OT: Death of a President movie

Post by **Jared** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:28 pm

I'm all for debate here...but let's not knock non-native speakers for their spelling skills here.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:36 pm

Jared wrote:I'm all for debate here...but let's not knock non-native speakers for their spelling skills here.

If you saw my father write something youd change your mind

I love you dad.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:11 pm

Jared wrote:I'm all for debate here...but let's not knock non-native speakers for their spelling skills here.

My bad.

I am from Detroit. Is that non-native?

Post by **Jared** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:39 pm

JackDog wrote: My bad.

I am from Detroit. Is that non-native?

After the game today, Detroit-ans can spell however the hell they want.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:13 pm

Jared wrote:
JackDog wrote: My bad.

I am from Detroit. Is that non-native?
After the game today, Detroit-ans can spell however the hell they want.

No doubt.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:33 am

I just want to say that this thread proves that we all can have a great discussion here and have different opinions and not let the thread go to sh*t. There have been some great points made here by all and this is how a forum should run!

Anyway, just thought that deserved to be said. Good job!
Carry on.......

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:28 pm

JackB1 wrote:I just want to say that this thread proves that we all can have a great discussion here and have different opinions and not let the thread go to sh*t. There have been some great points made here by all and this is how a forum should run!

Anyway, just thought that deserved to be said. Good job!
Carry on.......

Give it time... j/k

-G7

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:11 pm

pk500 wrote:
tealboy03 wrote:Political hack horseshit. If the man did a hit piece on the sitting Pope, for example, he'd be tarred and feathered. Or on Kim Jong, for that matter.

This guy's a jerkwad who needs to be shitcanned. Freedom of speech, my ass. This is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind; lie to yourself all you want...
Actually, it's EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers had in mind. I'm sure the British -- the sitting government at the time in the Colonies -- and their loyalist supporters saw Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" as being as seditious as many see this film.

Take care,
PK

Context. Take away 'moving pictures' and have someone write a hit piece like this in the Virginian about George Washington, and see if his ass doesn't wind up in stocks, jail, or six feet under...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:53 pm

tealboy03 wrote:Context. Take away 'moving pictures' and have someone write a hit piece like this in the Virginian about George Washington, and see if his ass doesn't wind up in stocks, jail, or six feet under...

So that makes it right? No. Your hypothetical would be as much of an affront to the First Amendment as censoring this movie.

The Constitution is a literal document, not something that should be spun, folded and mutilated to suit the prevailing whimsy of the political party in power at the time or what you think is right or wrong.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Period. If the Supreme Court rejected a hypothetical suit against this movie because the film is allowable under the First Amendment, then it can and should be shown. Whether you go see it is up to you, and anyone who does go see it is exercising their free rights, not a violator of the Alien and Sedition Act.

Take care,
PK

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:37 pm

pk500 wrote:
tealboy03 wrote:Context. Take away 'moving pictures' and have someone write a hit piece like this in the Virginian about George Washington, and see if his ass doesn't wind up in stocks, jail, or six feet under...
So that makes it right? No. Your hypothetical would be as much of an affront to the First Amendment as censoring this movie.

The Constitution is a literal document, not something that should be spun, folded and mutilated to suit the prevailing whimsy of the political party in power at the time or what you think is right or wrong.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Period. If the Supreme Court rejected a hypothetical suit against this movie because the film is allowable under the First Amendment, then it can and should be shown. Whether you go see it is up to you, and anyone who does go see it is exercising their free rights, not a violator of the Alien and Sedition Act.

Take care,
PK

Okay, then I'm free to say that the nutsack who wrote this isn't worth the dirt on the shoes of the losers who go to see it...try that kind of bullshit in any other 'free' country, and see how far they let that crap go...

I like that you think that they'd be perfectly okay with this garbage. You're making the Constitution into a hand binder for normal people, and a free pass for freaks. That's okay, as you aren't sitting on the Supreme Court. Freedom of Speech is one thing...this goes WAAAAY beyond talking.

Anyone who doesn't think this'll be required cinema for Al Achbed bin Scumbag as a way to rally the troops, think again...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:05 pm

tealboy03 wrote:Okay, then I'm free to say that the nutsack who wrote this isn't worth the dirt on the shoes of the losers who go to see it...try that kind of bullshit in any other 'free' country, and see how far they let that crap go...

Fine. But we're discussing the United States Constitution here, not the Magna Carta or the Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana.

tealboy03 wrote:I like that you think that they'd be perfectly okay with this garbage. You're making the Constitution into a hand binder for normal people, and a free pass for freaks. That's okay, as you aren't sitting on the Supreme Court. Freedom of Speech is one thing...this goes WAAAAY beyond talking.

Why? It's fiction. It's a movie, not a training video. Plus the vast majority of time of the movie deals with the governmental transition, search for the killer and media hysteria that such an event would create after the murder rather than the violent, horrible act itself.

tealboy03 wrote:Anyone who doesn't think this'll be required cinema for Al Achbed bin Scumbag as a way to rally the troops, think again...

And you don't think they already have assassination of Bush on their twisted, evil "To Do" list? As if this is going to spawn any kind of "Gee, we didn't we think of that?" idea?

Take care,
PK

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:42 am

I don't think freedom of speech is the issue here. Not many people (except teal I guess) think it should be censored. What I and others were saying is that it's repulsive, not that it should be illegal. So far, the only counter-arguments I have seen here are "oh yeah, well Bush is repulsive too" and "they should be free to say whatever they want", neither of which are arguments against its repulsiveness.

From what I have read about the movie, it doesn't sound particularly compelling anyway, as it's just the same old tripe about Cheney being evil and hating your freedom and stupid Americans hating innocent Muslims. Liberal fantasy movies are old hat now - Lord of War, V for Vendetta, Syriana, etc. In my judgment, this new one only includes the assassination as a publicity stunt for a movie that would otherwise be completely ignored, not because it was necessary to set up the rest of the movie. And in my opinion that's pretty tasteless.

emelki · Post by **emelki** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:09 pm

JackDog wrote:
Jared wrote:I'm all for debate here...but let's not knock non-native speakers for their spelling skills here.
My bad.

I am from Detroit. Is that non-native?

Just two quick things about what you said:
"Your right. You pegged me. At this point of my life I am about as open to someone from another country ripping the President as I am to an assraping. I want nothing to do with it. Become a citizen then b*tch away". I think that these words show the kind of open mind that you are. I don;t need to add nothing to that.

Second, and most important. I don't blame Aznar for the Al Qaeda's terrorist attack. I blame him because he went to War not using the most principal idea of a Democracy (the vote of the people). He went to War with a 90% of the country against that decision. I would call that kind of act to be very close to a dictatorship. And the extract tha you posted made me laugh because all the people that were saying that implied that we were COWARDS. Are you implying that too... because it would represents a lack of knowledge in this case.
What we showed with our votes was: 1) To be able to send people to War, first you have to ask your own people, not do whatever you want, even if that is going against their desires. 2) We think that there is a better way to resolve our problems, especially when Iraq didn't have anything to do with 11/9. Apparently we are forgotting that too.

Thanks, especially to Jared for your message.

(Quizas la proxima vez debo escribir en Espanol para no cometer faltas de ortografia)

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:16 pm

I'm not really for axing freedom of speech, just dumbfounded and pissed off that vermin like this exist. I let that shape my posts at times, but don't have any desire to go down the slippery slope of putting limiters on freedoms like this one...

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:59 pm

FatPitcher wrote:I don't think freedom of speech is the issue here. Not many people (except teal I guess) think it should be censored. What I and others were saying is that it's repulsive, not that it should be illegal. So far, the only counter-arguments I have seen here are "oh yeah, well Bush is repulsive too" and "they should be free to say whatever they want", neither of which are arguments against its repulsiveness.

From what I have read about the movie, it doesn't sound particularly compelling anyway, as it's just the same old tripe about Cheney being evil and hating your freedom and stupid Americans hating innocent Muslims. Liberal fantasy movies are old hat now - Lord of War, V for Vendetta, Syriana, etc. In my judgment, this new one only includes the assassination as a publicity stunt for a movie that would otherwise be completely ignored, not because it was necessary to set up the rest of the movie. And in my opinion that's pretty tasteless.

I can't comment on the movie's merits without seeing it first. But repulsive does not necessary mean unworthy of study or attention. Look at Birth of a Nation. Horribly racist. But an important film in the advancement of filmmaking. Likewise you can appreciate the artistic and historical significance of something like Triumph of the Will while also being repulsed by its glorification of Nazism.

Like I said above, I do think it's in bad taste to fictionalize Bush's assassination, but at the same time, the idea of this film is a documentary set in the near future, so it was probably done as much to make it seem "real" as it was for shock value.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:31 pm

emelki wrote: Second, and most important. I don't blame Aznar for the Al Qaeda's terrorist attack. I blame him because he went to War not using the most principal idea of a Democracy (the vote of the people). He went to War with a 90% of the country against that decision. I would call that kind of act to be very close to a dictatorship. And the extract tha you posted made me laugh because all the people that were saying that implied that we were COWARDS. Are you implying that too... because it would represents a lack of knowledge in this case.
What we showed with our votes was: 1) To be able to send people to War, first you have to ask your own people, not do whatever you want, even if that is going against their desires. 2) We think that there is a better way to resolve our problems, especially when Iraq didn't have anything to do with 11/9. Apparently we are forgotting that too.

Thanks, especially to Jared for your message.

(Quizas la proxima vez debo escribir en Espanol para no cometer faltas de ortografia)

Short and sweet answer to your post.

1. I never called the people of Spain cowards. I served with some of your countryman in Iraq and have the upmost respect for them. On the other hand I am happy my country didn't pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan because of threats from terriorist. I don't believe that is the way to deal with these people. They need to be killed. Plain and simple. I have seen their work firsthand years before 9/11. We cut and ran in Africa and Bin Laden himself called the US a paper lion with no heart for that move. That led to further attacks on America in my opinion.

2. In this country when you enlist into the Armed Services you do as your ordered. The decision to invade Iraq was voted on and passed by the politicians we put into office. Bush didn't do it alone. At that time it was about a 50/50 split in this country on going to Iraq. Not 90%. Right or wrong it doesn't matter now because we are there. Bush might do many things wrong but the terriorist want him out of office for a reason. Why is that do you suppose?

3. As far as your point about 9/11 and Iraq. If we could click our heels and go back to Kansas I am sure many politicians would take back their vote to go into Iraq. But that's a moot point now. As of today 10/9/06 the group that attacked my country and yours is killing innocent people in Iraq. If I could I would go back in a heartbeat to serve again and help kill them. It will take time but I hope the politicians do the right thing and finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I gotta go. I am trying to get a brother elected to the Senate here in TN.
If I offended you. Sorry. Welcome to America!!

Jack.