Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 22, 2019, 08:29:17 PM
626417 Posts in 48473 Topics by 6586 Members
Latest Member: Yayoi Neko Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless  (Read 5642 times)
Bad Movie Lover

Karma: 1
Posts: 983

« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2003, 03:50:49 PM »

Squishy wrote:
> It tastes like crap, but if you complain John Ashcroft has
> you shipped off to Gitmo for "questioning," traitor.

Listen here you *(#(&#(%(# UnAmerican Commiefagpinko*!  You are one more snide UnAmerican comment away from getting your snotty UnAmerican buttocks tossed into a re-education class, where you'll LEARN TO LOVE THIS COUNTRY RIGHT!  RIGHT!?

Uh, wrong.  :-(

(* This is a term that George Carlin used in a routine, some Squishy will no dount know, but some of you might actually think I'm insulting our dear poster.)


Gosh, remember when the Internet was supposed to be a wonderful magical place where intelligent, articulate people shared information? Neighborhood went to hell real fast... - Anarquistador
Bad Movie Lover

Karma: -1
Posts: 695

« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2003, 10:08:20 PM »

OK Pete. The most fascinating thing about this is that we get less than 5 percent of our oil from Iraq. Do you know who gets the majority of Iraqi oil? France. Why is France for peace? Because they want their oil. In no way is this war a direct or fringe oil war. It may help to crack OPEC open, but hell, thats not that big of a deal.

Now I will entertain you and let us say that yes, this is a self interested war, just to set up a Pro American "democracy." In doing so, we will free people who have been abused and destroyed from a clearly evil dictator. We will have a stronghold in which we could potentially stabilize a very dangerous region. So the question is, do the means justify the ends? That is a question which I will leave to you..

While I personally love French bashing, the new names are ri-cock-ulous. Fries are from Belgium, not France. France is totally free to do what it feels is right, without such silly condemnation.

Also, I dont think any of you have the right to call the President dim witted. Have any of you met him personally and had a one on one discusiion with him no. And these allegations that the govt. isnt controlled by our elected officials is ridiculous. The government is controlled by Bush and the senate and house, who are controlled by money, which is the only unifyiying factor throughout time.

Secondly, saying that the majority of the country is anti war is ridiculous. The last poll stated a slight favor towards war (at least in AMerica). Protests make news, however, protesters seem to be the loud minority of people. Also, this is in no way a war vs. innocents.

Why are the people sick and hungry? Because the aid that Iraq receives is funneled straight to Sadam (very similar situation happens in Palestine, dont Arafat and Saddam both look fat while their people starve). With our new technology, there is no way that civilians will be the majority of people killed. And America in no way will kill more civilians than Saddam has. That is a ridiculous assumption.

However, my one wonder is why Iraq? Most of the 9/11 terrorists were funded by Saudi Arabia. North Korea is a MUCH bigger threat that really needs to be stopped. Iraq had been quiet recently. I think if we are going to police the world (which we do, because the UN is as ineffective as the League of Nations), we should attack the right spots.

Chris K. you also made some great points


 "Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."

--Lady Astor to Winston Churchill

"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."

--His reply
Chris K.
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2003, 10:45:16 PM »

Evan3 wrote:
> Chris K. you also made some great points

Thanks Evan3 and I also felt that you made some excellent points too. I was hoping that this subject wouldn't get too "political", but what can you do?

Also, I was recently told this story at Columbia College today and I remember very little of it. I was told that some news commenator on Fox News made a comment that "The Statue of Liberty should be taken down and returned back to France". That's what I basically heard, so if anybody here has the full detals or that I was mislead please feel free to comment.

But if true, this just proves that their are more morons comming out of the woodwork. And if that half-witted, dumbass George Will makes a comment about it in his so-called "news collumist" section, then it still proves that more morons are on the way.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema

Karma: 0
Posts: 2388

« Reply #48 on: March 20, 2003, 05:01:54 AM »

I don't pretend to understand all the issues involved. I'm not completely against war with Iraq (I think they should have finished off SH during Desert Storm, rather than letting him "save face"), but I'm not completely for it either.

What bothers me is that Bush reminds me more and more of Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone.
« Reply #49 on: March 20, 2003, 05:38:36 AM »

Sorry, Evan--I remember The Dimwit telling us he'd pay for everything out of The Surplus--tax cuts, additional spending, the whole Magilla. "Surplus," unfortunately, is a word of French origin. Now facing deficits that boggle the mind, AND an open-ended "war," he insists upon further tax cuts--suggesting that he can't handle basic math. I could go on...and on...and on...but. Dimwit is as dimwit does.

Iraq is not about to be "liberated"--any more than Afghanistan was. Sure, we blew up (some of) the Taliban (and the occasional wedding party, whoopsie), but we've turned the country back over to the control of the same warlords who sent the people of Afghanistan into the loving clutches of the Taliban in the first place. If "free" comes in degrees, then they're...well, actually, they're no more liberated now than before. Will Iraq fare any better? Remember, Bush isn't "into nation-building." He's more into blowin' s**t up then finding new toys to play with.

It's not just France that opposed this invasion. It's fourteen organized world religions; our closest neighbors to the north and south; and most people with real military experience. (Remember, even Powell opposed Bush on this--before being taken out back to the woodshed.) Even Bush's own pastor opposed it. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" is padded with "bought" allies (watch what happens when we stop ponying up) and countries (like Turkey) that can't wait to start carving Iraq--and/or its people--up for themselves.    

George Will may get his tiny little penis semi-hard by suggesting that refusal to get in line with Dimwit is tantamount to cowardice and treason, but that's hardly the case. And there's only one country for which this is "all about oil."

Oh, and look who's bidding for contracts to "rebuild" Iraq (after it's leveled)! A subsidiary of Halliburton! And look who's still on the payroll of Halliburton! Why, it's Dick Cheney! Well!

(Bonus question: Who was negotiating an oil deal with the Taliban right up until September 11th, 2001? Aw, you cheated.)
peter johnson
« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2003, 02:49:14 AM »

Since Afghanistan has no oil, what was the form of this oil deal being negotiated "right up until 9/11"?
In what sense did we help the Germans defeat the French in WWII?  What about Lend-Lease?
Just curious.  
There seem to me to be reasons to oppose and encourage the war, but to have George be stupid and George be crafty at the same time smacks to me of just wanting anything at all to prove the view of Wicked America/Everything's Our Fault.
Afghanistan is too freer now than before the Taliban.  You can go to movies, sing, fly kites, go to school and go out in public (If you're a woman), travel freely, etc. etc.  To cynically say that nothing has changed isn't correct or fair.  There are several woman-run human-rights organizations in Afghanistan today that could not have even existed during the time of the Taliban.
peter johnson
« Reply #51 on: March 22, 2003, 04:12:13 AM »

One detailed article on Curious Dick and The Afghanistan Deal. (Never mind all the money we gave the Taliban to stop growing poppies. All for nothing now, by the way.)

The Human Rights Watch's report on women in Afghanistan, dated December 2002. Outside of Kabul, you're still property, baby. Fly kites? Go to school? Hah.

American-Nazi connections before, during, and after WWII...oh my, THAT's an interesting family connection.  

Loads of other articles, some better than others. I'm just citing these for brevity. Feel free to Google. (Or you can go over to a "conservative news outlet" and buy a book about how "Clinton Sold The Country To The Chinese Before Having Sex With Osama Bin Laden." Only thirty-nine ninety-five!!!)

Let's make one thing clear: Bush is a complete idiot. His school record reflects it; his "business career"--one failure after another, rescued every time by Poppy and his friends--reflects it; everything he says that he isn't reading directly off the teleprompter reflects it. He is a drunk driver and an AWOL chickenhawk. People who have experience taking care of "dry" drunks and their bouts of delirium readily see that he's just about "gone" upstairs.

It is the people pulling the strings on this walking, talking Puppetoon who are crafty. Or at least, think they are--which leads us right back to "Curious Dick and The Afghanistan Deal," and "The Adventures of Little Lord Rummy and His Good Friend Saddam In The Land of Heathens."

Bush is only there because smarm is easily confused with charm, and he can read a script when lucid--and just in case the Zero-Year-Rule merely skipped Reagan out of pity.
« Reply #52 on: March 22, 2003, 04:37:00 AM »

A lighter note. Seriously. (An ongoing story. The monkey's a semi-super-intelligent lab escapee. That means he can talk, but likes "Jerry Springer.")
« Reply #53 on: March 22, 2003, 04:51:27 AM »

I'm really, really sorry about the rapid-fire multipostings, but this is PRICELESS. (Maybe I should make this my last nightly stop instead of my first, then I can get all this stuff into one post instead of three.)
peter johnson
« Reply #54 on: March 22, 2003, 03:30:27 PM »

Thankyou for your reply -- That's a lot to digest & I'm sure it'll take awhile to winnow through --
I've only just looked at the US/Nazi site.  While it makes for interesting reading, I think I already know a lot of this, and I'm even more up on the Henry Ford stuff than they seem to be.  Doesn't even mention Charles Lindbergh and the America Firsters, but I'm sure that's out there too --
What it doesn't address, really, is my question of in what sense "we", as a country, helped the Germans defeat France.  Really, a bunch of under-the-table financial dealings doesn't constitute a national policy, do you think?  Maybe it's just the wording of the statement I find puzzling -- I think it a bit of a leap to demonstrate ongoing bank-deals behind the scenes by individual corporate entities, not approved of by our government,  to actively assisting Rommel's push through the Ardennes.  But then again perhaps it just reflects our different take on things -- I do tend to want to believe the best & you seem to want to believe the worst, re. American intentions on the world stage.  You could be right, of course.  You say that history will bear you out.  Well, we'll see, won't we?
peter johnson
« Reply #55 on: March 22, 2003, 05:28:16 PM »

Well, lets get our stories straight. My original statement was: "we stood by and watched--even helped--the Nazi war machine roll over them," which can be misinterpreted. My meaning: many US entities--with the Government's knowledge and tacit approval; there was no way the Government could NOT know*--helped the Nazis when it was in their interests to do so. Not that they specifically aided them in their attack on France. They knowingly and willfully aided and abetted mass murderers for the sake of The Almighty Buck. And they've gone largely unpunished for it (in this life).

That wasn't in my history book in high school, and that's my larger point. We accuse, for example, the Japanese of glossing over their own unsavory moments in history, and that's pure hypocrisy.

Some people--there are examples on this board--want to believe that the United States is some sort of infallible, all-knowing, completely-responsible entity, personally blessed by God Himself, that SHOULD be running the world. But we're no more above the old "absolute power" saw than anyone else; we're just as given to corruption as any other country, and we musn't ever lose sight of that.

I do not claim that America is evil; I simply repeat that old adage: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Our worst enemies come from within, and they claim to have our best interests at heart. They want you to keep watching "Friends" and leave the driving to them. Don't let them take the wheel out of your hands.

 *Large-scale "legal" and official international dealings can't be conducted outside of government scrutiny; ask da tax man. I still remember Reagan repeating "I can't recall" over and over again--and Bush The Elder claiming he was "out of the loop"--in a similar matter during their administration; cutting illegal deals with our enemies in order to make a political "score." That's entirely possible. These men had far less to do with the decision-making than the corporations that owned the men who controlled them. Again, the main perps in that crime went unpunished.
peter johnson
« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2003, 02:16:22 AM »

Seriously, thankyou very much for a lengthy and thoughtful commentary on my questions.  I really mean it.  It is, of course, patently obvious that you are a thoughtful and reflective individual who has read widely and doesn't come by your points-of-view by arbitrary adoption.
Having said that, and I do repeat here that I have not, as yet, reviewed all of your suggested websites, I still got some problems heah . . .
Now, I have to say that my inclusion of the "kite flying" thing re. the Taliban was very stupid on my part.  It is one of those things that comes out & you don't realise until later what the hell it really means, and you made no allowance for it in the first place.  
I'll stop riffing:  I spent quite a bit of time in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- as well as Turkey and Iran -- at various times from 1977 to 1979.  I was in Iran one step behind the Shah & in Afghanistan one step ahead of the Russians.  I was not in any way at that time an agent of the Government.  I was a hitch-hiking, drug & stone & fabric smuggling so-and-so hippie.  Now, much of the social fabric of Afghanistan -- especially in and around the Kabul area -- was determined by kite-flying duels -- along with camel, dog, and goat-fighting duels.   The kites -- Pakistani in design -- were square and not rectangular in shape.  The duelists would draw glue along their strings and roll them in ground glass.  This was done to create a weapon sufficient to slash the strings of the opposing kite.   It was a gambling game, as well as an excuse to chat.  This, along with Bus-ash-kashi, or "Goat Game", was one of the true groovy things that these people did.  It was the telegraph, the telephone, and the local pub, as far as local culture went.
The point is, is that this essential social activity, along with going to the movies, watching TV, listening to secular music, playing unapproved sports, listening to unapproved radio, being a woman anywhere in the company of men, shaving, or so many other similar trivial things that I simply can't list every single one, were all banned by the Taliban on pain of torture or death.
When I was in Afghanistan in 1977, it was indeed a very tribal & mysterious place.  I could fill too many pages with stories.  My clumsy point was that even though the modern Afghanistan does not approximate a modern secular Republic, its current state is far closer to where it was before the Russian invasion and WAY before the advent of the Taliban.  It is, as far as I can tell, back to where it was when I knew it, and far more succeptible to further change.
I do, in fact, appreciate your final comments very much & see them as an attempt to find a common ground.
peter johnson
« Reply #57 on: March 23, 2003, 05:10:49 AM »

A side note I keep forgetting to put up:

Waaaaaaay back when Rumsfeld shook hands with Satan--I mean, Saddam--and called him our good friend, it was Those Damn Liberals who were warning everyone about snuggling up with The Butcher of Baghdad. Conservatives replied the usual way: dismissing Those Damn Liberals as a bunch of know-nothing pointy-headed intellectual hippy-queer tree-huggers. Who cared that he gassed his own people--he hated the same people we hated...the Iranians!

The fact that überconservatives consider "intellectual" to be an insult says volumes.

Today, Those Damn Liberals are being told: sure, we made some mistakes in the past, but you didn't say anything then, la-la. And you can't criticize our actions NOW, because EIDN (Everything Is Different Now). Trust us...we won't make the same mistake again!

Here's a fun game: try to predict which of our current "allies" that we'll be pouring money or arms into--Turkey? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia (you know, where Osama and the 9-11 hijackers came from)? Someone else?--will be our NEXT big mistake.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless « previous next »
    Jump to:  

    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email

    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.