Snake in the Eagle's Shadow was filmed back to back with Drunken Master in 1978. These are the movies that made Jackie Chan a household name, at least in Hong Kong. They are both pretty good flicks.

They should have dug up some of the real stinkers he filmed prior or even his stunt work with Bruce Lee prior to his own career.

A. Obama isn't a socialist.

He sure as hell isn't a free market capitalist and is no supporter of individual rights. His answer to every problem is higher taxes (if he had the balls to confess it's his goal) more spending and MOAR government.

B. Socialism doesn't always fail.

Historically it's been around in one form or another and sooner or later always falls prey to human nature. Private property rights are the bane of socialists.

C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.

Not on paper, but that's what it ends up being. The State > Individual at all times. Rights that can be revoked by the State at any time due to not being natural born rights are a fraud.

D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.

Semantics. When the State owns all property, they own you. When the State dictates who may or may not receive health care, they own you.

E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.

Also answering Jigga----I made no claim of a full analysis with pie graphs---the point is this: Russia has far more natural resources than the United States, yet communism failed. Shitty state-made products (tech stolen from USA), long lines for basic staples like bread and gulags for critics.

F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead.

Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Social Security started as protection for a very small part of the populace and expanded to cover more and more year after year. The original architects of Medicare and Medicaid probably didn't imagine leviathan programs losing 60 billion dollars a year to fraud, waste and abuse. But here we are!

Why wouldn't I share the wonderful leftist vision of the future? Because the left measures social programs based on what they're supposed to do, not how well they do. The left also views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This fugue is played every day 'round here. "The rich are evil because their gains are ill-gotten, the poor are innocent victims of exploitation."

You're fooling yourselves if you think taxing the evil rich at 90% tomorrow will change anything. This isn't 1950. The evil rich will simply transfer the bulk of their wealth, investing in other countries. Why would anyone have an incentive to start businesses or create jobs if the federal mafia is going to confiscate most of their profits?

And hero, your little dig at the end of your post indicates you don't have much faith in your answers.


Hey gang, you're skeptical about these candidates? I'm here to tell you I'm not buying what you're selling either. I don't trust the results of the left's good intentions or even that their intentions are good.

A. Obama isn't a socialist.
B. Socialism doesn't always fail.
C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.
D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.
E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.
F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead. Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Seriously....

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.
Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).
The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.
Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.
The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

oh THIS guy! Go through his channel. He has one featuring Gundam models played out in the style of old Hong Kong kung fu flicks. Good stuff.

Clearly, printing forms in two languages has not crippled the Canadian economy. Microsoft publishes their software in (guessing) a hundred different languages. Hasn't hurt them either. And the poor, poor senator who once or twice in his career (this clearly isn't a common occurrence in his presence) has to hear a short deposition twice. Really? That's all you've got that's going to destroy nations?

You didn't answer me about whether Switzerland is a nation, with its four official languages.>> ^quantumushroom:

Multi-lingualism is another barrier to understanding and unity. E Plurius Unum. From Many, One.
What will happen to a nation is what's happening now. Government agencies must prints forms in multiple languages. Businesses have to spend money to make multi-lingual everything. And Senator Who-is-100%-Correct (and us) has to listen to everything twice.
Without common borders, language and culture, (and common sense) there is no nation, period.
Too bad there wasn't this fount of liberal wisdom back in the 1920s. Imagine! All those immigrants flowing into Ellis Island learning English as quickly as possible. What were they thinking?

>> ^messenger:
So Canada isn't a nation because not everyone speaks the same language? Switzerland isn't a nation? India? Spain? China? Singapore? Hong Kong?
What do you think will happen to a nation if it allows speakers of other languages to give depositions in that language? How does that eliminate the nation?>> ^quantumushroom:
Without common borders, language and culture, (and common sense) there is no nation, period.

Multi-lingualism is another barrier to understanding and unity. E Plurius Unum. From Many, One.

What will happen to a nation is what's happening now. Government agencies must prints forms in multiple languages. Businesses have to spend money to make multi-lingual everything. And Senator Who-is-100%-Correct (and us) has to listen to everything twice.

Without common borders, language and culture, (and common sense) there is no nation, period.

Too bad there wasn't this fount of liberal wisdom back in the 1920s. Imagine! All those immigrants flowing into Ellis Island learning English as quickly as possible. What were they thinking?


>> ^messenger:

So Canada isn't a nation because not everyone speaks the same language? Switzerland isn't a nation? India? Spain? China? Singapore? Hong Kong?
What do you think will happen to a nation if it allows speakers of other languages to give depositions in that language? How does that eliminate the nation?>> ^quantumushroom:
Without common borders, language and culture, (and common sense) there is no nation, period.

So Canada isn't a nation because not everyone speaks the same language? Switzerland isn't a nation? India? Spain? China? Singapore? Hong Kong?

What do you think will happen to a nation if it allows speakers of other languages to give depositions in that language? How does that eliminate the nation?>> ^quantumushroom:
Without common borders, language and culture, (and common sense) there is no nation, period.

>> ^solecist:

i always have trouble hanging in there with movies like this. the weird dubbing is very distracting (some of the voices don't seem to match the actors), and the bad dialog (bad translation?) does not help (note that i have the original language version, not an english dubbing). the fight choreography is pretty good, if at times a little too silly for my tastes. using my advanced rating technique i have given it a score of exactly 4,392 out of 9,898.


The default audio language most times is Mandarin, despite the cast usually speaking Cantonese during filming. This is because it's the "standard" language of China, though pretty much all Hong Kong actors speak Cantonese. Occasionally, the actors will actually speak Mandarin. I recall Michelle Yeoh mentioning how hard it was trying to speak Mandarin for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Almost always you just need to switch to the second audio track to hear the actual actors' spoken dialog.

>> ^uberzip:

The worst thing that you can't see from this video is that the cab drivers don't let you wear seat belts.


I concur. I was in China one month ago, and made the mistake of flying to Beijing from Zhuhai instead of from Hong Kong to save a few bucks (hint: don't do that). This meant a number of miles to and from the hotel by taxi. Ho boy. Also, they're not "on the fast lane". Every lane is the fast lane in China.

There's a positive side to that however (if you survive): after 45 minutes of safety-belt-less crazy taxi drive, where trucks can outspeed you, and where all cars overtake each others on the left or on the right constantly while bikers drive in the opposite direction on the emergency lane...When you arrive at the airport and your plane takes off, you realize something. You've been cured from flight fright. For ever.

>> ^undefined:

promote


Danke!

>> ^rychan:

>> ^littledragon_79:
Interesting to see all the imperial territories, many of which are still messed up...this is why I like to blame Britain for a lot of the crap in the world today. And unfortunately it seems empires that screw up the world have former colonies that screw up the world.
We learned it from watching you!

Well, to be fair, many ex-colonies are in fantastic shape. Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have very high standards of living. India and South Africa seem to be in reasonable shape, with respect to their neighbors, at least. I'm sure historians have done better comparisons of colonized versus un-colonized nations. I would bet that colonization is a long term win. I'm not saying that morally justifies it, though.


Yes, committing essentially genocide and replacing the native populations with your own does wonders for the economy. Colonization is definitely a long term win, just not for the people you colonize.

I think it would be more accurate to say that those countries are doing well in spite of the colonization. Also, it depends who you're talking about in those countries... Native Americans in the U.S. and Canada, Maori in New Zealand, and Aborigines in Australia all had their cultures completely or nearly completely destroyed by colonization. A lot of those populations still live in poverty or are marginalized. I doubt they'd share your opinion about colonization's benefits.

>> ^rychan:

Well, to be fair, many ex-colonies are in fantastic shape. Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have very high standards of living. India and South Africa seem to be in reasonable shape, with respect to their neighbors, at least. I'm sure historians have done better comparisons of colonized versus un-colonized nations. I would bet that colonization is a long term win. I'm not saying that morally justifies it, though.

>> ^littledragon_79:

Interesting to see all the imperial territories, many of which are still messed up...this is why I like to blame Britain for a lot of the crap in the world today. And unfortunately it seems empires that screw up the world have former colonies that screw up the world.
We learned it from watching you!


Well, to be fair, many ex-colonies are in fantastic shape. Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have very high standards of living. India and South Africa seem to be in reasonable shape, with respect to their neighbors, at least. I'm sure historians have done better comparisons of colonized versus un-colonized nations. I would bet that colonization is a long term win. I'm not saying that morally justifies it, though.

Your video, Hong Kong architect builds 24 rooms in one apartment, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I know you're kidding but I didn't see any sign of a toilet. I wonder if there's a shared bathroom in the building or if it just wasn't shown?

Also, it's Asia... You don't need a toilet to do a #2, you can just crap on somebody's chest.

>> ^HenningKO:

Oh shit! I have to use the toilet but it's behind 20 walls!
jk, it's neat... and I'm sure any room with a sink doubles as a bathroom.