2012 and tons of spoilers
sirblob2
actually going to the cinema, which i havent done in years and wont be
doing in years, and actually writing a long review, rare in the me o
centric world where critics complain about graded reviews cuz it
unempowers them, producers complain about actresses cuz they get their
balls seduced for millions or erich fromm titles his book fear of
freedom forgetting wittgenstein's beautiful prose, but the whole thing
was too goddam amusing and day after tomorrow amusing. stars woody
harrelson speaking truth to power like a left wing foucaultian turned
postmodernist stewe turned glenn beck karpov, but more importantly a
bunch of considerably amusing babes in the cast.
now, i prefer day after tomorrow thou this one be better, undeniably
so not only for collapsing l.a. far improved over a flooded ny, i mean
please... emmerich's 2004 one was in effect downright silly with
dennis quaid looking for his kid, but the geek's boy scout's
competition and the girl he had the hots for were too damn
fetichistic. when i remember them yabberin on about competing, book
burning nietszches or the flooding of the library and ny scene i think
not of intelligence but of pleasure, naturellement, and it just
happened to tick.
plus i was a different kid in 2004, and like with babes, the
circumstances are very important, more in what i explored in my thesis
babe phenomenology, i.e., it aint the same watching the scavenger
hunt, that loony thing from 1979, when you're 10 or when you're 40.
as for this one, well, emmerich, apart from a few binaries, at least
has credible ppl in this pic. then it's all that yabberin on bout how
naive the scientist what was really going on around him, for example.
i mean, really, cusack and family, even the karpov abramovichesque guy
kinda ring true this time. but just compare cusack's character to
quaid's, it's like graduating in the university of life compared
now, catholicism falling on christianity will interest them, or the
same ones who thought kingdom of heaven thought provoking, its all
just money, said the imam to bill maher, adding i thought you were
more intelligent, lets not forget, this time the right hurts like in
independance day or mars attacks it was the left alien lovers that
were zapped in satire, but mostly its messy, a bit like surveillance
by jonathan mostow, messy good cuz we're in post-politics, only this
time it's amusing and there isnt an odious bottom line, with willis
getting rid of pyjama life, only cuz something about his wife when it
was prolly just their fault, and he's forgotten what a drag life was
before...
i was expecting more irony thou, but it barely went past the initial
scientist relaxing with frozen water just before informing us of the
overheating future prospects. the rest of the jokes were run of the
mill wanks, as dudley moore would put it, but still good. and
harrelson's vid was beyond charming, not to mention his bum crack in
the mountains, more epiphanies, like 'no he's not crazy' cusack says
of the guy, are around and about in future screenings, thou, cuz more
often than not, this will be very watchable on the small screen, too,
without adverts, you know where, unlike utter crap like star trek.
abrams isnt up to bruckheimer's or emmerich's level, and emmerich one
ups bruckheimer with this one, btw, cuz of the special effects and
characters
you may remark on my ungrammatical manners or you might enmark my
tendency to interest my selves in characters in big budget pics, well
what can i say, and im quite sure the ending is a misreading of the
end of before sunset similar to the misreading the guy in 500 days of
summer does of the graduate, thou i didnt understand the latter
misreading, i'd say i prolly misread it. impossible to negate little
old glover and the monk going back to the sea, a bit like le corbusier
and religion and so on,
calvin
Your incoherence eliminates any spoilers that might have been.
Adam
> Your incoherence eliminates any spoilers that might have been.
Anyone that drops Le Corbusier, Neitzche and Wittgenstein
into a film review, gets my vote. Now perhaps we are getting
somewhere. We might even see this one as a series of poems.
David Oberman
>circumstances are very important, more in what i explored in my thesis
>babe phenomenology
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>you may remark on my ungrammatical manners or you might enmark my
>tendency to interest my selves in characters in big budget pics, well
>what can i say, and im quite sure the ending is a misreading of the
>end of before sunset similar to the misreading the guy in 500 days of
>summer does of the graduate, thou i didnt understand the latter
>misreading, i'd say i prolly misread it. impossible to negate little
>old glover and the monk going back to the sea, a bit like le corbusier
>and religion and so on,
I don't appear anywhere in this review.
____
Were everyone an expert, no one would be.
-- C. Rothland
David Oberman
>Anyone that drops Le Corbusier, Neitzche and Wittgenstein
>into a film review, gets my vote.
And Erich Fromm, gott in himmel! Where on Earth did monsierblob read
about Fromm?! Certainly not in his Baudrillard primer.
>Now perhaps we are getting
>somewhere. We might even see this one as a series of poems.
blob is a prose poet with an especially humorous bent.
calvin
"speaking truth to power" usually means speaking left-wing
uninformed arrogance to those who understand and know best;
but we shall see what it means in this case.
trotsky
When you say "we" I assume you're talking about your two brain cells?
calvin
Still twice your brain power.
steve
On 16-Nov-2009, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > When you say "we" I assume you're talking about your two brain cells?
>
> Still twice your brain power.
LOL!
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag
trotsky
Still beats being old.
trotsky
> On 16-Nov-2009, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>>> When you say "we" I assume you're talking about your two brain cells?
>> Still twice your brain power.
>
> LOL!
Oh look, we got a response from di...@head.com!
calvin
I rest my case.
trotsky
Oh, I'm sure that's not all your resting.
calvin
And you complained about RichA's grammar today,
John Doe
> much habaloohaded as a grand event this pic, the true event was me
> actually going to the cinema, which i havent done in years and wont be
> doing in years, and actually writing a long review,
Writing anything is an accomplishment for you.
Good luck.
--
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: sirblob2 <sirblob2 hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.arts.movies.past-films
> Subject: 2012 and tons of spoilers
> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:31:40 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 67
> Message-ID: <b60048e1-45ef-4c0d-b87e-d3e620d99015 w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.49.45.130
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1258338700 29453 127.0.0.1 (16 Nov 2009 02:31:40 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:31:40 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.49.45.130; posting-account=YOR_BQoAAAD9GtSRFXxrkBTAJmhi7BEm
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; es-ES; rv:1.9.0.15) Gecko/2009101601 Firefox/3.0.15 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
sirblob2
lol! first i attract the far right nuts and now the psychos! this is
what i get for quoting wittgenstein!
banning me for this marvelous review would only turn it legend, saith
woody harrelson, you fucking jerkoff! thank you thank you... but
looking you up its like yikes!
Opry phantom
> Adam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
> >Anyone that drops Le Corbusier, Neitzche and Wittgenstein
> >into a film review, gets my vote.
>
> And Erich Fromm, gott in himmel! Where on Earth did monsierblob read
> about Fromm?! Certainly not in his Baudrillard primer.
>
> >Now perhaps we are getting
> >somewhere. We might even see this one as a series of poems.
>
> blob is a prose poet with an especially humorous bent.
>
> ____
we should consider a reticuli 4 wrench in our micey plans
-archy
trotsky
Really? In the ten years I've posted to Usenet, I've probably made that
SPELLING error at least 500 times. But please, make your case for how I
have as poor a command of the language as Rich. It won't be any
different than the political lies you spew.
calvin
> calvin wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 8:32 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >> calvin wrote:
> >>> On Nov 16, 5:41 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>> calvin wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 16, 10:28 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> calvin wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 15, 9:31 pm, sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> ... harrelson speaking truth to power ...
> >>>>>>> "speaking truth to power" usually means speaking left-wing
> >>>>>>> uninformed arrogance to those who understand and know best;
> >>>>>>> but we shall see what it means in this case.
> >>>>>> When you say "we" I assume you're talking about your two brain cells?
> >>>>> Still twice your brain power.
> >>>> Still beats being old.
> >>> I rest my case.
> >> Oh, I'm sure that's not all your resting.
>
> > And you complained about RichA's grammar today,
>
> Really? In the ten years I've posted to Usenet, I've probably made that
> SPELLING error at least 500 times. But please, make your case for how I
> have as poor a command of the language as Rich. It won't be any
> different than the political lies you spew.
500 times? One of the signs of a moron is inability to
learn from mistakes. Thanks for confirming my case.
David Oberman
>Really? In the ten years I've posted to Usenet, I've probably made that
>SPELLING error at least 500 times. But please, make your case for how I
>have as poor a command of the language as Rich. It won't be any
>different than the political lies you spew.
I like studying grammar.
trotsky
Really, calvin, is there any subject where I don't exhibit more
intelligence than you? That's patently absurd.
calvin
> Really, calvin, is there any subject where I don't exhibit more
Yeth, yeth, poor widdle twotsky, you are the thmartith
one of all.
David Oberman
LOL!!!
LOL!!!
____
I intend to go to town on Saturday & to return here by
Sunday evening or Monday morning. I therefore ask you to
inquire at Dr. Bach's at what hour he can usually be seen
at present, also to obtain the key from our honourable
brother the baker, so as to ascertain whether the room
owned by that gentleman, our unbrotherly brother, contains
so much furniture that I could spend the night there.
-- Beethoven, to nephew Karl, Baden 31 May 1825
steve
On 17-Nov-2009, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Yeth, yeth, poor widdle twotsky, you are the thmartith
> one of all.
"twotsky"...good nickname for him, eh?
trotsky
At least you were smart enough not to disagree.
trotsky
> On 17-Nov-2009, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>> Yeth, yeth, poor widdle twotsky, you are the thmartith
>> one of all.
>
> "twotsky"...good nickname for him, eh?
And here we have the sickest of trolls, those that are too cowardly to
respond to a person directly.
Anonymous pieces of shit on Usenet--that never gets old.
sirblob2
> On 17-Nov-2009, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > Yeth, yeth, poor widdle twotsky, you are the thmartith
> > one of all.
>
> "twotsky"...good nickname for him, eh?
> --
for who? for lauren mccoll?
i know this isnt a high point in your usenet history, but what are you
on about, stewe?
steve
On 18-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> > "twotsky"...good nickname for him, eh?
>
>
> And here we have the sickest of trolls, those that are too cowardly to
> respond to a person directly.
But twotsky... I respond directly to anyone who discusses issues in
substance and with some measure of civility. You havent qualified in the
past, and my hopes arent high for the future.
steve
steve
On 18-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "twotsky"...good nickname for him, eh?
> > --
>
> for who? for lauren mccoll?
>
> i know this isnt a high point in your usenet history, but what are you
> on about, stewe?
Yea, it's a mystery, alright. Who could "twotsky" possibly refer to?
sirblob2
> On 18-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "twotsky"...good nickname for him, eh?
> > > --
>
> > for who? for lauren mccoll?
>
> > i know this isnt a high point in your usenet history, but what are you
> > on about, stewe?
>
> Yea, it's a mystery, alright. Who could "twotsky" possibly refer to?
> --
i still dont understand a thing.
you befuddle me, stewe. i thought we libertarians wouldnt abide by
petty things such as grammar and spelling, so similar as they are to
government and socialism.
calvin
> petty things such as grammar and spelling, so similar as they are to
> government and socialism.
Aside: When this show trial ends in disaster, with the
master terrorist getting off on any of many possible
technicalities, such as not having been read his (now
applicable) Miranda rights, Obama might be assured of
being a one-term president. (As when Ford pardoned
Nixon.) Talk about silver linings.
sirblob2
you forgot that if you look in the dictionary, you'll find the
following definitions:
four apples = seventeen oranges
and
thirty-nine bananas = fourteen trees
moviePig
And if O'Simon Legree *does* get convicted, then the Repubs will
surely trot out their old 'Mission Accomplished' banner, and then re-
inflate Dubya for another White House run. Talk about silver
fillings.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
steve
On 18-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > i know this isnt a high point in your usenet history, but what are you
> > > on about, stewe?
> >
> > Yea, it's a mystery, alright. �Who could "twotsky" possibly refer to?
> > --
>
> i still dont understand a thing.
It is complicated. Take your time.
> you befuddle me, stewe. i thought we libertarians wouldnt abide by
> petty things such as grammar and spelling, so similar as they are to
> government and socialism.
My thoughts exactly. Grammar sent me a tax bill last week, and Spelling
threatened to throw me in jail if I dont pay it. Bastards to a man!
calvin
Another run for Bush is just silly. A one-term Obama
is a reasonable possibility. He is infuriating a lot of
voters, and a trial that convicts America and not the
terrorist, though it might please you, would displease
many millions. It's going to be quite a show.
I think you will find that this trial captures the public
interest, maybe not as much as the O.J. trial, but way
up there.
trotsky
> On 18-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> "twotsky"...good nickname for him, eh?
>>
>> And here we have the sickest of trolls, those that are too cowardly to
>> respond to a person directly.
>
> But twotsky... I respond directly to anyone who discusses issues in
> substance and with some measure of civility.
That's interesting, st...@steve.com, because a) you're still an
anonymouse, and b) you responded to calvin's trolling remarks, so you're
a liar. Any questions?
trotsky
> On 18-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> "twotsky"...good nickname for him, eh?
>>> --
>> for who? for lauren mccoll?
>>
>> i know this isnt a high point in your usenet history, but what are you
>> on about, stewe?
>
> Yea, it's a mystery, alright. Who could "twotsky" possibly refer to?
Troll alert.
trotsky
If that's the lesser of two evils, you're the most un-American person
I've ever heard of.
trotsky
Haven't you heard? Darth Cheney is thinking about running.
steve
On 18-Nov-2009, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Another run for Bush is just silly. A one-term Obama
> is a reasonable possibility. He is infuriating a lot of
> voters, and a trial that convicts America and not the
> terrorist, though it might please you, would displease
> many millions.
It seems clear to me that BHO doesnt care about a second term. He's
perfectly willing to sign anything he can get through congress and live with
the anger, resentment, and political backlash it will cause.
If whats-his-name is not convicted, BHO will be in the absurd position of
detaining him anyway! The ostensible rationale then blows up in BHOs face!
Instead of demonstrating our capacity for justice, detention after acquittal
will just make us look like a banana republic. There is really no upside to
this strategy (for the USA, that is...plenty for those who hate the USA) and
tremendous downside...even if conviction is a virtual certainty.
Im still "hoping" that he will "change" his mind.
steve
steve
On 18-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> > But twotsky... I respond directly to anyone who discusses issues in
> > substance and with some measure of civility.
>
>
> That's interesting, st...@steve.com, because a) you're still an
> anonymouse,
So? What would knowing my full name do to change the meaning of my words
and arguments?
> and b) you responded to calvin's trolling remarks, so you're
> a liar. Any questions?
Yes. When did I claim otherwise?
trotsky
> On 18-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> But twotsky... I respond directly to anyone who discusses issues in
>>> substance and with some measure of civility.
>>
>> That's interesting, st...@steve.com, because a) you're still an
>> anonymouse,
>
> So? What would knowing my full name do to change the meaning of my words
> and arguments?
No, you're right, I don't think there's anything you could do to
establish any credibility.
>> and b) you responded to calvin's trolling remarks, so you're
>> a liar. Any questions?
>
> Yes. When did I claim otherwise?
That you weren't a liar? Who cares?
steve
On 18-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> > So? What would knowing my full name do to change the meaning of my
> > words
> > and arguments?
>
>
> No, you're right, I don't think there's anything you could do to
> establish any credibility.
See..this is why I dont talk to you. You're just interested in being a
jerk.
> >> and b) you responded to calvin's trolling remarks, so you're
> >> a liar. Any questions?
> >
> > Yes. When did I claim otherwise?
>
>
> That you weren't a liar? Who cares?
That one was my fault.
steve
Howard Brazee
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>Another run for Bush is just silly. A one-term Obama
>is a reasonable possibility. He is infuriating a lot of
>voters, and a trial that convicts America and not the
>terrorist, though it might please you, would displease
>many millions. It's going to be quite a show.
>I think you will find that this trial captures the public
>interest, maybe not as much as the O.J. trial, but way
>up there.
He's infuriating those who voted for change, and those who would never
have voted for him in any case.
If the economy is good, he will be re-elected. If it is mediocre,
it depends on who the Republicans nominate.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
sirblob2
> On 18-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > i know this isnt a high point in your usenet history, but what are you
> > > > on about, stewe?
>
> > > Yea, it's a mystery, alright. Who could "twotsky" possibly refer to?
> > > --
>
> > i still dont understand a thing.
>
> It is complicated. Take your time.
what's complicated?
>
> > you befuddle me, stewe. i thought we libertarians wouldnt abide by
> > petty things such as grammar and spelling, so similar as they are to
> > government and socialism.
>
> My thoughts exactly. Grammar sent me a tax bill last week, and Spelling
> threatened to throw me in jail if I dont pay it. Bastards to a man!
> --
i still dont understand. i thought grammar was suing you for not
serving the governor and spelling put you in jail for the time you
trespassed on brother grammar's property.
sirblob2
> On 18-Nov-2009, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > So? What would knowing my full name do to change the meaning of my
> > > words
> > > and arguments?
>
> > No, you're right, I don't think there's anything you could do to
> > establish any credibility.
>
> See..this is why I dont talk to you. You're just interested in being a
> jerk.
>
> > >> and b) you responded to calvin's trolling remarks, so you're
> > >> a liar. Any questions?
>
> > > Yes. When did I claim otherwise?
>
> > That you weren't a liar? Who cares?
>
> That one was my fault.
>
> steve
> --
dear steve,
if libertarians are so free, how can they argue?
thank you,
blob
David Oberman
>He's infuriating those who voted for change, and those who would never
>have voted for him in any case.
He's infuriating me with this closed-door business while his henchmen
write the health insurance bill. This is tyranny! This is madness! Why
doesn't someone break down the door? If the opponents in the Senate &
the House had any balls, they'd summon a bulldozer.
What are some of your favorite movies with bulldozers in Congress?
calvin
> He's infuriating those who voted for change, ...
What change did they want? He's pushing the country from
free enterprise toward socialism. I thought that's the change
the libs wanted. And he's apologizing to the world for the
Bush administration. I thought the libs wanted that too. And
he wants to cripple industry with global warming regulations.
I thought the libs wanted that also. Not to mention the trillion
buck 'stimulus' bill that was only pork and election slush funding.
Not enough for the libs? What about the attempted takeover
of the healtcare system by the government? What in the
world will it take to placate the libs who voted for 'hope and
change'? Burning Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove at the
stake?
steve
On 18-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> dear steve,
> if libertarians are so free, how can they argue?
Because free people are free to argue.
> thank you,
> blob
You're welcome.
--
"Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money,
they don't expect you to thank them for it."
Walter Williams
steve
On 18-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Yea, it's a mystery, alright. �Who could "twotsky" possibly refer
> > > > to?
> > > > --
> >
> > > i still dont understand a thing.
> >
> > It is complicated. �Take your time.
>
> what's complicated?
Dude..."twotsky" is a suggested nickname for trotsky. Can we stop now?
> > > you befuddle me, stewe. i thought we libertarians wouldnt abide by
> > > petty things such as grammar and spelling, so similar as they are to
> > > government and socialism.
> >
> > My thoughts exactly. �Grammar sent me a tax bill last week, and Spelling
> > threatened to throw me in jail if I dont pay it. Bastards to a man!
> > --
>
> i still dont understand. i thought grammar was suing you for not
> serving the governor and spelling put you in jail for the time you
> trespassed on brother grammar's property.
Im just not getting the joke, blob-man.
Ren Fisk @ The Fedora Chronicles
14th, 2009: "I have no idea why it should be necessary for me to
turn off my brain to be entertained. I like my brain and see no reason
why it should stop doing the job it was designed for while I watch a
movie..."
http://thefedorachronicles.com/flicks/ferguson/2012.html
trotsky
> On 18-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> So? What would knowing my full name do to change the meaning of my
>>> words
>>> and arguments?
>>
>> No, you're right, I don't think there's anything you could do to
>> establish any credibility.
>
> See..this is why I dont talk to you. You're just interested in being a
> jerk.
And yet you were the one that responded to calvin's trolls. You have a
head full of swiss cheese, id...@idiot.com. You think you're being
"above board" when the only reason we're having this exchange is because
you behaved like a common, filthy troll. You're the Usenet equivalent
of trailer trash. Don't fault me for putting you in your place.
trotsky
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:59:54 -0800 (PST), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>> Another run for Bush is just silly. A one-term Obama
>> is a reasonable possibility. He is infuriating a lot of
>> voters, and a trial that convicts America and not the
>> terrorist, though it might please you, would displease
>> many millions. It's going to be quite a show.
>> I think you will find that this trial captures the public
>> interest, maybe not as much as the O.J. trial, but way
>> up there.
>
> He's infuriating those who voted for change, and those who would never
> have voted for him in any case.
>
> If the economy is good, he will be re-elected. If it is mediocre,
> it depends on who the Republicans nominate.
I agree--it might still not be too late to get Jesus Christ on the
ticket. Sarah Palin--that doesn't look like it will work out too good.
trotsky
I'm worried about you, calvin. You seem to be on the brink of suicide.
Firstly, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove are not only white trash,
they're also war criminals, and at least two of them committed an act of
treason in the Plame incident. "Free enterprise toward socialism" is
just trash talk, because Obama wants to take of people let to die in the
streets by the Bush admin. No, that isn't an exaggeration.
"Apologizing to the world for the Bush administration?" Does he have
any other choice? The U.S. has embarrassed themselves, not only in
terms of geopolitics, but now in terms of their economic mess. I don't
want to live in a third world country owned by China you stupid son of a
bitch. Global warming? What's wrong with taking care of God's green
Earth? You GOP hypocrites are all about your religion and family
values, but when it comes to taking care of the planet, it's "fuck God
and his creation." Couldn't you, just once, say something that doesn't
make you sound like a stupid asshole?
What else. The stimulus? I can see why that would bother you because
we are no longer on the verge of economic collapse. Within his first
100 days Obama saved the entire world from economic ruin. Maybe he is
the messiah. The health care system? See my above comments about dying
in the streets. Basically, you're a dinosaur, calvin. The world is no
longer about trillion dollar defense budgets. That was childish and
wasteful, and went on for decades. Now we're about taking care of our
people and the planet. You can wriggle and moan all you want, but
ultimately you're just going to go the way of the dinosaur too.
trotsky
> On 18-Nov-2009, sirblob2 <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Yea, it's a mystery, alright. Who could "twotsky" possibly refer
>>>>> to?
>>>>> --
>>>> i still dont understand a thing.
>>> It is complicated. Take your time.
>> what's complicated?
>
> Dude..."twotsky" is a suggested nickname for trotsky. Can we stop now?
Only if you admit you're a filthy, disgusting troll. Personally, I
don't think you have the balls.
steve
On 19-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> What else. The stimulus? I can see why that would bother you because
> we are no longer on the verge of economic collapse. Within his first
> 100 days Obama saved the entire world from economic ruin.
Ive been wondering if anyone actually believes this nonsense. Now I know.
If you had a clue about economics, you'd see why both Bush and BHO have
taken us down the wrong road.
steve
On 19-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> > See..this is why I dont talk to you. You're just interested in being a
> > jerk.
>
>
> And yet you were the one that responded to calvin's trolls.
Calvin is not hateful and abusive. And Im allowed to have some fun once in
a while without incurring any obligation to tolerate your abusive nonsense.
But to understand that point, you have to be willing and able to draw
relevant distinctions. Evidence suggests that you lack at least one (and
very probably both) of those requirements.
sirblob2
> On 19-Nov-2009, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > What else. The stimulus? I can see why that would bother you because
> > we are no longer on the verge of economic collapse. Within his first
> > 100 days Obama saved the entire world from economic ruin.
>
> Ive been wondering if anyone actually believes this nonsense. Now I know.
>
> If you had a clue about economics, you'd see why both Bush and BHO have
> taken us down the wrong road.
> --
ah yes the subprime orgy, it wasnt finance who was actually doing it,
it was gubbamubba that was letting them do it, this is where stewe
does magic. before he's say libtards were libtards, now he'll say
libtards are whatever he says they are.
stewe's a phony troll.
> "Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money,
> they don't expect you to thank them for it."
> Walter Williams
it's called western democracy
trotsky
> On 19-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> What else. The stimulus? I can see why that would bother you because
>> we are no longer on the verge of economic collapse. Within his first
>> 100 days Obama saved the entire world from economic ruin.
>
> Ive been wondering if anyone actually believes this nonsense. Now I know.
>
> If you had a clue about economics, you'd see why both Bush and BHO have
> taken us down the wrong road.
Wait, are you going to tell us that the illustrious "st...@steve.com"
should be taken seriously about economics? You've got no identity,
buddy. You're just an anonymous jerkoff on Useenet--what part of this
don't you understand?
trotsky
> On 19-Nov-2009, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> See..this is why I dont talk to you. You're just interested in being a
>>> jerk.
>>
>> And yet you were the one that responded to calvin's trolls.
>
> Calvin is not hateful and abusive.
Right. And "twotsky" was your idea of foreplay? I'm not gay, "steve"!
And Im allowed to have some fun once in
> a while without incurring any obligation to tolerate your abusive nonsense.
> But to understand that point, you have to be willing and able to draw
> relevant distinctions. Evidence suggests that you lack at least one (and
> very probably both) of those requirements.
Yawn. I'm getting tired of anonymous twats such as yourself deluding
themselves into thinking they have valid opinions. I wonder if you
realize how much less seriously people will take you now that you've
gotten a sufficient beat-down from me for trolling. I doubt you're
bright enough to realize this.
calvin
> calvin wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 6:04 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> He's infuriating those who voted for change, ...
>
> > What change did they want? He's pushing the country from
> > free enterprise toward socialism. I thought that's the change
> > the libs wanted. And he's apologizing to the world for the
> > Bush administration. I thought the libs wanted that too. And
> > he wants to cripple industry with global warming regulations.
> > I thought the libs wanted that also. Not to mention the trillion
> > buck 'stimulus' bill that was only pork and election slush funding.
> > Not enough for the libs? What about the attempted takeover
> > of the healtcare system by the government? What in the
> > world will it take to placate the libs who voted for 'hope and
> > change'? Burning Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove at the
> > stake?
>
I was trying to get Mr. Brazee to explain why he thought the
people who voted for Obama are unhappy with the way he's
'governing'.
calvin
> steve wrote:
> > And Im allowed to have some fun once in
> > a while without incurring any obligation to tolerate your abusive nonsense.
> > But to understand that point, you have to be willing and able to draw
> > relevant distinctions. Evidence suggests that you lack at least one (and
> > very probably both) of those requirements.
>
> Yawn. I'm getting tired of anonymous twats such as yourself deluding
> themselves into thinking they have valid opinions. I wonder if you
> realize how much less seriously people will take you now that you've
> gotten a sufficient beat-down from me for trolling. I doubt you're
> bright enough to realize this.
I gotta admit, no one else could have handled steve the way you did.
calvin
Sez the most blatantly homophobic poster in
these NGs. You might want to educate yourself
about what usually motivates homophobia.
moviePig
It may be that Palin's book tour will indeed emit sufficient of her on-
record lunacy to scuttle a future anointing. But her phenomenon
remains ...a throne of public credulity awaiting the next, better
handled, pretender. Keep watching the skies...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
calvin
> It may be that Palin's book tour will indeed emit sufficient of her on-
> record lunacy to scuttle a future anointing. But her phenomenon
> remains ...a throne of public credulity awaiting the next, better
> handled, pretender. Keep watching the skies...
She's not my choice for 2012, but she would be better
than Obama. Rush Limbaugh interviewed her for a half
hour yesterday, and asked only policy questions, no
personal questions. On everything, foreign and domestic,
she had a well thought out response. Good interviews
are those that allow the one interviewed to say what he or
she thinks, unchallenged. Then we know what the candidate
has to offer. 'Gotcha' interviews serve no purpose except
stifling and discrediting the one interviewed.
moviePig
Re the notion that a good interview allows the interviewee to speak
unchallenged, I'd hardly know where to begin...
calvin
Depends on the purpose of the interview. I don't like smug,
arrogant media people challenging politicians. If you want
challenges, then let two politicians debate, and keep the media
jerks' opinions and agenda out of it.
moviePig
*Let* them? "Politicians" usually agree *not* to ask each other
questions face to face. Moreover, sadly, they're less incisive than
most any good interviewer.
calvin
There are no 'good interviewers'. There are only liberal or
conservative interviewers.
trotsky
But when I explain things to you that's more than the two brain cells
can handle?
trotsky
That could be taken a number of ways, but I like to think I'm inimitable.
trotsky
Don't be stupid, calvin. There are only a limited number of ways to
push people's buttons on Usenet. I'm a bleeding heart liberal so how
homophobic can I actually be?
That was a really stupid comment.
trotsky
I only wish Andy Warhol were alive to comment on her 15 min. turning
into 15 months.
trotsky
"There is no dark side of the moon, actually--as a matter of fact it's
all dark."
moviePig
The best I can say of that view is that it gets right to the point...
calvin
Exactly. A liberal interviewer is happy to let a liberal
candidate express himself or herself. Likewise for
conservative/conservative. The trouble comes when
the interviewer poses as 'unbiased' or 'fair' and then
proceeds to try to skewer the candidate; sometimes
unconsciously, because some liberals, of whom you
are a prime example, often think that they are normal
people ideologically, in a world consisting only of
normal people and right wingers.
moviePig
Yes, yes... the world's divided into allies and conspiracies. And
everyone's DNA has political polarity ...even if secretly, even from
themselves. The first ape to stand upright, no doubt, took merely a
step or two before choosing to turn Right or Left...
calvin
And you are a primate who turns only to the left.
trotsky
Interestingly, Jon Stewart has a number of right wing interviewees, but
I'm sure the fact that he gives insightful, entertaining interviews to
even people I dislike immensely wouldn't penetrate calvin's dense cranium.
moviePig
You could say somewhat the same of Bill Maher, who afaik calls himself
a screaming liberal. If I have a liberal's bias towards the media
(not), it may be that I can point to at least a few such personalities
who, despite their audience demo, seem vulnerable to logic and
reason ...whereas I really don't know of any conservative
"commentators" who aren't constantly in rock hard spin-mode. (I do
hear tales of Shepard Smith, but I'm scared of those woods at
night...)
calvin
> ...whereas I really don't know of any conservative
> "commentators" who aren't constantly in rock hard spin-mode. (I do
> hear tales of Shepard Smith, but I'm scared of those woods at
> night...)
Chris Wallace. You can hear podcasts of his 'Fox News Sunday'
shows at:
http://feeds.foxnews.com/podcasts/FoxNewsSunday
They remain posted, so there's no hurry to catch one.
calvin
So you're quoting me quoting Pink Floyd, but why?
calvin
As much as you exhibit, which is a lot.
> That was a really stupid comment.
If you mean yours, yes.
calvin
Hint: not a good way.
> but I like to think I'm inimitable.
That's probably true, but who would want to try?
calvin
There's an interesting juxtaposition available for any fair-minded
people who might be lurking around these parts. First watch
the Palin interviews with Hannity and O'Reilly at the FoxNews
website tonight, where you will see a good and strong woman,
also knowledgeable of the issues, and well able to explain herself,
eg. her "what do you read" answer. Then go to the MSNBC
website and see the vicious, sneering, snickering attacks on her
and for those and other interviews. The contrast is startling. It's
shameful and depressing to see how the media representatives
of the left behave. And you can bet that Bill Maher, Jon Stewart,
and their guests are behaving equally badly, all the while
congratulating themselves. It's on nights like tonight that I have
no doubt about being on the right and moral side of politics in
America.
sirblob2
an animal is never a who
trotsky
Are you on acid?
trotsky
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
trotsky
> On Nov 19, 2:01 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> calvin wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 9:29 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> steve wrote:
>>>>> And Im allowed to have some fun once in
>>>>> a while without incurring any obligation to tolerate your abusive nonsense.
>>>>> But to understand that point, you have to be willing and able to draw
>>>>> relevant distinctions. Evidence suggests that you lack at least one (and
>>>>> very probably both) of those requirements.
>>>> Yawn. I'm getting tired of anonymous twats such as yourself deluding
>>>> themselves into thinking they have valid opinions. I wonder if you
>>>> realize how much less seriously people will take you now that you've
>>>> gotten a sufficient beat-down from me for trolling. I doubt you're
>>>> bright enough to realize this.
>>> I gotta admit, no one else could have handled steve the way you did.
>> That could be taken a number of ways,
>
> Hint: not a good way.
Hint: nothing you say can be taken in a good way, unless you take in
context of the Special Olympics.
>> but I like to think I'm inimitable.
>
> That's probably true, but who would want to try?
People on Usenet do constantly.
calvin
humans are primates
Anthony Buckland
All the Whos down in Whoville,
Compared to a plant,
A most terrible slant,
Or compared to a rock,
Which would rot a Who Sock,
Will come round to your house and will all yell
"Woohoo!"