Comments Posted By lionheart
Displaying 91 To 100 Of 216 Comments


Good choices (I've seen most but not all of your selections).

Here's a couple more that thrilled me:

1. the Paris apartment fight in the "Bourne Identity" between Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) and the CIA's assasin;
2. the climatic sword duel between Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) and Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth) in the "Rob Roy".

Both good ones. For my money, the fight between Bourne and the Algerian asset in Bourne 3 was the best. Very confined space they were fighting in.


Comment Posted By lionheart On 15.06.2009 @ 14:12


Taking a dump into a water well just to hear the turds echo when they hit bottom is a pastime for village idiots

There you go, giving people ideas...

Comment Posted By lionheart On 12.06.2009 @ 12:31



You know, sometimes I am such an asshole. As soon as I hit the "submit comment" button, I realized that you were not being snarky, you were just suggesting I do a bit of research. So I am nasty, after asking everybody to be nice to me concerning my ignorance.

I apologize for the tone of my last comment. You did not deserve that, and I am a true asshole.

That's the best apology I can offer, and I do it here publicly.

Comment Posted By lionheart On 12.06.2009 @ 19:56

James H,

Thanks for that informative tip. Boy did that shed light on the subject! Wow... I am enlightened!

By the way, its called the "commerce clause" not the "interstate commerce clause".

Of course, my comment specifically mentioned tobacco growing states, not INTERSTATE commerce. While not being a constitutional scholar like you, I was well aware of the commerce clause, as well as the federal funding clause, as well as the forced participation clause: I got all of that off Wikipedia.

And please don't quote anything you read on Wiki about Wikard vs. Filburn: I've read it too. FDR's liberal-packed Supreme Court had one of the best ass-reamings in the history of precedence in US vs. Lopez in 1995, which was described as "the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce".

The biggest mystery of all is Scalia's concurrence with the majority in Gonzales vs. Raich in 2005. Rarely have Rehnquist and Thomas voted opposite of Scalia, and my tiny brain does not comprehend the logic that is usually so clear in Scalia's writings.

I think you've answered my question, James. Thanks for all that information. And thanks to you too, Wikipedia.

Comment Posted By lionheart On 12.06.2009 @ 19:50

I willingly admit that I am daft on constitutional law. But where in the constitution is the federal government granted the power to regulate consumable goods? Alternatively, where in the constitution are the states forbidden that power?

In the absence of either of these, doesn't the 10th amendment allow the tobacco growing states to tell the federal government to shove it up their ass?

Be nice, ye constitutional scholars... I'm just asking a question.

Comment Posted By lionheart On 12.06.2009 @ 15:00

Excellent post. I disagree with only one statement: the fact that smokers live 20 years less than non-smokers does not necessarily comport with less health costs for them. Many of those young, dead smokers spent the last 5 or 10 years of their lives having surgery after surgery, chemotherapy, oxygen tanks, angioplasty, etc. The added healthcare costs associated with their smoking is astronomically high compared to those of non-smokers that are even 20 years older (I admint that I have no references to back that up, only my own anecdotal evidence).

This government intrusion into our lives is still a terrible thing, but I'd love to see you use it as an excuse to stop smoking. We all want you around for a while.

And non-smokers die peacefully in their beds? One in three of those over 80 will get cancer. And you can live a long time these days with heart disease. Besides, even "healthy" people in their 70's have many more health issues than people who are already dead and buried for 10 years.

The closer one gets to the end of their lives, the more they cause us to spend health dollars to keep them alive.


Comment Posted By lionheart On 12.06.2009 @ 10:46


If Letterman is too stupid or too lazy to researh which daughter attended the game with Gov. Palin, perhaps he deserves greater condemnation for that, than for his unfunny joke.

Where I heard about this event is unimportant (it was Drudge). But even if I had heard of it from Hannity, it would prove the very point I am making- not everything he says is out of context. Rick singled out one stupid thing Hannity said, to paint him as a person that regularly issues "patently false statements". By doing that, isn't Rick guilty of the same offense?

Comment Posted By lionheart On 11.06.2009 @ 04:06

Funny to hear you blasting away at conservatives for taking snippets out of context, as you do the same to them. There is not one public official, left or right, that you can't play this game with.

Rough estimate: for every whacky, out of context thing Hannity has said (which I admit are numerous), he has informed the conservative ranks of 10 things that are valid, and not out of context. Nobody in the MSM is going to go after cretins like Letterman for his sexually perverted attacks on a 14 year old daughter of a politician... who else is bringing to the public the rank Chicago politics of the UAW (essentially) bribing the Obama administration with millions in campaign contributions resulting in a massively unfair distribution of GM's and Chrysler's ownership? I could go on.

You dismiss the excuse of "the other side is doing it too" without regard to the causal association of "being above it" with failure. As our mutual friend Stacy McCain says, "When a guy begins a fight by slamming a barstool into the back of your head, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply".

Think it stupid all you want, be above it, and keep losing elections. I've stopped bringing knives to gunfights, so I think I'm going to give these hard-nosed, "take a dose of your own medicine" fighters a break. Your supercilious condemnation, most of which is as out of context as your indictment of them, sort of makes you a childish blowhard.

Comment Posted By lionheart On 10.06.2009 @ 20:34



Being called a "douchebag" is personal and insulting?

I suppose I should stop referencing my friends thusly.

Comment Posted By lionheart On 10.06.2009 @ 07:00

I am closing in on 3,000 posts for this blog

I'm not sure I even know 3,000 different words. Well done, Rick.

Comment Posted By lionheart On 9.06.2009 @ 14:50

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (22) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

«« Back To Stats Page