Bush assassination film
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Saturday, September 16, 2006 20:20
VIEWED: 4230
PAGE 3 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Auraptor,
So you want our president to be shot?
I think most people who think about shooting our current president (I estimate there are probably one million actively planning it at the moment) - do not think of the consequences of their actions. Think of how this govt. in a bipartisan way exploited 9-11 to dismantle an institution I used to call america. Now think of what this govt., not any other govt. like the kennedy or lincoln govt, would handle an assassination. It would probably institute gun control. Its worth speculating. I think that the only thing in between a bullet and bush is a billion dollars worth of security. He's already had at least one assassination attempt that we know of. The film would undoubtedly decrease the chances of bush being assassinated, not increase it.
But maybe you've thought through to the next level. If bush were assassinated, then cheney could run for reelection in 2008, whereas cheney could never win an open gop primary. So maybe assassinating bush is just what a very pro bush person might do.
Dude, you need to lay off chewing those lead paint chips.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
At least we know where Auraptor stands: presenting false information as historical fact - acceptable. Presenting a fictional possibility - unacceptable. Films depicting the killing world leaders he disapproves of - acceptable. Films depicting the killing world leaders he approves of - unacceptable.
And he doubtlessly sees no problem there either.
Where have I ever stood for presenting false info as fact? That'd be NEVER.
Did I ever offer any opinion of a film depicting the murder of ANY 'world leader' ? No, I did not. ( Kim Jong Il didn't 'die' in the movie 'Team America, did he ? I can't remember. But those puppets were pretty damn funny. I'll give them that. )
Yes, Kim Jong Il did die in the movie. So, that makes me two for three.
And you're a Republican. Presenting false info as fact is pretty much all you're good at.
Burn! Three for Three! :)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Yes, Kim Jong Il did die in the movie. So, that makes me two for three.
And you're a Republican. Presenting false info as fact is pretty much all you're good at.
Burn! Three for Three! :)
If I didn't recall that Kim Jong Il had died, then you can't accuse me of approving of movies which show (puppet) world leaders dying. You're back to 1 for three.
Actually, I'm a conservative Libertarian ( There is no party registration here in GA, so I'm pretty much what ever I say I am
). Your non sequitur comment about GOP presenting false info as 'fact' is utterly baseless and invalid. That crispy scent you smell is your own hide being toasted. The only thing you did get right was that I was against the Bush assassination movie. Were Clinton still in office, and such a movie was made, I'd be just as against this crap. Doesn't matter the party affiliation, as long as it's a sitting President, I'm against it.
Hope that clears some things up for ya.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Er...first off, it would be legally and etically wrong to detain someone for making a movie, which is a piece of fiction. You shouldn't restrict the right to free speech just because you find a film offensive. And, yeah, I do find this a bit er, unsavory; but I do realize that it's a work of fiction, and just because I don't care to see it doesn't mean that people who are interested in it shouldn't be able to see it.
No, not a liberal...except when it comes to civil liberties. Actually, I take that back, I am a little bit liberal...so, I do have a bit of a bias. However, speaking from a strictly legal sense, there's nothing wrong with this movie.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by KernelKurtz:
Er...first off, it would be legally and etically wrong to detain someone for making a movie, which is a piece of fiction. You shouldn't restrict the right to free speech just because you find a film offensive. And, yeah, I do find this a bit er, unsavory; but I do realize that it's a work of fiction, and just because I don't care to see it doesn't mean that people who are interested in it shouldn't be able to see it.
No, not a liberal...except when it comes to civil liberties. Actually, I take that back, I am a little bit liberal...so, I do have a bit of a bias. However, speaking from a strictly legal sense, there's nothing wrong with this movie.
Er, is very er, annoying...er, Well it's true
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Er, is very er, annoying...er, Well it's true
I happen to find it quirky
, that's just how I speak, it helps me think...Also, to comment on that gung-ho attitude, it aggravates me...especially that vindictive kill-em-all-regardless of whether they actually attacked you or not attitude. [rant]I mean, really, when's the last time the number or Iraqis killed was seen alongside the number of U.S. soldiers killed? Or the health effects of the people that depleted uranium was being dropped were explored? Also, why do some people think racial profiling is acceptable just becasue the militants being fought just happen to be of that race?[/rant]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If I didn't recall that Kim Jong Il had died, then you can't accuse me of approving of movies which show (puppet) world leaders dying.
Ah, selective memory. Sorry, forgot there was other things Republicans were good at.
And surely if puppet world leaders are allowed to die in movies, there's no problem with the Bush one?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SimonWho wrote:
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 14:17
..Ah, selective memory. Sorry, forgot there was other things Republicans were good at.
And surely if puppet world leaders are allowed to die in movies, there's no problem with the Bush one?
No, selective memory is what Democrats are good at, eg. Mrs Clinton 'forgetting' about the Rose Law Firm billing records which were in her private WH office for over 2 years, while she had 'no idea' where they were. Despite the fact that those files were subpoened. And her fingerprints were all over them as well. Oops.
Some world leaders are better than others. Small, pot bellied dictators from N.Korea are fair game. Sitting US Presidents aren't.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No, selective memory is what Democrats are good at, eg. Mrs Clinton 'forgetting' about the Rose Law Firm billing records which were in her private WH office for over 2 years, while she had 'no idea' where they were. Despite the fact that those files were subpoened. And her fingerprints were all over them as well. Oops.
Some world leaders are better than others. Small, pot bellied dictators from N.Korea are fair game. Sitting US Presidents aren't.
Auraptor,
first off, no way. Us presidents are ALWAYS fair game.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
That said, I have to congratulate you on a fresh can of worms.
Hillary Clinton killed her law parter, Vince Foster, and she did it personally. I think she poisoned his wine, and then had her thugs roll him up in a carpet, which also went missing from her office. There's an interesting book on the subject "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster" by Christopher Ruddy. Ruddy lays out all the details of the case, without technically saying anything. But the details of the case, by themselves, in the unbiased manner in which they are presented, speak volumes.
Part of me wants Hillary Clinton to be the candidate in '08, because of this, but I wonder, would John McCain actually say it? It would be nice if ABC or someone would do a TV special a few weeks before the 2008 election...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Films depicting the killing world leaders he disapproves of - acceptable.
Quote:
Originally posted by Auraptor:
Did I ever offer any opinion of a film depicting the murder of ANY 'world leader' ? No, I did not.
Quote:
Originally posted by Auraptor:
Some world leaders are better than others. Small, pot bellied dictators from N.Korea are fair game. Sitting US Presidents aren't.
I'm saying nothing...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME