That's a fan theory that explains why James Bond isn't the same guy all the time (Connery, Brosnan, Moore etc.) and kept spying around from the late 60's until now. The idea is that 'James Bond' is a cover identity used by various Agents of MI-6. This would allow for a black Bond but it isn't canon at all. That's why the Craig Bonds rebooted the franchise to allow the reuse of characters (Blofeld) and storylines (Vesper Lind vs. Tracy Bond).
007 is James Bond. The Producers are very protective in regards to this. However, the other 00-agents are pretty much non-existant in the franchise. They showed up in 'From Russia With Love' in a short meeting scene (sans dialogue), 009 died in the first 5 minutes of Octopussy (sans dialogue). The notable exception is Alec Trevelyan played by Sean Bean (I think he was 006), the villian from 'GoldenEye'. You could ague that Javier Bradem's Silva from 'Skyfall' must've been a 00-Agent but it is AFAIK not confirmed. Oh, and another 00-Agent was mentioned in 'Spectre'.
The reason Bond was made a scott was because Fleming like Connery's portrayal so much even though he was against casting him in the beginning. Bond's heritage is a minor plot point (more of a trivia item actually) in 'OHMSS' and a major plot point in 'Skyfall' (the name of Bond's family home).
As I said, gender-swapping Bond is much easier.

I defer to your opinion as i'm only assessing, who bond is, from my childhood viewing of 007 films. Not at all from Flemings books which ive never read.

Also my favorite "Bond' film may be 1967 Casino Royale. That film was a hoot Although nothing like your typical Bond film. http://videosift.com/video/Best-Bond-film-ever-1967-Casino-Royale-trailer
I did however see 'The spy who loved me' about ten times, when it came out.

Roger Moore? Controversial!

Personally, I think Dalton or Craig are closest to Flemings Bond, but Connery's movies were the best.

Craig got off to an excellent start with Casino Royale, but the others have been fairly average.

The best Bond movies ever, though, are the first three Bourne movies

Yeah, I think he'd keep truckin' and run on his own as an independent. I think his ego is big enough. Plus, he'd have a pretty legitimate beef which would solidify his supporters and potentially draw in some more who are displeased with the modern GOP. I think he'd take somewhere between 30%-60% of the republican votes with him all the way to the general election.

That thought made me wonder what other independent or 3rd party candidates have done in presidential elections, and I found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_elections#Presidential

I think he'd be somewhere between Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992. Roosevelt got nearly 30% of the vote, took 88 electoral votes, and placed 2nd of 6 in the race. Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote, but took no electoral votes and placed 3rd of many.

I think Trump running as a 3rd party could take somewhere between 20%-30% of the popular votes (40%+ of Republican-leaning voters, semi conservatively). It would be hard to match Roosevelt's percentage of electoral votes, but he'd get at least *some*, unlike Perot, because of states with proportional rules about allocating electoral votes. And I think he'd place second, like Roosevelt. In that sense, you could argue that the Republican candidate (whoever that would be) "stole" the election from Trump, rather than vice-versa as would be the GOP's narrative.

--I should note that I'm not an expert about any of this, these are just my thoughts--

About Reid Fleming, I hadn't actually heard of that before -- but I got my handle from a character from a different (web) comic called Red Meat:
Homepage
Milkman Dan comics

If they were successful in blocking Trump, do you think he'd run on his own? I don't see him having the stamina to continue to campaign, but his ego might override that.

On another note, you don't happen to work with Reid Fleming???

http://www.reidfleming.com/

Ok wait a minute-Did I miss the damn criteria-Greatest movie/TV president ever?

Hands Down, Dan Hedaya as Tricky-Dick in Andrew Fleming's, "Dick (1999)"
Never get tired of that flick, so much comedy-

oh wait, president Merkin Muffley (P. Sellers, Dr Strangeglove)

Glass insect sculptor Wesley Fleming - The Flameworker has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

You might like this one, on a glass insect sculptor from Western Massechusetts:

http://videosift.com/video/Glass-insect-sculptor-Wesley-Fleming-The-Flameworker

But you see, this is the thing you learn about James Bond. Vesper Lynd gets it - he's a common thug in a Savile Row suit. Ordering such a malapropos beverage as a shaken vodka martini is one of the ways Fleming let his readership know what sort of chap Bond is - either studiously disdainful of what his upper-class schoolmates might have considered correct, or clueless.

Old Wives Tale -- eating moldy bread could cure a fever.

Sometimes the mold was penicillin.

One wonders if Fleming had heard of this tale....

>> ^qfan:

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth.

Agreed. On the other hand, the unassailable mountains of evidence for evolution means his views (at least on evolution) are truth. Or at least as much as it's possible to have any scientific "truth".


>> ^qfan:

Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.
What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He's not saying parents can't tell their children about creationism, he's saying they shouldn't. You can dance around the issue all you want, and believe in creationism, the tooth fairy or santa claus, but there comes a time when you have to grow up and accept reality. Right now, there's no debate about evolution, simply because there is no valid competing scientific theory that even comes close to matching the evidence. That I have to even spell this out is pretty sad.

>> ^qfan:

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory.

There might be "thousands of scientists that believe in creation", but they represent a tiny percentage of the overall scientific community and almost none of them work in relevant fields. You wouldn't ask a plumber about aeronautical engineering, so don't ask a physicist about biology.

And if you ignore evolutionary theory, you are ignoring the science of biology. You are cherry-picking which evidence you accept because it doesn't fit your world view.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

I have already conceded that you do not need to understand evolutionary biology to build rockets.

>> ^qfan:

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution".

If you're going to quote me, at least do me the courtesy of doing it fully and in context. What I said was:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research.


I meant that Von Braun benefited from the study of evolution in the same way that every other human in the developed world did, through better medicines. It didn't really affect his work, but it did affect his life.


>> ^qfan:

Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

So what? He was wrong about evolution. Big deal. Newton was one of the greatest minds of all time and he got time wrong. Science marches on, and I'm confident that Von Braun if he had the time and inclination to really study it, would eventually have accepted the facts of evolution. And if he still chose to ignore the evidence because it didn't fit his world-view, well, that's sad, but it changes nothing about the truth of evolution.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.


It's not unique to the U.S., but it's more prevalent than any other developed nation. What he's saying is that the U.S. should know better.

Denial of evolution in and of itself is bad, but it's symptomatic of the larger issues of anti-intellectualism and non-rational thought. The people who made the U.S. the most technologically advanced nation are not the same people that believe in a talking snake.

Besides, he's talking about potential. Maybe somewhere in the bible belt the next Alexander Fleming is having their future taken away from them because they are being lied to (intentionally or not) by their parents and/or preachers.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tyt, young turks, cenk uygur, Ana Kasparian, abortion, onion, onn' to 'tyt, young turks, cenk uygur, Ana Kasparian, abortion, onion, onn, john fleming' - edited by xxovercastxx

http://fleming.house.gov/Contact/

I've been reading Ian Fleming's novels lately and I have to question the use of James Bond in support of this cause. Women were highly objectified in the world of James Bond. (Or maybe that's the point and I missed it?)

Thankfully, Craig's facial expression is quite appropriate. I think he's about ready to introduce that obnoxious narrator to the Beretta under his armpit.

OK, here's some NHS "success stories"
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1110054/Starved-death-NHS-hospital-Damning-inquiry-highlights-case-patient-left-food-26-days.html">ht
tp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1110054/Starved-death-NHS-hospital-Damning-inquiry-highlights-case-patient-left-food-26-days.html</a>
Britain shamed by NHS death ratesWaiting lists and shortage of doctors blamed for grim mortality figures
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/07/health.nhs">http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/07/health.nhs</a>
UK's system killed 17,000 Britons
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20080227/NEWS/802270305/-1/searchxml">http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20080227/NEWS/802270305/-1/searchxm
l</a>
Dad Dies After Hospital A&E Wait
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Dad-Stewart-Fleming-Dies-After-Six-Hour-Wait-In-Kent-Hospital-Accident-And-Emergency/Article/2008124151
95509">http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Dad-Stewart-Fleming-Dies-After-Six-Hour-Wait-In-Kent-Hospital-Accident-And-Emergency/Article/200812
415195509</a>


How often are incidents like this happening ?
How often are people in the US dieing because they cant even get in ?

Which is the lesser of two evils ?