Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
The Rover

Oliver Stone and " W " Movie for October 2008 Release

Recommended Posts

Bye the way, if you are wondering, I will be responding to these posts sometime soon.

LOS, you are still a believer in "one man", the "president", actually making decisions. Place your hatred on a figurehead all you want, but you must recognize and believe that the government, and not the republican party or conservatives or anyone else, has the best interests of the nation in mind when any decision like these are made.

There are two ways to go with this: You can have total distrust in the government. Believe they are incompetent. Believe the conspiracy theories. Believe that people think they are much more intelligent, advanced, and capable than they really are. Or, you can have faith in the government, and recognize that there are people much more intelligent and informed than anyone in the general population, and that their decisions are based off real life experience over the course of history, with the obvious intention of pushing the survival and benefit of the nation.

I haven't decided which way I go, because I participate in ideas on both sides of what I just suggested. I don't know or care which way you go. But, I want you to recognize that one man, the president, isn't calling the shots.

The president, including all presidents, is like the guy with the liberal arts degree. He is "advised" by people who are "experts on specific topics. The people with the PH.d's. You understand what I am saying?

But beyond that, there are many government agencies that we do not know about that know a lot more than anyone else does, and the decisions are being made by a group of people which we have no idea about.

If you want to believe the political system in front of your eyes, then go ahead, but that's what they want people to believe. It runs a hell of a lot deeper than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bye the way, if you are wondering, I will be responding to these posts sometime soon.

LOS, you are still a believer in "one man", the "president", actually making decisions. Place your hatred on a figurehead all you want, but you must recognize and believe that the government, and not the republican party or conservatives or anyone else, has the best interests of the nation in mind when any decision like these are made.

Nope, I'm not "still a believer" in that... never was a believer of that.

As for our best interests in mind when 'they', the government, make "decisions like these"... yeah, for the most part, I do believe that they believe they have our best interests at heart. However, I think a lot of things muddy the water along the way... and that some folks do what they think is in their own best interest and assume that will be in everybody else's best interests, etc. etc.

You do realize don't you, that you have just said Bush is a figurehead. :D

There are two ways to go with this: You can have total distrust in the government. Believe they are incompetent. Believe the conspiracy theories. Believe that people think they are much more intelligent, advanced, and capable than they really are. Or, you can have faith in the government, and recognize that there are people much more intelligent and informed than anyone in the general population, and that their decisions are based off real life experience over the course of history, with the obvious intention of pushing the survival and benefit of the nation.

Oh man, where to start with this bit... okay, I'll break it up further...

You can have total distrust in the government. Believe they are incompetent. Believe the conspiracy theories. Believe that people think they are much more intelligent, advanced, and capable than they really are.

First of all, I don't have total distrust in the government. I don't believe that everyone in government is incompetent and I don't buy a lot of the conspiracy theories put forth by various folks. However, I don't have blind faith and trust in the govt. either. I used to, but don't now... and the reason I don't is because of the things our govt. have done. They have caused me to be a lot more skeptical than I used to be. It was a rude awakening. Maybe I should thank them for that...

Or, you can have faith in the government, and recognize that there are people much more intelligent and informed than anyone in the general population, and that their decisions are based off real life experience over the course of history, with the obvious intention of pushing the survival and benefit of the nation.

I'm sure there are some folks in the govt. who are very intelligent and more informed than most folks in the general population. There's a lot of brainpower in those various think tanks (hence the name) but there are also a lot of very politically motivated agendas to go with some of them. The kicker is to decide which, if any, of those agendas is indeed what is best for the country. That's just looking at strictly the US... and we aren't the only country on the planet and the planet isn't just ours to do with as we wish.

I'm a Pepsi drinker... I gave up koolaid awhile back.

I haven't decided which way I go, because I participate in ideas on both sides of what I just suggested. I don't know or care which way you go. But, I want you to recognize that one man, the president, isn't calling the shots.

The president, including all presidents, is like the guy with the liberal arts degree. He is "advised" by people who are "experts on specific topics. The people with the PH.d's. You understand what I am saying?

Oh I get that. However, he chooses his advisors... or his advisors (like Rove, for example) choose/advise him on who should advise him, etc. etc. The performance of those advisors and the decisions made as a result are rather telling IMO. It's the stuff some of those PhD folks are telling him that concern me.

But beyond that, there are many government agencies that we do not know about that know a lot more than anyone else does, and the decisions are being made by a group of people which we have no idea about.

I don't disagree with you on this, but the way you said it made me laugh.

PNAC anyone... but then, I'm probably not supposed to know about them.

If you want to believe the political system in front of your eyes, then go ahead, but that's what they want people to believe. It runs a hell of a lot deeper than that.

Not sure where you got the idea that I believe that, but... okaaaay...

Now, where'd I put that Pepsi? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do believe that they believe they have our best interests at heart. However, I think a lot of things muddy the water along the way... and that some folks do what they think is in their own best interest and assume that will be in everybody else's best interests, etc. etc.

You do realize don't you, that you have just said Bush is a figurehead. :D

I don't is because of the things our govt. have done. They have caused me to be a lot more skeptical than I used to be. It was a rude awakening. Maybe I should thank them for that...

That's just looking at strictly the US... and we aren't the only country on the planet and the planet isn't just ours to do with as we wish.

I'm a Pepsi drinker... I gave up koolaid awhile back.

Now, where'd I put that Pepsi? :unsure:

I don't think personal agendas are as influential in the decision making as you and some other think. The decision making is based off of the knowledge and experience we have gained as a nation, throughout our history, as well as the history we have come to understand, from the whole world, through all time. These things are built upon quite huge base.

All Presidents are figure heads.

Well, have you ever thought that what makes you skeptical is intended to do that? I mean, the more confused the population is, the easier the agenda is implemented.

We aren't the only country in the world, but we need to look after our best interests. It's about survival.

Be thankful for your Pepsi.

If America starts to crumble, a lot of the things we have come to know and love might disappear.

Could you imagine what would happen if McDonald's closed? Riots in the streets, destruction on a level never imagined. Grab your gun. You don't want to face the wrath of a motherfucker denied his Big Mac Value meal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The high speed photography stuff is wonderful.

It is amazing stuff. :)

If anything, beyond the knee-jerk 'that doesn't fit' response I had, my next impression was that he was saying Bush should've been like the bottle of ketchup, the fruit, etc... i.e. he's a target that hasn't been hit yet. If that's what the person who posted that meant... well, I can see why Redrum wonders about it. As much as I despise Duh-bya, I certainly don't advocate using him as target practice, regardless of how spectacular the high speed filming of it would be.

Exactly! It's like the guy is just waiting for Bush's head to explode from a bullet.

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it's more like the the results of their words. True, freedom of speech of a great thing, and everyone should be able to express themselves, but there is an unspoken limit on that, which people haven't understood or recognized. They just go ahead and say whatever they want without considering the potential damage which might occur.

People in this country have crippled the war effort. We can debate the legitimacy and the effects of the war all day long, but we wouldn't get very far if stuck on that.

People oppose the war without even understanding why they oppose it, a lot of the time. The media, from nearly day one, started bashing Bush and the war, relentlessly. Highlighting all of the extreme liberal, super biased opponents, and never giving an inch for any of the positive which may or might have happened. The media is responsible for what people think. Unfortunately, most of the people get most of their information from mass media sources.

Let's speed this up: If the general American public supported the war, we likely would have "won" by now, and the message that would have sent, would have likely quieted up many of the countries which currently oppose us.

I guess the American people can thank themselves for the high gas prices. If we had won a quick and devastating war in Iraq, the excuses that worldwide oil companies have used to increase prices, would shave certainly been unavailable.

The American people, because of their isolation, freedom, and quality of life, have a severe lack of understanding or appreciation for what they have. Unfortunately, they don't recognize, that in order to maintain their current way of life and standard of living, the nation must be aggressive around the world. The USA must maintain, through any means necessary, or we can all say goodbye to "the goodtimes". And these are the goodtimes, whether you can believe so or not.

Because of all the opposition, the government and military have basically been put in handcuffs, with the result being both forced to take actions, which are so ridiculously politically correct, that nothing truly effective can be accomplished. And I am speaking about the war primarily.

I didn't even finish reading the thread because your warped one-sided view on this war caused a shutter in my rectum.

The main reason why Americans eventually stopped supporting the war is because they were never asked to give anything for it. The problem from day 1 with this war was Bush sold it without packaging it. Wars are fought and won or lost based more than anything on moral: troop and mob. The American cause in WWII was so overwhelming because our entire society shut down and backed the war effort. That's how a war is won. You can not ask society to "go about their every day lives and shop and spend and blah blah blah" without giving anything to the effort and not expect a shaky and possible bad outcome. No, that was Bush's biggest blunder on selling Iraq. He underestimated what it would take to win a victory in a land we apparently knew everything about, but obviously were quite arrogant to the religious implications.

If our society had been completely devoted to the Iraq War from Day 1, the situation might be different. I can't say successful, but most definitely different.

Remember, no body armor for the troops? Yeah, my boys do. They were there, in Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003-2006.

Priorities weren't straight from day 1. (Priorities meaning the safety of our troops; ie all possible support from our government and military higher ups) The priorities of a select few are the reasons why 4,000+ will never see home again.

Edited to Add: Oliver Stone still believes "JFK" is a masterpiece. Him, and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Edited by bigstickbonzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't even finish reading the thread because your warped one-sided view on this war caused a shutter in my rectum.

The main reason why Americans eventually stopped supporting the war is because they were never asked to give anything for it. The problem from day 1 with this war was Bush sold it without packaging it. Wars are fought and won or lost based more than anything on moral: troop and mob. The American cause in WWII was so overwhelming because our entire society shut down and backed the war effort. That's how a war is won. You can not ask society to "go about their every day lives and shop and spend and blah blah blah" without giving anything to the effort and not expect a shaky and possible bad outcome. No, that was Bush's biggest blunder on selling Iraq. He underestimated what it would take to win a victory in a land we apparently knew everything about, but obviously were quite arrogant to the religious implications.

If our society had been completely devoted to the Iraq War from Day 1, the situation might be different. I can't say successful, but most definitely different.

Remember, no body armor for the troops? Yeah, my boys do. They were there, in Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003-2006.

Priorities weren't straight from day 1. (Priorities meaning the safety of our troops; ie all possible support from our government and military higher ups) The priorities of a select few are the reasons why 4,000+ will never see home again.

Edited to Add: Oliver Stone still believes "JFK" is a masterpiece. Him, and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Shouldn't it be the duty of the American citizen to support the war effort without having to be asked by the government? Do people need to be forced, or brainwashed? I would like to think they would step up on their own, but apparently they aren't capable. I suppose people will have no excuse when the government becomes big brother.

In the beginning of the wars, not everyone had body armor. The body armor was supplied to the combat arms troops. Those that weren't seeing any combat may not have had any. I think we can safely say that by the end of 2003, everyone had body armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main reason why Americans eventually stopped supporting the war is because they were never asked to give anything for it. The problem from day 1 with this war was Bush sold it without packaging it. Wars are fought and won or lost based more than anything on moral: troop and mob. The American cause in WWII was so overwhelming because our entire society shut down and backed the war effort. That's how a war is won. You can not ask society to "go about their every day lives and shop and spend and blah blah blah" without giving anything to the effort and not expect a shaky and possible bad outcome. No, that was Bush's biggest blunder on selling Iraq. He underestimated what it would take to win a victory in a land we apparently knew everything about, but obviously were quite arrogant to the religious implications.

If our society had been completely devoted to the Iraq War from Day 1, the situation might be different. I can't say successful, but most definitely different.

Remember, no body armor for the troops? Yeah, my boys do. They were there, in Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003-2006.

Priorities weren't straight from day 1. (Priorities meaning the safety of our troops; ie all possible support from our government and military higher ups) The priorities of a select few are the reasons why 4,000+ will never see home again.

I think you make some very good points... except that IMO the 'packaging' was done pretty well and folks bought into it until it was proven to contain a lot of smoke and mirrors, and so many assertions made were later proven to be... erm...incorrect.

Shouldn't it be the duty of the American citizen to support the war effort without having to be asked by the government? Do people need to be forced, or brainwashed? I would like to think they would step up on their own, but apparently they aren't capable. I suppose people will have no excuse when the government becomes big brother.

In the beginning of the wars, not everyone had body armor. The body armor was supplied to the combat arms troops. Those that weren't seeing any combat may not have had any. I think we can safely say that by the end of 2003, everyone had body armor.

No, it's NOT the duty of every citizen to do that. Early on, plenty of people 'stepped up on their own'. People quit supporting the war because so much of the reason and 'proof' of the 'need' to invade proved to be incorrect. Folks finally realized the Emperor had no clothes. The Bush administration bungled a war they shouldn't have started IMO, and folks finally realized that.

I don't expect the citizenry to blindly support a war started by their own government. In fact, if it was some other country and the people did that, you'd bitch that they were being duped or brainwashed... and maybe that's true, and maybe not. But advocating that for us is IMO a bad idea... and I'm very grateful to live in a country where I can say that and where I can say I believe the war is wrong. We're gonna be cleaning up this mess for a long, long time. I just hope we don't make an even bigger mess in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you make some very good points... except that IMO the 'packaging' was done pretty well and folks bought into it until it was proven to contain a lot of smoke and mirrors, and so many assertions made were later proven to be... erm...incorrect.

Referring to him selling the war, he could have won the Nobel for pure bullshit. But we were all very gun-ho towards getting somebody back for 9/11 and unfortunately many fell for the Iraq proposal. Powell should have spoken up. It's obvious now to anyone with something between their ears Iraq was on the table by those who were in the know before Clinton left office. 9/11 proved to be the biggest smoke screen the US government ever allowed itself to be taken for. And we as citizens gobbled it all up until the truth slowly started to leak out and bleed us dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Referring to him selling the war, he could have won the Nobel for pure bullshit.

Al Gore certainly did.

So Oliver Stone is going to crank out another overly-dramaticized, overly-long,

anti-American propoganda piece? Good luck. This one has all the makings of a

box office disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Gore certainly did.

So Oliver Stone is going to crank out another overly-dramaticized, overly-long,

anti-American propoganda piece? Good luck. This one has all the makings of a

box office disaster.

I think "Alexander" sealed the deal of Stone being box office poison.

And Gore is man-bear-pig. That's why he got the Nobel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a huge Oliver Stone supporter but it should be entertaining. And Josh Brolin is an underrrated actor. I think he will deilver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember, no one called Bill Clinton things like "satan, Hitler reincarnated, complete idiot, retarded, evil etc". Calling the President things that extreme, especially when they are not justified(they aren't), is bordering on treason.

No matter what Bush has or hasn't done, there is no excuse for a lot of the things people have said and done.

Nobody called Bill Clinton these things because nobody believed he was any of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it's more like the the results of their words. True, freedom of speech of a great thing, and everyone should be able to express themselves, but there is an unspoken limit on that, which people haven't understood or recognized. They just go ahead and say whatever they want without considering the potential damage which might occur.

"...unspoken limit which people haven't understood or recognized?" I consider this the lamest of all rhetorical techniques, the appeal to hidden knowledge.

People in this country have crippled the war effort. We can debate the legitimacy and the effects of the war all day long, but we wouldn't get very far if stuck on that.

People oppose the war without even understanding why they oppose it, a lot of the time. The media, from nearly day one, started bashing Bush and the war, relentlessly. Highlighting all of the extreme liberal, super biased opponents, and never giving an inch for any of the positive which may or might have happened. The media is responsible for what people think. Unfortunately, most of the people get most of their information from mass media sources.

I know exactly why I opposed this war.

1. I did not believe Iraq posed a direct threat to this nation

2. We have enemies more powerful and dangerous who we could not fight because of the Iraqi war.

3. Congress never properly declared war.

4. We did not follow the Powell Doctorine

5. There were little controls on government contracts to help with the effort. I hate seeing my tax dollars support corruption.

6. Thats just my top five.

Let's speed this up: If the general American public supported the war, we likely would have "won" by now, and the message that would have sent, would have likely quieted up many of the countries which currently oppose us.

Perhaps the president should have done a better job of leading and convincing the people that this war was correct. But the old saying applies you cant put lipstick on a pig. Just a piss poor performance. And I don't forsee a point where Americans would ever say "You know, maybe he was right" Americans DO understand that we have vicious ignorant enemies, the Iraqi war just feels like a punch that misses its mark and Americans undertand that too.

I guess the American people can thank themselves for the high gas prices. If we had won a quick and devastating war in Iraq, the excuses that worldwide oil companies have used to increase prices, would shave certainly been unavailable.

Don't you understand the basic economic principles of supply and demand?

The perception is that we are approaching peak oil hence supplies are finite.

The world is rapidly becoming industrialized hence more people demmand energy. If the oil belongs to Iraq tell me how invading them would lower prices. You mean we would steal it from them? Explain your reasoning?

The American people, because of their isolation, freedom, and quality of life, have a severe lack of understanding or appreciation for what they have. Unfortunately, they don't recognize, that in order to maintain their current way of life and standard of living, the nation must be aggressive around the world. The USA must maintain, through any means necessary, or we can all say goodbye to "the goodtimes". And these are the goodtimes, whether you can believe so or not.

I think we understand exactly what we have thats why we devote so much time and treasure to having a clean environment, functioning municipalities and a large portion of our investment DOES go to defence. But I think we also understand that a war is a means of last resort, and that a war must be well planned, well argued and well supported. instead we got a bunch who tried to execute a war with as little support as they could get away with the least ammount of money and planning possible. Instead of convincing the public they used bully tactics. Few of their supposed facts actually turned out to be true.

It begged the question nobody wants asked of their leaders. Was the White House deceitful or just plain stupid? People saw through all that don't you think?

Because of all the opposition, the government and military have basically been put in handcuffs, with the result being both forced to take actions, which are so ridiculously politically correct, that nothing truly effective can be accomplished. And I am speaking about the war primarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I'll live long enough to appreciate the Iraq campaign.

I would have preferred for Pres. Bush and America to have invaded Saudia Arabia... the "real" sponsor of terrorism worldwide.

But then, the goal is not to really squash terrorism worldwide, or we would have done just that.

And.... we'd have a lot more oil to show for it !

Edited by The Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I'll live long enough to appreciate the Iraq campaign.

I would have preferred for Pres. Bush and America to have invaded Saudia Arabia... the "real" sponsor of terrorism worldwide.

But then, the goal is not to really squash terrorism worldwide, or we would have done just that.

And.... we'd have a lot more oil to show for it !

True 'nuff... besides which, we'd have to look in the mirror first, and ...erm... and peek at some of our current and past allies as well.

Oops, I almost forgot... "we" don't do terrorism, therefore anything we do is ipso facto not terrorism. :whistling:

Edited by Lake of Shadows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×