For GOP only

Texsox · December 21, 2005

I'm thinking of some ways to redecorate the new forum and I thought pinned threads for the left and right to celebrate or lick wounds together, without the "other" side, would be nice.

FlaSoxxJim · December 21, 2005

I'm trying to post in this thread but. . .

Aarghhh! It burns! It burns!! Make it stop!!!

Hmmm, guess I'm not welcome here.

Edited December 21, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

Controlled Chaos · December 21, 2005

shh Don't tell them I'm making fun....

Q: Why is Janet Reno better than the Secret Service?

A: Because there are some things the Secret Service won't do to protect the President!

-------------------------------------------

The old man was critically ill. Feeling that death was near, he called his lawyer. "I want to become a Democrat. Get me a change of registration form." "You can do it", the lawyer said, "But why? You'll be dead soon, why do you want to become a Democrat?" "That's my business! Get me the form!"

Four days later, the old man got his registration changed. His lawyer was at his bedside making sure his bill would be paid. Suddenly the old man was racked with fits of coughing, and it was clear that this would be the end. Still curious, the lawyer leaned over and said, "Please, before it's too late, tell me why you wanted to become a Democrat so badly before you died?" In a faint whisper, as he breathed his last, the old man said: "One less Democrat".

-------------------------------------------

Q: What do you get when you cross a pilgrim with a democrat?

A: A god-fearing tax collector who gives thanks for what other people have.

-------------------------------------------

In an article on Northern Ireland, the political party Sinn Fein was described as the political wing of the IRA. I guess that makes the Democratic Party the political wing of the IRS.

-------------------------------------------

Q: What do you get when you cross a bad politician with a lawyer?

A: Chelsea.

-------------------------------------------

A Democrat and your mother-in-law are trapped in a burning building. You only have time to save one of them.

Do you have lunch or go to a movie?

-------------------------------------------

Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a catfish?

A: One is an ugly, scum sucking bottom-feeder and the other is a fish.

-------------------------------------------

Q: What's the difference between a Democrat politician and a leech?

A: A leech quits sucking your blood after you die.

--------------------------------------------

Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a vampire?

A: A vampire only sucks blood at night.

--------------------------------------------

Q: What's the difference between a Democrat on a Harley and a vacuum cleaner?

A: The vacuum has the dirt bag on the inside.

--------------------------------------------

Q: What's the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead Democrat in the road?

A: Vultures will eat the skunk.

---------------------------------------------

Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a prostitute?

A: The prostitute give value for the money she takes.

----------------------------------------------

Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a bucket of cow manure?

A: The bucket.

----------------------------------------------

Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a trampoline?

A: You take off your shoes before you jump on a trampoline.

NorthSideSox72 · December 21, 2005

Hey Tex-

Where is the room for independents? What if some of us have views that fall on both sides of the aisle?

:huh

southsider2k5 · December 21, 2005

This is America... You only get two choices.

Texsox · December 21, 2005

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:26 AM)

Hey Tex-

Where is the room for independents? What if some of us have views that fall on both sides of the aisle?

:huh

I was thinking that was the rest of the forum. I also thought that there are a few here who fancy themselves Independents, but the rest of the group would not. I support more than a handful of GOP candidates, and consider myself an independent based on neither party really wanting me. Top of my head the anti-death penalty and balance the budget gets me kicked out of the GOP and my gun rights and balance the budget get me kicked out of the Dems. But to most here I look like a dyed in the wool Dem with a strange crush on DeLay.

NorthSideSox72 · December 21, 2005

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:37 AM)

This is America... You only get two choices.

Reminds me of what a Poli Sci teacher once shouted in a Comp Euro Poli class, speaking about Germany's electoral system. Something like (excuse the Anglisized spelling):

SEI HABEN SWEIT STIMMEN!!!

It means, "you have two votes". In mass elections for their parliament, they vote once for a party, and once for a candidate in the given election. The totals for party are tallied up, as a percentage of the vote. The use that percentage over the available seats to get a number, and that X number of seats goes to the X most popular individual candidates. Kind of cool.

Again, I am sure I butchered the German, for which I apologize.

NorthSideSox72 · December 21, 2005

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:38 AM)

I was thinking that was the rest of the forum. I also thought that there are a few here who fancy themselves Independents, but the rest of the group would not. I support more than a handful of GOP candidates, and consider myself an independent based on neither party really wanting me. Top of my head the anti-death penalty and balance the budget gets me kicked out of the GOP and my gun rights and balance the budget get me kicked out of the Dems. But to most here I look like a dyed in the wool Dem with a strange crush on DeLay.

Honestly, if you put an I option in your poll that I saw, I'd bet the I's would not be too far from R's and D's. But maybe not, who knows. I just thought I'd stand up for that group. Neither party would want me either.

kapkomet · December 21, 2005

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:43 PM)

Honestly, if you put an I option in your poll that I saw, I'd bet the I's would not be too far from R's and D's. But maybe not, who knows. I just thought I'd stand up for that group. Neither party would want me either.

I definitely am an independant. I'm against the death penalty. Against big government. Against abortion. The immagrant issue that Bush is pressing for pisses me off.

I come across to defend more Republican ideals then I do Democratic ones because I get sick of the constant bashing the Republicans get because the Dems can't come up with a message.

And Rex, to your point in another thread and post, I don't scream louder about issues often - I usually debate them. I scream louder about the constant attacks of Republicans suck and Penis-In-Chief comments without substantiation. (what would I do without Mercy? :lol: )

Controlled Chaos · December 21, 2005

We all know conservatives don't get to play in Hollywood unless they go at it on their own. Here are a couple of articles that I found interesting, with regards to that topic. I think the future holds change though. Just as the nation doesn't have to depend on the MSM anymore for the news. I also think we won't have to depend on Hollywood for our movies.

Hollywood's New War Effort: Terrorism Chic

Aug 10, 2005

by Jason Apuzzo

Slow to awaken after the 9/11 attacks, Hollywood has finally come around to contributing what it can in the War on Terror: namely, glossy, star-studded movies that sympathize with the enemy.

Hard to believe? Here's the pitch: with box-office numbers trending down, studio executives are suddenly greenlighting movies they can describe to shareholders as 'controversial' or 'timely.' Whether the films are anti-American or otherwise demoralizing to the war effort is apparently immaterial. Its appetite whetted by "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s $222 million worldwide gross, Hollywood thinks it's found a formula for both financial security and critical plaudits: noxious anti-American storylines, bathed in the warm glow of star power.

Here are just a few films already in the pipeline:

- "V For Vendetta." From Warner Brothers and the creators of "The Matrix" comes this film about a futuristic Great Britain that's become a 'fascist state.' A masked 'freedom fighter' named V uses terror tactics (including bombing the London Underground) to undermine the government - leading to a climax in which the British Parliament is blown up. Natalie Portman stars as a skinhead who turns to 'the revolution' after doing time as a Guantanamo-style prisoner.

- "Munich." Steven Spielberg directs this film about the aftermath of the 1972 Olympic terror attacks that killed eleven Israeli athletes. "Munich"'s screenplay is written by playwrite Tony Kushner ("Angels in America"), who has been quoted as saying: "I think the founding of the state of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity ... I wish modern Israel hadn¹t been born." The film focuses on the crisis of conscience undergone by Israeli commandos tasked with killing PLO terrorists - rather than on the barbarity of the terrorists themselves.

- "Untitled Oliver Stone 9/11 Project." Paramount will distribute Oliver Stone's new film recounting the rescue of two Port Authority officers after the 9/11 attacks. The film will star Nicholas Cage and Maggie Gyllenhaal - who recently suggested that America was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

As for Stone, he had this to say only a month after 9/11: "This attack was pure chaos, and chaos is energy. All great changes have come from people or events that were initially misunderstood, and seemed frightening, like madmen."

"Syriana." Starring George Clooney and Matt Damon, this Warner Brothers film - set during the first Bush administration - features a plot by American oil companies and the U.S. government to redraw Middle East borders for greater oil profiteering. The film even depicts a handsome, 'tragic' suicide bomber driven to jihad after being fired by an American oil company! The film's climax comes with the jihadist launching an explosive device into an oil tanker as American oil barons and Saudi officials look on.

"The Scorpion's Gate." Sony has optioned former terrorism-czar Richard Clarke's novel about oil companies and Washington politicians colluding to reshape the map of the Middle East for greater oil profiteering - this time by launching a global nuclear war.

"The Chancellor Manuscript." Paramount reworks Robert Ludlum¹s 1977 thriller into an anti-Patriot Act star vehicle for Leonardo DiCaprio. Here's the film's screenwriter, Michael Seitzman: "We live in this crazy post-Patriot Act environment where Benjamin Franklin¹s warning that 'those that give up essential liberties for temporary security don¹t deserve either one' are being ignored, so the subject matter seemed ripe."

"No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah." Universal has attached Harrison Ford to star as real-life General Jim Mattis - in this story blaming the White House for the deaths of fifty Marines in one of the Iraq war's deadliest battles. Based on the book of the same name by Bing West.

"American Dreamz." This 'satire' from Universal Pictures deals with Pakistani suicide bombers out to kill the US president. The film stars Hugh Grant, Richard Dreyfuss, Willem Dafoe and Mandy Moore. According to writer-director Paul Weitz ("American Pie"), "The film is a comic examination of ... cultural obsessions" like the War on Terror "and how they can anaesthetise us to the actual issues of our day."

"Terminus." Set in the Middle East of the future, this Warner Brothers film depicts a 'disillusioned' war correspondent covering an 'insurgency' he decides he must support. The producer, Basil Iwanyk, says: "It deals head on with what some call insurgency, what some call guerilla warfare and what some call freedom fighting."

"Jarhead." This Universal release, starring Jamie Foxx and Jake Gyllenhaal, deals with the 'dehumanization' of Marine trainees prior to and during the 1991 Gulf War. Based on Andrew Swofford's notorious and questionable memoirs of the same name.

The above list, incidentally, should not be taken as comprehensive. For example, Paramount also has projects in the works about a 'reformed' al-Qaeda operative, and about the victim of an Iraqi suicide bomber. Little about these projects has been made public.

One thing should be obvious from this list: left-wing agitprop filmmaking is no longer the purview of desperate, 'indie' filmmakers with shaky camcorders and maxed-out credit cards. The films listed above are being made by large, multi-national corporations - and will feature sophisticated, expensive marketing campaigns with A-list stars. Imagine Leni Riefenstahl cross-promoting "Triumph of the Will" with People Magazine covers and E! Channel specials. That's more or less what Hollywood has in mind.

Hollywood has shifted strategies in its opposition to the War on Terror. No longer content to let clumsy, uncouth documentarians like Michael Moore or Robert Greenwald conduct its foreign policy, Tinseltown is rolling out big guns like Harrison Ford and Leo DiCaprio and George Clooney - complete with their p.r. firms, dazzling smiles, and easy charm.

It's imperative for conservatives to shift strategies, as well. It will no longer be sufficient for outraged conservatives to storm talk radio, the Internet or Fox News with the idea of verbally 'rebutting' these movies like dour lawyers in a courtroom. When these films arrive, with their star-power, swelling soundtracks and digital effects, they'll hit the public with the force of a hurricane - and there'll be no obvious butt of derision like Michael Moore for talking-head conservatives to target. These filmmakers and their movies will be much more polished, subtle - and insidious. And these films will be more dangerous than "Fahrenheit 9/11" because their strategy will be to entertain.

The proper 'response' for this sort of thing is simple, if complex in execution. At some point conservatives need to raise capital, pick up cameras and start making movies of their own - much like Mel Gibson did with "The Passion." And conservatives should do this not simply to 'rebut' the other side, but to add depth and imagination to what has become a wasteland of popular entertainment. Most Hollywood insiders - even liberals - agree that Hollywood is in a creative depression. More conservative voices can only help what has become a bleak situation for the town, both artistically and financially.

Movies are a powerful force in shaping the imagination of our culture, and in defining how history is remembered. It will be a great shame if all we leave behind from this vital period in American history is a shoddy trail of "Syriana"s, "V For Vendetta"s or "American Dreamz" - rather than a "Casablanca" or a "Notorious." But conservatives obviously can't wait for Hollywood to do that for them - they're going to have to do it themselves.

________________________________________________________

Where Conservative Film is Now

Oct 7, 2005

by Jason Apuzzo

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A Twenty months after Mel Gibson's "The Passion" took the nation's box office by storm, what progress have conservatives actually made in challenging liberal hegemony in Hollywood? Is it any easier today for a conservative-themed film to make its way down the studio pipeline than it was in early 2004?

The answer to this question must be a resounding 'no.' Based on projects recently greenlit by the major studios - including a host of films openly dismissive of the War on Terror - one might argue that Hollywood is drifting even further left than it was in 2004, when films like "Fahrenheit 9/11," "The Day After Tomorrow" or "The Manchurian Candidate" were released. Forthcoming studio films like "V For Vendetta," "Syriana" or even Steven Spielberg's "Munich" appear to question both the efficacy and the legitimacy of our current struggle against terrorism.

Frustrating as this may be, however, none of this should be cause for despair. If the studio system remains largely a vehicle for the liberal worldview, conservatives are nonetheless making a new niche for themselves in the world of independent filmmaking.

This is hardly surprising. Take the example of "The Passion." Because it came packaged with a star actor (Jim Caviezel) and star director (Mel Gibson), many people forget that "The Passion" was an independent film, financed by Gibson himself. "The Passion" was spurned by major studio distributors until it was acquired by independent distributor Newmarket Films - which no longer even exists, having been absorbed into the Time-Warner empire.

Lacking Gibson's fame and fortune, most conservative filmmakers face even more serious finance and distribution challenges. What they lack in resources, however, these new filmmakers make up with vision, feistiness, and a hunger for truth.

As co-director of the upcoming Liberty Film Festival (October 21-23 in West Hollywood), I've had the chance to watch countless films submitted by conservative filmmakers from around the country and around the world. A few trends were obvious: working on low budgets, conservatives are taking to documentaries like fishes to water - and are also embracing digital technology at a faster rate than mainstream Hollywood.

First-time filmmakers Nina May and Tricia Erickson, for example, wanted to tell the story of how many black Americans found their home in the Republican Party in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, all the way down through the 1950's. To tell this largely forgotten story they interviewed black intellectuals like Shelby Steele, Deroy Murdock and Armstrong Williams - and important witnesses like Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, and Gloria Jackson, a descendant of Booker T.

Washington. The resulting film, "Emancipation, Revelation, Revolution,"

tells an almost shocking tale of how the modern Democratic Party has worked to keep black Americans on a liberal 'plantation,' ignorant of their own history.

Meanwhile another first-time filmmaker, Mercedes Maharis, decided to pick up a video camera and begin documenting the corrosive, demoralizing effect of illegal immigration on her border community of Cochise County, Arizona. Her film, "Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border," vividly captures the tragedy of illegal border crossings for migrants and Americans alike. Neither abstract nor preachy, "Cochise County" simply depicts the sights and sounds of this ongoing crisis, even featuring footage of actual border crossings.

Perhaps most novel, though, are the efforts of Marine Seargant Kc Wayland, another first-time filmmaker and an Iraq war veteran. Wayland's "365 Boots on the Ground" documents his year-long tour of duty in Iraq, from recruitment through deployment to his return home. This absorbing, first-person account (shot in part with a helmet-cam) shows the lives of Marines in Iraq, from their daily routines, to humorous and heartwarming encounters with Iraqis, to shocking outbreaks of terrorist violence.

Films of this type are more true to the spirit of independent filmmaking than most studio-distributed 'independent' films of today. Some other examples among this new wave of documentaries include Ron Silver's sobering critique of the UN ("Broken Promises"), Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg's witty look at Canadian healthcare ("Dead Meat"), Evan Maloney's irreverent take on political correctness in academia ("Brainwashing 201"), and ProtestWarrior's Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton's political and spiritual odyssey through modern Israel, "Entering Zion."

Still more encouraging, though, are developments overseas.

For example, noted Kurdish/Iraqi filmmaker Jano Rosebiani recently sponsored the First Short Film Festival in free Iraq, after decades in which moviemaking had been suppressed under Saddam Hussein. Rosebiani paired young Kurdish and Iraqi filmmakers with trained professionals and digital technology to produce a series of anti-terror, pro-democratic short films presently touring Iraq. We'll be showing these films for the first time outside Iraq on October 22nd at the Liberty Film Festival.

These sorts of independent, do-it-yourself developments are far more encouraging than any star-laden, expensive projects rumbling their way down the studio pipeline. Why? Although Hollywood is honeycombed with conservatives at all levels, most of these 'closeted' conservatives - having careers to protect and bills to pay - have little incentive to rock the boat. Having been rewarded by Hollywood for keeping their silence, very few such stars or executives are likely to become agents of change.

Nor should conservatives expect that 'market forces' will press Hollywood to change its prevailing ideology. Being owned by larger media conglomerates, most Hollywood studios can afford to lose astonishing amounts of money on left-leaning films without blinking an eye. For example, Oliver Stone's revisionist epic "Alexander" lost Warner Brothers untold millions of dollars; he was promptly rewarded with the first major studio film about 9/11.

If conservatives want a voice in film, they'll have to claim it the way so many scrappy, low-budget filmmakers are doing it today: without budgets, without stars, with the prospect of only limited distribution - but with a consuming passion for the truth. Eventually - when the budgets, stars and distribution come - conservatives will be able to expand beyond documentary films and move into narratives. And then conservatives will have a major impact.

Until then, they'll need to be truly 'independent,' resourceful and unafraid

- which is what conservatism teaches us in the first place.

LowerCaseRepublican · December 23, 2005

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 01:45 PM)