Disqus - Latest Comments for alex

Re: On the Cover of the Rolling Stone - GWB

alex — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:25:08 -0000

so, where's the actual response to the article. oh wait, it looks as if you didn't even read it.

typical.

Re: “Boston Legal” Update - Video Clip #1 - America On Trial

alex — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:29:00 -0000

So, anytime someone says the un-copyrighted, long-existing phrase "let's roll," we are to believe that they are "anti-Bush, anti-American?"

You are HILARIOUS.

Re: “V” for “Vile” - Hollywood Still Doesn’t Get It

alex — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:45:55 -0000

Would you have your panties in a bunch over this movie if it took on an opposite foe, and the hero was fighting an oppressive communist state (as opposed to the right-wing nazi-like police state portrayed in this movie)?

Would that movie be "pro-terrorist?"

Re: Some People Just Need to be Shot on Sight (VIDEO)

alex — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:48:04 -0000

Wow, you even politicize something as cruel as this. You are amazing. Seriously, EVERYONE knows that something like this is tragic, wrong in every aspect, and can lead to worse crimes against human beings. Why would you even bring up "bleeding-heart liberals" in this post?

Re: “V” for “Vile” - Hollywood Still Doesn’t Get It

alex — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:39:37 -0000

First of all, this was based on feelings of "what if" in regards to slippery-slope senarios...drawn out of policies in place in England under Margret Thatcher in the 1980's. NOT on anything in American history.

But if you want to bring up American war history, I'm game. History shows us fighting several different types of enemies and ideaologies, in several different ways.

The best example to bring up is the war for independence from the British Crown - were the American revolutionary fighters terrorists? Under your definition, are we to say that movies like "The Patriot" are "pro-terrorist" because much of the fighting style against the British was unorthodox, guerilla style and fighting against the army of a nation that claimed soveriegnty over the land?

History also shows us fighting against opposite ends of the idealogical spectrum. Take, for example, the right-wing facism known as "nazism" durring WW2 (which is close to what the England of the future had become in "V for Vendetta"). Or the left-wing oppression known as "communism" durring the Cold War.

The point is, for you to label a futuristic movie as "anti-American, pro-terrorist" because of the subject matter and idealology they chose to portray is downright ridiculous. Especially given that in "American war history" we've successfully fought against several different idealolgies for our freedom, including one that is closely aligned with what is portrayed in the movie.

Rag on the movie all you want about the timing, showing an act, that in modern times, could be construed as terrorism...or playing a two-second clip of real news footage from Iraq; but given the situation portayed in the future in this movie, are you saying you wouldn't cheer the same act if the ideology portrayed wasn't extreme right-wing, but instead extreme left-wing?

Re: Some People Just Need to be Shot on Sight (VIDEO)

alex — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 12:58:32 -0000

Oh my dear Ms U:

I wasn't offended. I just think it's rather strange that you would attempt to politicize something like dead dogs. There are some things where comments like that add absolutely nothing, and take away from the important (and tragic) points of the initial post...and this is definitely one of them.

Re: Tancredo Asks the ACLU to Represent Illinois Student

alex — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:34:52 -0000

As a postscript to this story, I did a search of ACLU.org, and found nothing. I also was a little angered that they would not take this case.

However, then I dug a little deeper and found that the student was merely "admonished." He was not suspended, expelled or even punished, probably just written up, and then the case was dropped when the lunacy of the write-up was realized.

Therefore, while the initial admonishment was entirely wrong, as any American would agree, the ACLU had no case, and could not become involved in this.

As for Representative Tancredo's involvement: pure, reactionary political posturing, designed to "rally the base" so they say.

Re: O’Reilly Picks Up on AJC’s Luckovich Cartoon

alex — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:45:29 -0000

I see you completely missed the point of the cartoon. While in poor taste, it makes the larger point that thanks to our Government allowing, and even debating the "merits" of torture, we have lost the moral highground. That is undeniable.

Re: Why Newspaper Circulation Numbers Are Plummeting

alex — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:53:38 -0000

Again, the larger point of the cartoon that you don't seem to understand: because the government of America condones and even debates the "merits" of torture, we have lost the moral highground.

Re: Some People Just Need to be Shot on Sight (VIDEO)

alex — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:26:38 -0000

Way to delete my comments.