clinton) into the discussion, for whatever reasons--probably because jumping up and shouting "Bush is TOO a thoughtful, honest respectable leader and brilliant thinker!!!" wasn't a viable option. I was just making fun of the CURRENT Vegetable-In-Chief and his family (with its heavy percentage of substance abusers) and in case you don't read the papers (sorry, "The Liberal Media"--the corporate-owned info-tainment machine with its endless supply of conservative pundits and commentators, how Liberal can you get) many people, both Lefties and Righties and even those in between still find him alternatively laughable, sad, and frightening.

Once the topic's up, it's pretty free game. I don't have any control over the directions my topics go off on; no one person controls the board or any topic except for Andrew himself. As the Bushies liked to say, "get over it."

"I saw this guy...he looked a little funny, wasn't wearing a baseball cap...and he had that lah-tee-dah whatchacallit---deodorant, that's it---the stuff all the f**s up north are wearing these days...but the thing that clinched it was when he said 'telly.' That's when I called the police."
--Another Shoney's waitress dives off the Deep End

Settle down there guys, Squishy is just trying to reign in our emotional and blind patriotism. He's right, we are rushing into a war with no proof whatsoever that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction or the will to use them... well except for the fact that he actually used chemical weapons to kill a few thousand Kurds... but that's completely circumstantial (*snicker*). We should all be demanding Bush gives us some REAL evidence.

And also, anyone who doesn't go to sign up with the military has no moral right to hold any opinion in favor of military action. That was a good point, Squish -- thanks. (I think JR was saying that most Americans don't say "telly" and was wondering if maybe you are in fact a Brit. Telly isn't unpatriotic, but it is a bit unusual coming from an American).

Cheers! : )

Oh, well, life is tangential after all --
I don't know really what is meant by "Gore was right about global warming", as there really isn't any sort of full consensus about the role of human beings/greenhouse gasses in climate change. In the 1400's, Greenland was warm enough to support a wide variety of crops & livestock, & only gradually got unable to support this type of farming culture as the millenuim drew to a close, and the local Danish/Greenlandish population gradually reverted to acts of cannibalism as their society collapsed under frost. And then there were the ice ages, etc. etc.
The Greenhouse Emissions model is plausible, but it is not necessarily correct. In point of fact, there is no real working knowledge of why the various Ice Ages and long history of grand climactic changes have taken place on earth throughout history. Remember not so very long ago when it was all the rage to blame farting cattle & methane for the Global Warming? Then it was found that termites make even more Greenhouse gasses than farting cattle, etc. etc. In point of some fact, given the vast amounts of farting mammals and insects during the Pleistocene Era, to name but one period, the Earth should be boiling like Venus by now.
I'm anti-prohibition, by the way . . .
peter johnson

Yeah, that Gore is really smart....

"Gore has made numerous other embarrassing mistakes. In the spring of last year, Gore called the executive editor of the Washington Post to tell him there was an error in the paper - there was an upside down picture of the earth. But the Earth in the Balance author was mistaken. There is no "up" or "down" in space, only on flat maps that orient the earth north and south.

Rambling on about one of his big government projects in a Milwaukee speech to the Institute of World Affairs, Gore slaughtered the national motto saying, "We can build a collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities, that we can be e pluribus unum - out of one, many."

The actual phrase reads, "out of many, one."

Speaking at a D.C. function last year, Gore praised the Chicago Bulls, saying, "I tell you that Michael Jackson is unbelievable, isn't he. He's just unbelievable."

In 1992, while criticizing George Bush, Gore stated, "A zebra does not change its spots."

Visiting Minneapolis, Minn. last fall to raise money for the local Democrats, Gore couldn't figure out what state he was in. Praising the Democratic candidates, he said, "They will be the education team that Missouri needs to move into the 21st century."

At a speech given around Father's Day last year in D.C., Gore butchered another saying. He said, "It's a wise father who knows his child." The real proverb actually goes, "It's a wise child who knows its father."

Criticizing Oliver North in 1994, Gore stated that Mr. North was counting on political contributions from "the extra-chromosome right wing." This was an extremely insensitive remark, making fun of people with Down's Syndrome. Apologizing for the rude remark later in a letter, Gore wrote that he had "learned an important lession [sic]."

At a conference on homelessness, Gore incorrectly related, "Speaking from my own religious tradition in this Christmas season, 2,000 years ago a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child in a manger because the inn was full." Knowledgeable people were aghast. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not a homeless person.

In 1996, a couple from Texas wrote a letter to Gore pleading for help with their public transportation system Amtrak, called the Texas Eagle. The Eagle was about to eliminate several of its lines because of financial problems. Gore wrote them back a letter instructing them on what they should do regarding the plight of an animal on the verge of extinction, and told them how much he cared about the Texas Eagle."

--from the University of Arizona student paper.

He was also shown on CNN asking a Monticello tour guide "Who were these guys?"--referring to busts of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and other Founding Fathers.

And hey, I'm not going to say Bush is a genius, but neither was Gore. And if Bush had said or done any of the above, he would have been crucified for it!

jmc wrote:
>
> Yeah, that Gore is really smart....
>
> "Gore has made numerous other embarrassing mistakes. In the
> spring of last year, Gore called the executive editor of the
> Washington Post to tell him there was an error in the paper -
> there was an upside down picture of the earth. But the Earth
> in the Balance author was mistaken. There is no "up" or
> "down" in space, only on flat maps that orient the earth
> north and south.
>
> Rambling on about one of his big government projects in a
> Milwaukee speech to the Institute of World Affairs, Gore
> slaughtered the national motto saying, "We can build a
> collective civic space large enough for all our separate
> identities, that we can be e pluribus unum - out of one, many."
>
> The actual phrase reads, "out of many, one."
>
> Speaking at a D.C. function last year, Gore praised the
> Chicago Bulls, saying, "I tell you that Michael Jackson is
> unbelievable, isn't he. He's just unbelievable."
>
> In 1992, while criticizing George Bush, Gore stated, "A zebra
> does not change its spots."
>
> Visiting Minneapolis, Minn. last fall to raise money for the
> local Democrats, Gore couldn't figure out what state he was
> in. Praising the Democratic candidates, he said, "They will
> be the education team that Missouri needs to move into the
> 21st century."
>
> At a speech given around Father's Day last year in D.C., Gore
> butchered another saying. He said, "It's a wise father who
> knows his child." The real proverb actually goes, "It's a
> wise child who knows its father."
>
> Criticizing Oliver North in 1994, Gore stated that Mr. North
> was counting on political contributions from "the
> extra-chromosome right wing." This was an extremely
> insensitive remark, making fun of people with Down's
> Syndrome. Apologizing for the rude remark later in a letter,
> Gore wrote that he had "learned an important lession [sic]."
>
> At a conference on homelessness, Gore incorrectly related,
> "Speaking from my own religious tradition in this Christmas
> season, 2,000 years ago a homeless woman gave birth to a
> homeless child in a manger because the inn was full."
> Knowledgeable people were aghast. Mary, the mother of Jesus,
> was not a homeless person.
>
> In 1996, a couple from Texas wrote a letter to Gore pleading
> for help with their public transportation system Amtrak,
> called the Texas Eagle. The Eagle was about to eliminate
> several of its lines because of financial problems. Gore
> wrote them back a letter instructing them on what they should
> do regarding the plight of an animal on the verge of
> extinction, and told them how much he cared about the Texas
> Eagle."
>
> --from the University of Arizona student paper.
>
> He was also shown on CNN asking a Monticello tour guide "Who
> were these guys?"--referring to busts of Thomas Jefferson,
> Ben Franklin, and other Founding Fathers.
>
> And hey, I'm not going to say Bush is a genius, but neither
> was Gore. And if Bush had said or done any of the above, he
> would have been crucified for it!

Amen!!
I've never cared for Gore and he really didn't help change my opinion during the election campaign. If he'd become President alot more people would probably be out of a job now(one of them being my Dad).

"... well except for the fact that he actually used chemical weapons to kill a few thousand Kurds... but that's completely circumstantial (*snicker*). We should all be demanding Bush gives us some REAL evidence."

I'll settle for FRESH evidence of the imminent attack on America that has been promised by the administration if we don't act NOW. Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds with our (tacit) approval, way back when he was our "ally" against Iran. Later, samples retrieved from the destroyed anthrax stockpiles by UN weapons inspectors were matched to the anthrax we gave him to use on our mutual enemy. At the time, Dick Cheney considered Hussein such a "threat" that he was one of the politicians calling for withdrawal from engagement when we had the Republican Guard (no offense) on the run. What has changed since then?

Before we devote billions of dollars to unprecedented "pre-emptive" urban warfare that will cost thousands of lives (military and civilian), what stability exists in the region, and what's left of our standing in the international community, I'd like to see proof of A FEW OF the semi-daily accusations flying out of Condi Rice's mouth. A handful of politicians were recently treated to a briefing of classified "evidence;" Republican senator and Vietnam vet John McCain called it "a joke."

Inquiring minds want to know more; obedient lapdogs just want to please Master.

In 1995, Robert McNamara--the U.S. Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and the architect of the failed U.S. war against Vietnam--admitted that, more or less, the hippies were right. The war was based on fictionalized "incidents" and threats, was waged for the financial and political benefit of a handful of parties, had no chance of ultimate success, and destroyed unbelievable numbers of human lives--because too few had the courage to defy it.

Those who forget the past...

I'll settle for FRESH evidence

***** Okay, the dozens of defectors who say he has several WMD programs?
The dozens of Al Qaeda prisoners who say Iraq has helped and funded them? The satellite imagery evidence? The testimony of Ritter and other inspectors who tell of how they were railroaded and intimidated while in Iraq? The report that Atta met with an Iraqi intel officer in Prague the summer of 2001? There is probably not a smoking-gun piece of evidence here, but only a Neville Chamberlain would wait for one.

Maybe we should expose ALL our agents and methods of intelligence gathering (thereby losing them), so that you can scratch your chin some more and say you're just not convinced yet. There's healthy skepticism and there's unhealthy skepticism. Knowing the difference doesn't make me a "lapdog," and name calling like that is a sure way down the road the last thread like this went down.

And I like how your response to the Joe Kennedy reference amounted to making fun of a typo. Brilliant sleight of hand there, Squish.

Thank you. I can do better.

(1) If I recall correctly, your participation in "the last thread like this" ended with a tantrum after which, figuratively speaking, you ran to your room and slammed the door; don't lecture anyone on "name-calling." My analogy stands.

(2) Here's a better response to the Joe Kennedy reference--I notice no one challenged my McNamara one, or for that matter, the Cheney one, or the McCain one--resistance to US involvement in WWII was based on isolationism and a desire to avoid war; the war in Iraq should be viewed with skepticism because it is being championed by two "chicken-hawks" with deep ties to the oil industry who have already demonstrated that they are not trustworthy. (Remember the Office of Strategic Disinformation, or whatever it was going to be called?) Again, Vietnam analogies are just as appropriate--perhaps even more so--than WWII ones.

(3) Wait--Iraq already knows it has defectors, and that we have spy satellites. How will presenting evidence cause us to lose these "methods of intelligence gathering?" Are you suggesting we actually have a secret spy network inside Iraq? Be careful--we said we couldn't "connect the dots" on the 9-11 plans because it's so impossible to get spies into Islamic groups. Can't have it both ways.

(4) I suppose the difference between healthy and unhealthy skepticism is solely whether or not it agrees with Dano's preconceptions and attitudes.

(5) Your list of "proof," by your own admission, is circumstantial. Much of it comes from sources that have proven unreliable. The Bush adminstration has repeatedly said it HAS the smoking gun, and WILL show it. It just keeps...putting it off. Why? Oh, right--to protect the Iraqi CIA agents we're getting ready to drop missiles on.

(6) It's not me Bush has to convince; it's an increasing number of American citizens wondering where the beef is. I will remind you again that US troops are going to be involved in this, and there are going to be casualties. The Middle East has been watching us regularly drop missiles on Iraq for years, and for us to waltz in and blast away is just going to cause the ranks of terrorist groups to swell. You're in a damn big hurry to send our soldiers into battle without really good reason, but I suppose it's because, like all chicken-hawks, you ain't going. But the results are still going to change your world forever.

Again: Bush says he has the smoking gun. He says he'll show it to us. Let's see it. Then we can go war until Poppy's avenged.

You mentioned Ritter in your list of "hard evidence," so:

"For Sen. Biden's Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions - and demand hard facts - concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq. Void of that, it is impossible to speak of Iraq as a grave and imminent risk to American national security worthy of war. Therefore, it is imperative that the Senate discuss means other than war for dealing with this situation - including the need to resume UN-led weapons inspections in Iraq."
--Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector and author of "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem, Once and For All."

(6) It's not me Bush has to convince; it's an increasing number of American citizens wondering where the beef is.
***** BUZZ! Wrong. Latest Gallup poll reported Friday on CNN shows 62% in favor of military action and 50% in favor in favor of ground troops. That's a DECREASING number of Americans wondering where the beef is. Sorry. Testimony from eyewitnesses is not circumstantial, by the way, but even if it was you can convict with circumstantial evidence if you have enough of it.

I never said I didn't resort to name-calling in the last thread (you may recall I posted an apology for it directly to you), and I didn't run to my room and slam my door. I walked away (far from a tantrum) because it was a pointless discussion, as this one is becoming. You want courtroom-solid evidence that Iraq is a threat and think that lack of it is a sign that we're all getting bamboozled. I think that courtroom-solid evidence is rarely possible to obtain in situations like this and I'm happy with my government doing what it feels is necessary to ensure US national security.

I won't post my resume, but I am an adult and I do have an education. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a flag-waving twit who hates Iraqis. You're arguments haven't swayed me and mine will obviously never sway you. Call this a tantrum if you like, but I'm done trying.

I just want to see the "solid" evidence--one more time, folks--that Bush says he has, and has promised to show us, that Iraq will launch an attack against the US and/or its allies with weapons of mass destruction. Okay? He says he has it. He says he can show it. Why won't he? Maybe he "misspoke" again.

Even if I did not have reasons to be suspicious of the administration's motives--and I do--I would want to be reassured that we were embarking on this course for the right reasons before (not after) we started. This is a very serious matter with long-term consequences for both our servicemen and our country. The fact that Bush's own advisors disagree on this issue should be warning enough for everyone. (Incredibly, every single time a missile was lobbed at Iraq during the Clinton administration, it was immediately dismissed as a "distraction tactic"--even though it never seemed to actually distract anyone--but raising similar questions about an invasion now gets people's patriotism called into question. Interesting...)

"Not everyone who disagrees with you is a flag-waving twit who hates Iraqis." At no time did I claim this, or even suggest it--although I'm sure one could interpret something I wrote to mean that...if they tried hard enough to do so. I would point out that not everyone who disagrees with YOU is blind blind blind blind blind, nor any of the other cute things you have written about everyone who hasn't immediately hopped aboard Bush's War Wagon.

I too would be happy with my government doing what it feels is necessary to ensure US national security--if I was sure that's actually what my government is doing. History tells us otherwise. These quotes apply to our domestic affairs as well as anything else:

"Trust but verify."
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
"Complacency and passivity will destroy us."

(Side note: Yes, you can get a conviction with enough circumstancial evidence. This is not a fine for a traffic ticket we're talking about. Oh, hey, look--yet another inmate's been freed after twenty years on Death Row because he was convicted on circumstancial evidence, but proven innocent through DNA. I wonder how many innocent people fried in the chair or were gassed to death over the years...oh well, I'm sure my government meant well and is doing its best...la la la)

Okay, Squish, you can sit at your computer and demand your smoking gun. I'll sit at mine and remain satisfied that Hussein is enough of a threat (and had enough to do with September 11) to justify military action (and all the risks it entails -- I have thought about them).

Comparing Bush's reaction to the September 11 attacks to Clinton's Tomahawk barrage at Afghanistan and the Sudanese aspirin factory on the day before the impeachment hearings is a bit of a stretch by the way. There's nothing unusual about a president responding to an attack against US citizens is all I'm saying.

Also for the record I am very much against the death penalty for the reasons you state (and others). Unfortunately international law is an illusion because countries only obey it so far as it suits their interests. Even benevolent little Norway flaunts international law when it comes to whaling. For these reasons, international politics simply cannot be held to the same standards of practice as criminal proceedings. More inspection regimes? We've been down that road for 10 years. It isn't working.

Not every US adversary is a small, relatively harmless, southeast Asian country. And not every administration is the Johnson Administration. It's fine that you don't like the Bush administration and don't trust it. I'm not sold on Bush as a president either, but I think he's done right so far when it comes to dealing with those who would attack us on our own soil. That is what this is about (I won't bother asking for your smoking gun evidence that this is really about the economy because I know you don't have it), and I for one am not going to insist that George Bush pull a Perry Mason against Iraq before he deals with the very real fact that Hussein has WMD and he has ties with terrorists who want to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.

....But, uh...guys...can we let the politics go for a while? I still have jet lag......

***** Fair enough.

Squish - I don't know why Bush won't show the smoking gun he says he has. I personally don't need it, but if he says he has it and will show it, then he should go ahead and do so. The only explanation for delay that I can think of is that this evidence was provided by someone not yet out of harm's way (a US operative, Mossad, maybe even an Iraqi who doesn't like Hussein - I've heard there's one or two to be found in that country). This may sound flimsy to you, but if I'm right, I'll wager it doesn't sound so flimsy to the person/people with their neck on the line.

Anyway, back to B-Movies. I saw Strange Brew last night and it dawned on me that the entire plot is one giant adaptation of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Seriously. Has anyone else ever noticed this??

Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: J.R. on September 22, 2002, 02:48:37 AM