57 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

Anyone know where I can rent a hot air balloon? I may need to escape to Cuba if Obama becomes President.

If I could, I would move to Russia if Obama or McCain become president.

Are you serious? If so, you should have a little more respect for the office and the United States.

[Mister E]

Anyone know where I can rent a hot air balloon? I may need to escape to Cuba if Obama becomes President.

If I could, I would move to Russia if Obama or McCain become president.

Are you serious? If so, you should have a little more respect for the office and the United States.

Yes I am. Last night, I was listening to Micheal Savage and a caller came on and said he is learning Russian and he's planning to move to Russia. He had been there serveral times and he sees the trend of capatilism and he and Savage agreed that the US is becoming alot more socıalıst. I am not being disrepectful of the office of the United States but what is becoming of the country. You know that the government is starting buy out banks ? CEO's are profiting over the current financial crisis, they are actually SELLING THEIR SHARES of their companies to the damn govenment. Hell forget socıalısm, that is straight up COMMUNISM. They are making BILLIONS and we are left with nothing. The country going to hell and Bush is responsible along with numerous other morons. Look at this, even Ceaser ing Chavez is calling Bush a "hard line leftist":

http://www.reuters.c...U...=22&sp=true

And you think McCain is going to do anything about this ? HA ! Neither him or Obama has said one damn thing about it.

[A Kristatos]

Cool! Another Savage fan on the board! Glad to see there are people out there that seek the truth.

[Mister E]

Cool! Another Savage fan on the board! Glad to see there are people out there that seek the truth.

He's the only conservative radio talk show host I enjoy. Everyone else is just sheep for the Republican party.

[sark]

You're going to Russia in search of free market capitalism? Am I reading the index of economic freedom backwards, or is Russia ranked 134th, compared to the 5th for the US?

Oh, I didn't realize it would be necessary to point out that I was being ironic before

[Mister E]

You're going to Russia in search of free market capitalism? Am I reading the index of economic freedom backwards, or is Russia ranked 134th, compared to the 5th for the US?

Oh, I didn't realize it would be necessary to point out that I was being ironic before

Really it's damn near impossible to measure economic freedom. I have read up on it but I know the US is turning communist while Russia is stearing in the opposite direction. Maybe not overnight but it's happening.

[sark]

You're going to Russia in search of free market capitalism? Am I reading the index of economic freedom backwards, or is Russia ranked 134th, compared to the 5th for the US?

Oh, I didn't realize it would be necessary to point out that I was being ironic before

Really it's damn near impossible to measure economic freedom. I have read up on it but I know the US is turning communist while Russia is stearing in the opposite direction. Maybe not overnight but it's happening.

Wrong and wronger. (partially) Nationalizing some industries does not a communist country make. If that were the case, most members of NATO would be "communist". In regards to Russia, it has never been laissez-faire, ever, and there are no indications it will. In fact, the state has taken MORE control of the economy, not less, since Putin assumed power.

[Judo chop]

I like Robert Davi in LTK. A lot.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Cool! Another Savage fan on the board! Glad to see there are people out there that seek the truth.

He's the only conservative radio talk show host I enjoy. Everyone else is just sheep for the Republican party.

I prefer Dr. Demento

Is he still around,

Or has run off to Aruba with Victoria Iseman, a'la Strangways with his secretary? It was suspected.)

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 17 October 2008 - 03:38 PM.

[Mister E]

Wrong and wronger. (partially) Nationalizing some industries does not a communist country make.

No, it's part of what makes a communist country. Too close for comfort. When Ceaser Chavez calls Bush an "ally" and a "hard line leftist", you know there is something wrong. Besides that, the US government already has too much power.

In regards to Russia, it has never been laissez-faire, ever, and there are no indications it will. In fact, the state has taken MORE control of the economy, not less, since Putin assumed power.

The Cold War mentality is still very much present in Russia. 1991 is only seventeen years ago, radical change won't come for decades.

[Royal Dalton]

Wrong and wronger. (partially) Nationalizing some industries does not a communist country make.

No, it's part of what makes a communist country.

It can also be part of what doesn't make a communist country. Ian Fleming's James Bond fought to defend a country with a large number of nationalised industries. It was called Great Britain.

And it's Hugo Chavez, not Cesar.

[Mister E]

It can also be part of what doesn't make a communist country. Ian Fleming's James Bond fought to defend a country with a large number of nationalised industries. It was called Great Britain.

And now a days it ain't so great now isn't it ? Fleming himself wrote that in more then one of his Bond books. Anyway it's Communist-lite, or socıalısm if you will.

And it's Hugo Chavez, not Cesar.

Regardless, my point still stands about Red Cesar's comments.

[Safari Suit]

Wrong and wronger. (partially) Nationalizing some industries does not a communist country make.

No, it's part of what makes a communist country.

It can also be part of what doesn't make a communist country. Ian Fleming's James Bond fought to defend a country with a large number of nationalised industries. It was called Great Britain.

[sark]

It can also be part of what doesn't make a communist country. Ian Fleming's James Bond fought to defend a country with a large number of nationalised industries. It was called Great Britain.

And now a days it ain't so great now isn't it ? Fleming himself wrote that in more then one of his Bond books. Anyway it's Communist-lite, or socıalısm if you will.

Ah yes, England and the rest of Europe is one step away from turning into Cuba

[Mister E]

It can also be part of what doesn't make a communist country. Ian Fleming's James Bond fought to defend a country with a large number of nationalised industries. It was called Great Britain.

And now a days it ain't so great now isn't it ? Fleming himself wrote that in more then one of his Bond books. Anyway it's Communist-lite, or socıalısm if you will.

Ah yes, England and the rest of Europe is one step away from turning into Cuba

Oh not one step just like the US isn't just one step. Maybe it won't get as bad as Cuba, maybe it will. Vladimir Bukovsky, a former Soviet political dissident who spent years in Russian prision camps stated that the EU is turning into the next USSR. Here is a great quote from him:

This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.

[Jim]

I'd say Europe, in another 50 years or so, will need rescuing from American military forces all over again.

From? Or by?

Hmm.

[Mister E]

Ah yes, England and the rest of Europe is one step away from turning into Cuba

It's more likely to resemble Turkey than Cuba. Based upon the Dutch reaction to Islamic extremists in their country over that cartoon featuring Allah a few years ago, the inability of the French to keep their Muslim immigrants from burning down the inner cities, and the high courts in Britain agreeing that Sharia law is applicable in their modern court system, I'd say Europe, in another 50 years or so, will need rescuing from American military forces all over again.

End of line.

I don't know about the nessecity of American military intervention but I agree with the rest of what you say GS.

[Jim]

I'd say Europe, in another 50 years or so, will need rescuing from American military forces all over again.

From? Or by?

Hmm.

From themselves. However, American forces will be in no position to aid Europe. First of all, the U.S. won't have 50 states in 2058; the country will have broken up into a variety of nation-states. Vermont and New Hampshire will have finally seceded from the Union, as will the states in the Southeast region from The Carolinas to Texas. The Southeast will secede again, this time because of lack of energy independence, lack of border enforcement, and lack of illegal immigration enforcement. The Gulf States will take their oil with them. President Chelsea Rodham-Clinton will attack the new confederacy, but when millions of illegal immigrants begin fleeing the war zone of the South and into the states that the Union holds, she'll pull out of the Southeast Republic of States faster than her father pulled out of Somalia.

California, Washington, and Oregon will form a political alliance to try and help bolster Washington D.C.'s power, but Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and North Dakota will form an alliance to try and act as a counterbalance.

Secondly, China will have greater influence in Europe, and thanks to the information technology that was sold to them, they're now fully capable of launching nuclear ICBMs. The U.S. won't dare take any military action without risking Chinese reprisals.

Thirdly, Iran will threaten to nuke several major European cities if Sharia law isn't implemented into the EU charter, and if the EU doesn't allow for Muslims to have political autonomy in places like London, Paris, and Brussels. Sound far-fetched? The U.S. has a similar policy with Native Americans, allowing them federal reservations where U.S. law can't touch them.

Rear endeth the lesson.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Just for the halibut:

[sark]

Dennis Hopper is joining the 'Republicans for Obama' bandwagon, apparently.

[Superhobo]

Eesh, this thread.

[Dr. Tynan]

[Tarl_Cabot]

and...?

[Dr. Tynan]

And this.

[Righty007]

Mods, please merge this thread with: http://debrief.comma...showtopic=48813

[Dr. Tynan]

Ironically, I've noticed that so much of the talent in Hollywood in front of the camera or in front of the microphone tends to be liberal and Democratic, but the producers, business agents, accountants, tax executives, and people who write the checks and actually have to manage the business tend to be Republicans.

Interesting.

[Matt_13]

If I didn't like Michael Moore I'm sure I'd find this hilarious. For those that it appeals to it certainly looks a step above all the other terrible spoofs we've had as of late.

[Safari Suit]

If I didn't like Michael Moore I'm sure I'd find this hilarious. For those that it appeals to it certainly looks a step above all the other terrible spoofs we've had as of late.

If you mean the Friedberg/Seltzer wave of spoofs like Date and Epic Movie then, yeah, it's better (OK, granted, I've judged those movies just from trailers and other clips rather than the whole things, but lets admit it; so has absolutely everyone else who didn't go to see them). But it's still not a funny movie, and you hardly have to be a Moore fan or to the left of Lenin to find some of it leaving a bad taste in your mouth.

I watched it last month and wrote a review of it in the "What Movie Have You Seen Today Thread" and it was long. So long that, even though I doubt anywhere cares about this movie a year later let alone what I think of it, I'm going to post it again to get more mileage out of it.

I remember a review on Aint It Cool News, probably the only genuinely positive one I read, which said that while they may well disagree or dislike the movie, even pinko hippy commie liberal wimps are going to have to admit that David Zucker has "guts" (the review used a different term, in typical AICN graphic detail) to make this movie rather than say Scary Movie 5. And I do, it did take guts to make this. Sadly that doesn't mean he made a good film. Ultimately, for all the serious political points the movie wants to get across, it's still a very broad comedy in the tradition of Airplane!, and in order for a movie in that tradition to be considered a success it needs to have a good number of laughs. I wouldn't say that I laughed even once during this movie. I kind of audibly smirked once (when Malone tells a boy scout that he shouldn't be wearing a fascistic uniform), and I smiled every now and then, but still, this is not a funny movie.

Can a comedy still be worthwhile even if it doesn't actually make you laugh? I would say yes, but the lack of laughs is far from the film's only problem. The scenes with the trio of Islamic terrorists including our very own Robert Davi are, in addition to being staggeringly unfunny, incredibly tedious and don't even seem particularly tasteless or shocking once you get past the basic idea. It's a very mean-spirited movie, and many scenes leave a bitter aftertaste. Considering David Zucker wrote dialogue that out and out states that Hollywood should be making movies that celebrate America's positive qualities rather than dwelling on stuff like McCarthyism, this film is sure filled with a lot of venom for vast swathes of American people. This film vilifies protesters (of any kind), rally organisers, ACLU members, university students, university lecturers, university graduates (in so far as the film implies they only get a degree by writing whatever will please the liberal leanings of their teachers), people who don't like country music(!) and people who had the gall to have once been hippies in 1968. There also seemed to be a strain of homophobia in the film, but then again I suppose the same is true of most American comedy films. The film's distain towards everyone bar soldiers, certain historical figures, small town American families having 4th of July picnics underneath a flag, Trace Adkins and Bill O'Reilly quickly becomes wearying and depressing. Some of his targets seem like bizarre choices to me too. I can understand why a film like this might go after Jimmy Carter, but to mock him for "droning on" about Israel seems to sort of glorifying ignorance and apathy to me.

Along those lines Zucker also seems to have a great deal of contempt for documentary makers in general, not just Michael Moore it seems, but anyone in that field. Over and over again the film makes the point that no one actually enjoys documentaries or goes to see them, and that Oscars for documentaries don't really count. Why then has he bothered to make a film all about one particular documentary maker, and why he is so "wrong"?

Still it's nice to see John O'Hurley again. And David Alan Grier, who makes the most of the slavery scene, which is the closest the film comes (not that close) to being truly inspired. It's quite well performed all round really. Kevin Farley is likable as Michael "Malone" and is a much subtler performer than his late brother. But sadly while the performances make the film more watchable, they don't bring the laughs.

I've gone on about this movie quite enough, though believe me I could go on about it loads more. Obviously I didn't like the movie (nor really expected to if I'm being totally honest), but for most of the time (i.e whenever the terrorists weren't on screen) I wasn't bored. I have a vague, grudging admiration for it, even though I resent much of what it says. I'm prepared to bet it's 100 times the movie something like Disaster Movie is, for that matter I'd much rather watch this again than something like The Proposal. But for all the guts and heart Zucker put into the movie, I can't help feeling a lot of the time he should have tried harder. For example there's a movie mentioned in the film which is obviously meant to be Good Night and Good Luck but with a spoof title. What is the title? Gee, That McCarthy Sure Was Bad. Similarly, we hear the title of one of "Malone"'s films; Shame on You, America. There was another one along those lines that I can't even remember. Those titles just about sum up the level of the movie's satire; it's at about the level of an irate poster on the IMDB board for Sicko. And that's lower than the level of an irate poster on the IMDB board for Farenheit 9/11.

While we're on the subject of spoofs, if you think they couldn't get any worse, it seems you're wrong:

And believe it or not, the Red Band version is even worse!

And a truly bizzare one... in the tradition of Date and Disaster Movie comes... Spanish Movie?!?!