Their job is to decide what is going to be put to the floor and when. They are doing their job. Harry Reid was great in shutting down any Republican plan. Nothing Republican was presented by Reid when Dems were in control.

Thanks for all of the replies. That makes sense, that it could be genuine if the "surprised" actor was the first to be filmed, while the offscreen actor throws in an ad-lib when saying his lines. Then the director likes the improvised line, adds it to the script, then films the 2nd actor later.

Sometimes the IMDB trivia section can be a graffiti wall of pretty stupid stuff, take this gem from "Dirty Harry" for example:

The sniper calls himself "Scorpio" which is the Zodiac sign for people born between October 24th and November 22nd. November 22nd 1963 is the date that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a sniper in Dallas, Texas, a killing that the Clint Eastwood character in In the Line of Fire (1993) would be directly involved in.

I'm glad this thread had a Hollywood ending. ;-)

I listened to Sam Harris' podcast where he makes that remark about Carson, and I should say I did not find any "slanderous hysterical charges" against people he disagrees with. I found his arguments to be extremely well reasoned.

Does anyone have any other instances of Harris slandering his detractors? I'm genuinely curious here.

I would say that in general that both parties have extreme Members that do more harm to the public good and are more about lining their own pockets. The old timers time have come and do need to be replaced with those who reflect today's ideals. Harry Reid and John McCain types need to go.

Yes Republicans are the holier than thou and come up short often enough. We all fail from time to time but at least they try.
Democrats doesn't even try to be holy and to me that is frustrating.

The only good thing about our government is that the people are the final check and balance. However people are too busy being self absorb to pay attention to government. No one is watching the hen house.


The purpose of this video was for this man to show that the 7% of the black population who do not feel that the democrat philosophy is the correct way to go.

This is this mans opinion.
Granted the black face brings a stigma from yesterdays past.
But this is from a black man. He can get away with it. Like white people cant say N but the black man can and it is ok.

Since he does not hold the majority view as seen by his counterparts ( blacks and sifters )this video was discarded as racist trash.

I look at racist as one group feeling superior over another.
This black man is not doing this. He is not demonstrating this belief.


As far as the FU we all at times are quick to do this. I have done this also.

Enjoy the Superbowl

Since panthers are my home town team I will root for them tonight. Beside they have one heck of a season.

Exorcist 3 was way better than the second movie, although technically it is a sequel to the first.

Mad Max Fury Road was better than... well, all of the Mad Max movies.

Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel. Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country is WAY better than the original, 3, 4, and 5. So sometimes the sequel is good and then it takes 4 more movies before you get a good one in.

James Bond arguably got better with age. Maybe not the most recent ones, but Golden Eye was amazing. Great games can also be spawned from over making a franchise!

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is hands down the best of Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy. It wasn't just a western, it was an epic civil war movie in the west. And the ending with the Mexican stand off; soundtrack?!?! Hot damn! Not that the "sequel" sucked but the third was the BEST.

I know there are a couple good horror series that had a better third or fourth movie. Any Hellraiser is better than Hellraiser 2, same goes for Halloween. Though I can't say they were ever as good as their originals. It's still a hope I reserve for horror movies that make it past their shitty sequel.

The next Ring might be awesome. "Might." It's had a fairly massive career spanning 4 countries, 12 movies, 2 telvis ion series, 2 video games and a bunch of manga. Movies most people don't even know exist. I think the seventh iteration of the Ring (2002's American Ring) is the best.

And, while it might just technically count, it's worth noting that while i like Gaspar Noe's despair trilogy, his third movie Enter the Void is the only movie in the trilogy I can enjoy watching a third or fourth time. I once recommended his movies and alienated an entire office space. The only movie anyone enjoyed was his third movie.

Ghostbusters 3 will probably be better than 2. Blasphemy!! Hah, we will see. Girl power!

I think Batman also got better because of Nolan. Does that count? I mean, if a franchise goes on that long, it's all just sequels, despite the so-called canon and concept of "rebooting" a FAKE universe.

(Does Harry Potter count as the third movie in the Troll series?)

Just wanted to respond to show that I'm not ignoring this, but mainly just nodding my head. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I think that feminism is needed despite some of the excesses of its adherents, just like I don't consider myself a civil rights activists, but think that it's a needed movement despite some of the excesses of its adherents (I'm too lazy to be either a feminist or a civili rights activist).

I completely agree that the wage gap is real but incredibly hard to isolate, define and quantify, and that a lot of the intended measures to adress it can end up fucking over individuals while failing to adress the core issues. That, to me, means that we have to work smarter and harder, which some economists are doing. I just don't think CHS is the one leading that field forward, unfortunately.

And finally, death threats and threats of violence seem to me like they are almost synonymous with the internet. I find I can't draw any conclusions from the existence of threats of violence online, because if I did I would conclude that the following are all toxic cultures of death and violence: feminism, gaming, conservatism, progressivism, ISIS, Harry Potter, men's rights activism and environmentalism, to mention just a few. Of all of those I'm pretty sure it's only ISIS that actually represents a toxic culture of death.

Harris > Hudson

That would've been suicide. It'd be like starting the movies for the Harry Potter series on book 4. Sure, you'd have a fanbase that knows the source material and would understand what's going on, but it would alienate everyone who hasn't read the books, and now they don't wanna go see it.

At least this way with it being (somewhat relatively close to) orcs vs humans, we establish the general base for what happens, so if it's a success they can continue down the story.

There's foreshadowing in the trailer anyway, the orc that sends the baby down the river, I'm guessing the baby is Thrall.

Which already kinda mucks up the storyline.. because that more involves parts of warcraft II.. Either way, I thought it looked pretty decent. I'm hoping a bit more work goes into making the orcs look a little more.. not CGI in a couple of those scenes, but I'll probably go see it.

Kinda sums up my thoughts on Harris. You can watch about 10-15 of his video's and you'll think he's fairly smart and has some good ideas. Eventually though, you'll realise he's always using the same arguments, and he tends to stereotype pretty heavily, specifically against those of the Islamic faith.

"Use the force Harry" - Gandalf.

Meh. False balance. For a long time, people have been trying to make this case and point out how clever they are for seeing it... I never see it. Hitch, Harris and Dawkins can be wrong and headstrong dicks about it, certainly... but they're not fundamentalists.

@Barbar
i do not know if you are aware,but you actually made my point in regards to justification.specifically your third paragraph.

as for the disagreement in regards to religious texts being inert and neutral.this should not really be an issue and should be plain for all to see.religious texts are amalgamations,musings,stories,philosophies all jammed into a canonized text.they are often hypocritical and contradictory.it is the reader that interprets and injects their own subjective understandings based on their own proclivities.

which then makes religious text a subjective text.so if you are violent,then your interpretations will be violence,which would lead to justifications based on those interpretations.

unless you are using fundamentalism as a fulcrum.which sees religious text as the unerring word of god,which brings a whole new conundrum into focus:contradictory philosophies which are in diametric opposition.which is an impossibility to reconcile,but again brings us to my main point:justification.(by way of mental gymnastics).

and harris does not just smell like apologist BS,he IS an apologist.now this is understandable when seen through the lens of nationalism,but it engages in the same wishful thinking harris accuses many religious people of engaging in.

we WANT to feel we are the good guys.
we WANT to think that what we are doing is for a higher,and more morale purpose.
we WANT to think all this violence and bloodshed is ultimately for a better and more prosperous future for everybody involved.
we WANT to believe that our government is not just destroying and destabilizing whole communities with wanton destruction just so our corporations can have a new market to exploit,or to control the oil fields for BP and chevron to control.

but thats not the reality.
our wants are just wishful thinking and an inability to accept that we cling to these wants to justify horror,destruction and death.

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/05/the-radically-changing-story-of-the-u-s-airstrike-on-afghan-hospital-from-mistake-to-justification/

so what is OUR justification?
so just like the more moderate and secular muslims who look the other way when faced with horror.we too,look away at the truth of things,because to recognize the reality means to accept responsibility.
we have blood on our hands....all of us.
as do those muslims who also look away.

but the allure of justifications....
to have the ability to turn horror into righteousness.
it is extremely powerful,and we ALL participate.
even sam harris.

Nice to see a lack of verbal abuse in a discussion like this. I appreciate it as I know I'm probably treading on thin ice in a lot of minds.

I disagree that texts are devoid of meaning until we give them some. The text itself if a collection of ideas and some of those ideas are horrendous. It generally is not an individual's qualities that determine the violence of the religion as much as the history of that religion's practice in the area they were raised. A peaceful and loving Aztec that was faithful would still have supported sacrificing slaves for all the same reasons, because they would have believed the underlying superstitions that made it a rational act given the premises.

I'm not sure Maher & co. view is as a strictly religious phenomenon. You really have to do a case by case analysis. Some make no sense but for religion, while other are very easy for my to sympathize with, even as an atheist. I have to admit I'm more familiar with Harris' views than Maher's, mind you, as I find Maher's presentation of his ideas can at times be half baked.

The reason why they specifically strap bombs to their chests is largely religious. Everyone else prefers living to kill another day. There's a religious reason why they are willing to sacrifice their children in this way. The reason that they behead people instead of other forms of killing them is because that form of murder is enshrined in their texts. All of these religious justifications lower the barrier for action. They make it that much easier for someone to accept that it's a reasonable course of action. And that's because of specific words in specific books.

I agree that is smells like apologist BS when Harris talks about western intervention having good intentions. I don't think the west has good intentions most of the time. However you have to acknowledge that there is something less reprehensible about trying to kill even a likely dangerous person (with the likelihood of innocent collateral damage) as compared with deliberately targeting exclusively innocent people. Yes the wedding party massacre was horrible. That was the worst case possible from our point of view, and some efforts will be made to avoid it happening again. If think that is morally significant. If you don't think intentions are relevant to morality, we will simply disagree.

what a fantastic discussion.
i would just like to add a few points:
1.religious texts are inert.they are neutral.
WE give them meaning.
so if you are a violent person,your religion will be violent.
if you are a peaceful and loving person,your religion will be peaceful and loving.
2.religion,along with nationalism,are the two greatest devices used by the state/tyrant/despot/king to instigate a populace to war/violence.
3.as @Barbar noted.islam is in serious need of reformation,much like the christian church experienced centuries ago.see:the end of the dark ages.
4.one of my problems with maher,harris and to a lesser extent dawkins,is that they view this strictly as a religious problem and ignore the cultural and social implications of the wests interventionism in the middle east.this is a dynamic and complicated situation,which goes back decades and to simply say that this is a problem with islam is just intellectually lazy.

there is a reason why these communities strap bombs to their chest.there is a reason why they behead people on youtube.there is a reason why salafism and wahabism are becoming more entrenched and communities are becoming more radicalized.

islam is NOT the reason.
islam is the justification.

the reason why liberals lose absofuckingalways,is because they not only feel they are,as @gorillaman pointed out,"good" but that they are somehow "better" than the rest of us.

sam harris is a supreme offender in this regard.that somehow the secular west has "better" or "good" intentions when we interfere with the middle east.that when a US drone strike wipes out a wedding party of 80 people is somehow less barbaric than the beheading of charlie hedbo.

yet BOTH are barbaric.

and BOTH utilize a device that justifies their actions.
one uses national security and/or some altruistic feelgood propaganda and the other uses islam.

yet only one is being occupied,oppressed,bombed and murdered.

this is basic.
there really is no controversy.
this is in our own history.
what is the only response when faced with an overwhelming and deadly military force,when your force is substantially weaker?
guerrilla warfare.

so the tactic of suicide bomber becomes more understandable when put in this context.
it is an act of desperation in the face of overwhelming military might to instill fear and terror upon those who wish to dominate and oppress.

and islam is the device used to justify these acts of terror.
just as nationalism and patriotism are used to justify OUR acts of terror.

thats my 2c anyways.
carry on peoples.

See, I agreed with everything you said up until that last statement (that I quoted below).

All organized religions brutally and mindlessly suppress individual freedom. But lately the target de jour seems to be Islam. People like Sam Harris got off track when they forgot that the real target is the dismantling of all organized religion and focused almost exclusively on denouncing Islam--usually with obnoxious overgeneralizations and a complete lack of understanding how diverse Islam actually is.

And that's the major problem with the whole argument Dawkins and Maher are proposing (i.e. that you can't criticize Islam anymore). You can't criticise Christianity or Judaism or any other major religion without hugely overgeneralizing, either. Instead you need to target specific denominations within specific communities and how they practice the religion.

For example, are you upset about how "Christianity" has helped spread AIDS or protected pedophiles? Well then really you're really looking to criticize the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception and handling illegal activities within the church, not Christianity as a whole.

Upset with how gay people are viewed? Again, you're probably not looking to criticize the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many other Christian denominations who have reformed in recent times to be accepting of LGBT members and clergy. It's not a Christianity problem so much as it is a problem of how specific people in specific places for specific cultural reasons interpret the texts of their religion.

Basically, I don't think it is a problem if people want to criticize how Islam is practiced in a specific context (say, for example, the use of female genital mutilation in some subsets of Islam in Africa). But I do think it is a problem when the speaker is simply set on demonizing the religion as whole rather than making a rational argument, for example overgeneralizing female gential mutilation (which actually pre-dates Islam and was incorporated into it later after Islam's rise of influence in the region) as an example of why Islam is evil.

Certainly people have the legal right to make such an argument (in the U.S. at least). However, I'm guessing most universities don't want to come across as looking in support of such ill-structured arguments that are more akin to tabloid magazine hit pieces than an actual intellectual argument which is grounded in facts and reason.

All that said, I have no inside information about the real administrative reasons why certain speakers have been declined/uninvited at specific college campuses.