That was ace.

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.
Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).
The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:
RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!
No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.
'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'
What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.
You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?
We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n gg rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.
Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

@NetRunner

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.

Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).

The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:

RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!

No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'

What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.

You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?

We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n*gg*rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.

Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

LOL! So if you get google hits, that makes it true?

Hmm...

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+is+satan

SEE!!!!!!!!!!!! SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=George+W+Bush+Satan

SATAN IS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=jesus+is+sexy

Rock me, Sexy Jesus!

Dude, seriously, nobody is buying your BS. How in the hell can Obamacare cost millions of jobs when it's not in effect fully, and unemployment is decreasing? *DECREASING!!!* You have no evidence. You have dubious claims based of crackpot analysis that are there to reinforce your delusions about reality. You WANT to believe that's true, and a quick google search where a bunch of rightwing think tanks and media outlets threw up a bunch of crap reinforced it. I could try to google stuff to show it's helped CREATE jobs if I wanted to on liberal think tank pages, but I'm not going to, because I don't have a preconceived outcome I want to be true. If Obamacare works, great. If it doesn't, it doesn't. For the record, I'm not even saying it won't cost jobs. I'm saying it's ridonculous to describe the impacts of a program that's not even fully implemented yet on a complex economic system!

So I guess Reagan was a dirty commie for bailing out Chrysler?! You're arguments are absurd! Your solution to our economic problems was to let Chrysler and GM go bankrupt and balloon unemployment beyond the 10% that it was?!?! Do you have any idea how macroeconomics actually work?! There's a reason why Reagan and Obama both bailed out Chrysler. Had Reagan been president, he would have bailed GM out, too. You know why? Because thankfully, both men when push comes to shove threw ideology out the window on the really big things and did what was best for the country. Lord knows I objected on principle that the banks got bailed out, but it had to be done for the good of everyone. Here we are, several years from those decisions, and unemployment is declining, and the economy is rebounding. You can link as many right wing articles as you want as snarky as you wish to be, but guess what - the policies worked. And I'd say the same thing to liberals who objected to the bank bailouts, too. But the bottom line is the policies are working.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Sorry, but you're wrong.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.
Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.
These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.

P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.

Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.

These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.


P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.




>> ^heropsycho:

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

>> ^spoco2:

To me, the trailer is disappointing. But this is written and directed by Joss Whedon people... Joss fricken Whedon. Buffy, Angel, Dr Horrible, Firefly, Toy Story's screenplay... I'm prepared to be very pleasantly surprised by this because the man just has a way with words.


What s/he said. Whedon is an ace writer, and not just for films (read The Astonishing X-Men for example).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

I used to think exactly the same thing, "Who wants to listen to people talk through the movie ON PURPOSE?!?"
But you really are missing out on some great stuff. Some movie commentaries are hilarious (Versus, Pink Floyd's The Wall). On the down side some are just horrendously boring (The Exorcist, In The Mouth Of Madness). You should give it a chance. Listen with a movie that you know really well and you won't miss a thing.
>> ^spoco2:
Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.




Oh, it's not that I haven't given it a chance, I have, I used to... and I agree, sometimes there's some good stuff. But just too much it's long pauses with nothing being said, so you end up watching the movie again, except that you're not really, as you're just waiting for the next interruption. OR it's long periods of talking about rubbish you don't care about.

I know there are good ones, I just get so little time to watch anything these days I'm a lot more picky

I used to think exactly the same thing, "Who wants to listen to people talk through the movie ON PURPOSE?!?"

But you really are missing out on some great stuff. Some movie commentaries are hilarious (Versus, Pink Floyd's The Wall). On the down side some are just horrendously boring (The Exorcist, In The Mouth Of Madness). You should give it a chance. Listen with a movie that you know really well and you won't miss a thing.

>> ^spoco2:

Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.

>> ^Payback:
I'm just blown away by the irony of pointing out what Arnie is doing wrong with the commentary. Stating the obvious that he's stating the obvious.
QUICK! Someone obviously state what I'm stating!


That's way too meta, dude.

>> ^PHJF:
Paul Verhoeven on the other hand is a great commentator. The man really loves movies.
Also in the spirit of this, I popped Big Trouble In Little China in expecting the greatest commentary on the greatest movie of all time and was completely, utterly disappointed. Kurt Russel at one point is telling John Carpenter about how his son plays hockey.


I thought that was great! So random. 'I pulled the jackpot chain one more time!'

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The best DVD commentary I've heard was that of American Beauty, from the director. I learned that I didn't actually know about half of the stuff that was going on in that movie. Things like the shadows created by the vertical blinds in his office evoking prison bars. I LOVE that stuff. >> ^spoco2:

>> ^jimnms:
>> ^spoco2:
Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.

I don't watch entire movies with commentaries on, but sometimes I'll go back and watch a scene or two with it on. There was on movie that I did watch with the commentary on, Sunshine. I went back to watch one scene like I sometimes do, but the commentary with directory Danny Boyle and Dr. Brian Cox on as the scientific adviser was so damn interesting that I ended up watching the rest of the movie before I knew it. I had to start it back from the beginning with the commentary on and watch back up to that scene.
The special feature I never cared for were the interviews with the actors where they just brown nose and ass kiss the director, producer and other actors.

Oh yeah, the press kit half hour long ad 'making of' 'docos' are terrible. But things like the bonus features on the Lord of the Rings discs, or those on Blade Runner, ooh, or the making of 'The Abyss', that's awesome. That stuff is fascinating to me. I LOVE seeing how movies are made. I just would rather watch a movie OR making of... not a half way house

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^spoco2:
Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.

I don't watch entire movies with commentaries on, but sometimes I'll go back and watch a scene or two with it on. There was on movie that I did watch with the commentary on, Sunshine. I went back to watch one scene like I sometimes do, but the commentary with directory Danny Boyle and Dr. Brian Cox on as the scientific adviser was so damn interesting that I ended up watching the rest of the movie before I knew it. I had to start it back from the beginning with the commentary on and watch back up to that scene.
The special feature I never cared for were the interviews with the actors where they just brown nose and ass kiss the director, producer and other actors.


Oh yeah, the press kit half hour long ad 'making of' 'docos' are terrible. But things like the bonus features on the Lord of the Rings discs, or those on Blade Runner, ooh, or the making of 'The Abyss', that's awesome. That stuff is fascinating to me. I LOVE seeing how movies are made. I just would rather watch a movie OR making of... not a half way house

>> ^spoco2:

Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.


I don't watch entire movies with commentaries on, but sometimes I'll go back and watch a scene or two with it on. There was on movie that I did watch with the commentary on, Sunshine. I went back to watch one scene like I sometimes do, but the commentary with directory Danny Boyle and Dr. Brian Cox on as the scientific adviser was so damn interesting that I ended up watching the rest of the movie before I knew it. I had to start it back from the beginning with the commentary on and watch back up to that scene.

The special feature I never cared for were the interviews with the actors where they just brown nose and ass kiss the director, producer and other actors.