My beef with Stone has always been on purely historical grounds.
His fantasy about Nixon - Nixon meeting with the cabal that killed Kennedy - and trying to pass the picture off as some kind of biography is ludicrous.
Ditto JFK. I've read two dozen books on the assassination (most of them regarding conspiracy theories) and all one needs to debunk each and every one of them is a little common sense and the conspiracists favorite source book; the Warren Commission Report.
If that weren't bad enough, Stone made a hero in that film of a homophobic, paranoid, glory hound who was running for Governor of LA to boot. The case against Garrison is infinitely stronger than the case he made against poor Clay Shaw whose life he ruined.
I could give a good goddamn about Stone's "vision." It is his twisting and warping of history that is reason for his being kicked out of the academy.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 29.04.2006 @ 17:50
What? You want me to delete "such a well written post?"
What are ya, nuts? (lol)Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 29.04.2006 @ 10:57
Your comment was deleted for being so off topic that it wasn't even from the same planet.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 29.04.2006 @ 10:54
Pretty lame attempt at satire. More exaggeration please.
Instead of saying "george bush is the greatest leader that we deserve, and I am hopeful that he will somehow be able to serve another four years" you could have written something like "George Bush is my God and we should annoint him King."
Otherwise, one could mistake you for a real Bush lover instead of the sorry excuse for a moonbat that you are.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 29.04.2006 @ 11:25
No. I'm the neutral story teller.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 28.04.2006 @ 11:19
You're confusing moonbattery with plain old idiocy. There's a difference.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 27.04.2006 @ 13:35
Your theory would fall apart if Democrats were in control of Congress.
This isn't about ideology, it is pure power politics played out by a powerful lobby and with pressure applied against the party in power.
Yes, there are corporate flunkies in the Republican party as there are in the Democratic party. The statists from both parties love this bill. The point is, it's a hell of a lot easier for the telecoms to bribe the E & C committee than the whole Congress which is why this bill is ticketed either for oblivion or defeat.
Stop trying to draw broad lessons from such narrow examples. It's ridiculous. Most congressmen don't even know what the heck they're voting on half the time. Conservatism doesn't "lead" to anything anymore than liberalism "leads" to treason.
You should have seen the corporate hogs feeding on Democratic largesse in the 1980's. You'd be singing a different tune if you did.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 27.04.2006 @ 11:47
If you want real numbers from a reputable, nonpartisan firm, look at the extensive analysis of immigration attitudes done by Pew.
Are you effing kidding me?
Rassmussen is the most accurate polling group around. They were the nation's most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome. And what's more, they poll likely voters - as opposed to Pew who polls everybody and their pet dog.
The impact on Republicans who don't take an enforcement first position is much more pronounced because of the states where immigration is a hot issue; Florida, Texas, NM, AZ, and CA - all except CA Republican states. The farther you get away from the border, the less important the issue is. Ergo, Republicans have a lot more to lose by supporting the President on immigration than Democrats who will still use the issue to savage Republicans.
When 40% of the electorate wants to send 11 million people home, that goes far beyond whatever your idea of "the base" is as far as enforcement is concerned.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 26.04.2006 @ 16:47
From Rassmussen survey of 4/7/06:
"Forty-six percent (46%) of Americans said that they prefer the candidate with the harder line on illegal aliens while 38% opt for the candidate who wants to expand legal opportunities for foreign workers to find jobs.
However, those who say the immigration issue is very important in determining their vote prefer the pro-enforcement candidate by a much larger margin, 67% to 23%. This suggests that the short-term political advantage on the immigration issue lies with those who want a tougher enforcement policy.
Fifty percent (50%) of Americans say the immigration issue is very important. Another 32% say it is somewhat important.
An earlier survey found that two-thirds of Americans believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. That same survey found that 40% of Americans favor "forcibly" requiring all 11 million illegal immigrants to leave the United States."
Looks like the middle agrees with me and that your critique is the one that is utter nonsense. The only people who are strongly for this immigration bill are the center-left.
BTW - before you criticize someone, make sure you have an inkling of what you're talking about.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 26.04.2006 @ 15:06
Got that right, dog.
Zieg Heil, baby!Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 25.04.2006 @ 13:05
Pages (132) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87  89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132