Comments Posted By Jim Rockford
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments

MY TOP TEN MOVIE LINES OF ALL TIME

1. "Yippie Kay Yay M-F" Bruce Willis, Die Hard.
2. "Luke I am your father," James Earl Jones, Empire Strikes Back.
3. "It's not the years, it's the mileage," Harrison Ford, Indiana Jones.
4. "I want you to check every outhouse, henhouse, and whorehouse within fifteen miles." Tommy Lee Jones, the Fugitive.
5. "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy," Alec Guinness, Star Wars.

Comment Posted By Jim Rockford On 17.08.2007 @ 17:20

O'REILLY VERSUS HOLLYWOOD

You've got to be joking, right?

Hollywood DOES NOT CARE ABOUT MAKING MONEY. This is the business reality of the Hollywood process.

Producers, directors, actors, writers, even big stars and guys like Peter Jackson get cheated. Jackson is suing for his profits due him for Lord of the Rings series. They don't get any "upside" i.e. a movie does well and they share in the profits, and don't get any downside (they still get paid even if the movie bombs). This is a situation that will ALWAYS result in the producers, directors, writers, and actors making films that cater to their anti-American, anti-Average guy view.

Almost 6 years after 9/11 and there is ONE film that shows Muslim terrorism (and most of the film focuses on the passengers and their families) and that one, Flight 93, was presented as a downer. EVERY terrorist is shown as European with no ties to Muslims. It's not just Syriana, or Road to Guantanomo, or Munich, but all those films and countless others which present Muslims as innocents brutalized by Americans or Israelis.

Hollywood makes about 500 movies a year. Out of those, only 3-4 actually make money in significant amounts and end up carrying the industry. And even those get elements removed because anti-American sentiment comes before profits. "Truth, Justice and all that" instead of "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" in Superman.

Shareholders care about making money. But they have little leverage. Execs are canned and have such short spans (and significantly, don't share in profits) so they need to find their next job by greenlighting anti-American projects that will lose money or not make much so they can be recommended by Steven or George when they get fired next year. Short-term focus makes network-building by catering to the hard-left and aristo pretensions of the Hollywood elite a slam-dunk.

Look at 300, and the howls of derision against it in HOLLYWOOD. Because it made money, celebrated Western nationalism, and individualism, and the ordinary man, against a decadent and tyrannical eastern threat. Snyder and Miller should have shown a slam-dunk formula, but no one is copying the film at all.

I get it. Hollywood is filled with Alpha males who hate/fear/loathe the ordinary guy and want him to just go away and die. They cannot make films celebrating teamwork, dedication, and the little guy. Fred Zinneman's "Day of the Jackal" with it's everyman police inspector against the aristo-clever lone assassin could not be made today.

WHY Hollywood picks the CIA as the villain? Simple it's a national security bureacracy, first and foremost Hollywood objects to America in and of itself (being wealthy, privileged aristos, many of the second-third generation), and next the ability of the bureacracy to allow the ordinary man enough power to rival that of an Ivy League graduating, connected, and "genius" A-Lister. We can't have that.

That Matt Damon is the lead in the Bourne movies is no accident. You would not find an "everyman" in that series, certainly no one with a blue-collar schtick like Bruce Willis in the Die Hard movies.

[Hollywood probably loses money on most films. The Saw franchise might make a small profit, but it's not a money maker like the Spider-Man films, Pirates, Harry Potter, and other fantasy and comic-book movies where actual heroes and villains can be presented without Hollywood's social status/caste markers dictating that America, and everymen are the enemy and the cool, hip, edgy, socially privileged Hollywood A-Listers the heroes.]

Comment Posted By Jim Rockford On 13.08.2007 @ 21:07

MAKING THE CASE FOR A LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO IRAQ

Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. Iran is likely to light off a few nukes and then start making demands: US surrender in Iraq, protector of Muslims in Europe, perhaps protector of Muslims in America.

Pakistan could fall at any moment to the Taliban and Zawahari. Bill Roggio's reporting makes it clear the Taliban and AQ will even fight the CHINESE to make this happen.

As such, unless we stay for decades, leaving Iraq to it's own devices is guaranteed to paste a giant "Nuke Me" sign on our cities. Weakness invites attack: from a nuclear Iran, a Nuclear-armed Taliban/AQ, from AQ around the world.

We could of course leave Iraq and on our way out hit Iran's facilities and Pakistan's nukes. Leaving no doubt about the US ability AND Will to rock and roll.

But very likely Dems will simply listen to Kos who does indeed run the party and retreat ala Saigon 1975 times 100.

Comment Posted By Jim Rockford On 8.08.2007 @ 23:54

STABBED IN THE WHAT?

RLAing --

If you looked at the Peace movement you'd conclude that middle aged and younger women were getting blown up in Iraq. Yet consistently troops engaged in combat re-enlist in record numbers.

Moreover you and Milo evade the question. Withdraw/Surrender to bin Laden and Iran (if we lose they win, simple as that) and prove that we can be driven out of anywhere at the cost of 3-4 thousand dead.

[Note: predictably Maxine Waters and the CBC are calling for an immediate surrender in AFGHANISTAN, calling it just like Iraq. If Dems get their way in Iraq, which is likely, they will also run away with the White Flag in Afghanistan. Making things even worse.]

Please explain how that absent something *ELSE* does not put a giant "nuke me" sign on every American city to get the US to submit to Islam and Islamic rule?

Particularly when Musharaff hangs by a thread and the Taliban controls much of Pakistan. The Red Mosque in Islamabad controlling the capital. The ISI filled with the followers of Mullah Omar and Osama. Forget Iran, PAKISTAN is at least a mortal threat.

If Dems/Leftists/Liberals proposed: "look Iraq and Afghanistan have not worked out, let's nuke the hell out of Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi, withdraw to Saudi, pump every last drop of oil dry and then leave" well sure, I'd be for that. If you want to change course and leave unmistakable that it's a VERY VERY VERY BAD IDEA to attack the US, be seen to even threaten to attack the US with nukes, I'm all for it.

Because the game we are playing for literally is the death of MILLIONS of Americans and the loss of a number of our great cities.

Want to keep NYC? LA? Chicago? Boston? Dallas? Then you damn well better have SOMETHING to deter Pakistan, Iran, and every other lunatic with enough cash at Lil Kim's Korean Nuke's n Things take-out. Weakness invites aggression, if you look at A Jacksonian's link to Management of Savagery these guys are not idiots.

Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo, all serious and dangerous enemies of the US, never managed to bring down NYC skyscrapers, and kill thousands of Americans in the center of our commercial and political centers. Osama did.

It's about time we got about to killing him and dragging his corpse around, or failing that killing everyone around him in Pakistan as an object lesson if we are going to bug out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you don't like those measures, you're up for a long nasty fight in both those countries. Taking maybe generations. Choose your poison. But don't forget the stakes:

NYC. Chicago. LA. Boston. Dallas. Seattle. San Diego. Atlanta. Denver. Kansas City. St. Louis. Minneapolis. Miami.

Forget stab in the back. Want to play, "who got those cities nuked?" I didn't think so.

Comment Posted By Jim Rockford On 29.06.2007 @ 01:39

TIME IS NOW THE BIGGEST ENEMY IN IRAQ

You may have thought Iraq a bad idea, why not "cut a deal" with peaceful kite-flyer Saddam and show everyone who "congenial" i.e. weak America is. Or you might have wanted SOMEONE'S butt to get kicked after Afghanistan just to make the point: don't pick fights with America.

Regardless, we are now fighting: Al Qaeda and Iran's Qods Force in Iraq. That's who is killing innocents, and our guys.

If we leave, Al Qaeda and Iran win. We lose. Already every nation in and around the Gulf has decided we will not stop Iran's nukes and has started their own nuclear program. This includes: Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi, Oman, UAE, YEMEN! and outside the region Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia.

We leave Iraq, Al Qaeda runs the Sunni areas and Iran the Shia. Wow nothing bad will happen there now will it.

Dems to a man (except for Hillary) reject the War on Terror, that terrorism is a threat, that we could get nuked (watch Obama's deer in the headlights reminiscent of Dukakis look), that we can and should respond with military force to mass casualty terrorism, that we face dangers.

Globalization has brought cheap stuff from China to Wal Mart and terrorism from Pakistan to say, Manhattan. Or Arlington VA. Or Shanks Field PA. Dems have bet the farm that somehow surrendering to Al Qaeda and Iran will magically make angry and genocidal Muslims around the world who want a universal Caliphate and destruction of the US happy. And make them refrain from mass casualty terrorism.

We simply don't have the stomach, politically for relatively light casualties. We lost 5,000 men in the first few hours of Normandy. Over 50,000 in the campaign there. So we will retreat, surrender, appease, cower, grovel. Until we wake up and find several cities gone (because weakness invites aggression). Then we will wage a war of annihilation ala the Pacific 1941-45. Only much uglier.

In a sane world with a functioning political class we'd stay in Iraq for decades. At least as long as South Korea, Japan, and Germany. Manage the killing to an acceptable level. Deter Iran from adventures, and defeat Al Qaeda which has proclaimed themselves on the cusp of victory over the US.

But instead Dems wish partisan advantage over patriotism. And preach appeasement lunacy against an enemy who cannot be appeased or negotiated with.

Comment Posted By Jim Rockford On 29.04.2007 @ 15:19


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page