Roger Ebert's review on EXpelled by Ben Stein

[StrangeSox]

Yes, W was an awful film. How anyone could give it 4 stars, unless they are incredibly shallow and/or incredibly politically biased in their flim views, is beyond me.

 

Inconvenient Truth was an OK film as documentaries go, at least.

 

Haven't seen Expelled, or Farenheit 9/11, and frankly have zero desire to do so in either case.

I wonder what Ebert gave The Day After Tomorrow, which deserves an award for one of the worst films made this decade. That film was laughable from the get-go, while helping destroy the environmental causes it sought to promote by making them wholly unbelievable.

 

"The temperature will drop 10 degrees a second for the first 10 seconds!" That movie was hilariously awful.

 

I agree with bmags. You really need to read Ebert's reviews to get a good sense of what he feels about a particular movie.

Edited December 7, 2008 by StrangeSox

[DukeNukeEm]

I do. Before this goes any further, I am going to tell you right now that radical far left-wing ideals do not have any significant level of intellectual integrity. It's more laughable than anything else. Same thing with far right-wing rhetoric.

This isn't true.

 

The most radical right-wing ideal is anarchy, and our international system has been governed by it since the dawn of nations.

[mr_genius]

This isn't true.

 

The most radical right-wing ideal is anarchy, and our international system has been governed by it since the dawn of nations.

 

Finite amounts of value of many pairs of combined variables, when taking into account position and movement, cannot both be known with absolute precision.

 

 

What’s your point? That you have reached the realization that nation states are not governed by a single global ruling force? Maybe start a new thread about that

 

[DukeNukeEm]

What’s your point? That you have reached the realization that nation states are not governed by a single global ruling force? Maybe start a new thread about that

You just said anarchy has no intellectual basis...

 

[mr_genius]

You just said anarchy has no intellectual basis...

 

Everything does and doesn't have an intellectual basis. It's a key to the chaos and uncertainty that rules existence as we know it. Nothing is right or wrong in the largest context. Now, I suppose the same could be said of whom is or is not an intellectual. However, I am going restate my view that there is little intellectual value to be found in much of the radical literature out there when put into the context of a realist’s view of the world in political terms. So, yes, the anarchy kid that breaks store windows shouting "no oil for oil!" not only has his slogans mixed up, but is also likely a dimwitted rube; certainly not to be considered an intellectual in the widely understood definition of the word.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Finite amounts of value of many pairs of combined variables, when taking into account position and movement, cannot both be known with absolute precision.

 

Why are you bringing quantum mechanics into this?

[mr_genius]

Why are you bringing quantum mechanics into this?

 

anarchy, Heisenberg uncertainty principle

 

I thought a devoted anarchist such as DukeNukeEm would appreciate it

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Everything does and doesn't have an intellectual basis. It's a key to the chaos and uncertainty that rules existence as we know it. Nothing is right or wrong in the largest context. Now, I suppose the same could be said of whom is or is not an intellectual. However, I am going restate my view that there is little intellectual value to be found in much of the radical literature out there when put into the context of a realist’s view of the world in political terms. So, yes, the anarchy kid that breaks store windows shouting "no oil for oil!" not only has his slogans mixed up, but is also likely a dimwitted rube; certainly not to be considered an intellectual in the widely understood definition of the word.

This would make sense if anarchy wasn't the most historically precedented method of governing in human history. Remember that anarchy is, by nature, a conservative idea.

 

I thought a devoted anarchist such as DukeNukeEm would appreciate it

Oh just go f*** yourself, where have I said I'm an anarchist? All I've been saying here is that your black and white view of what holds water academically is remarkably full of crap. This stems from your hilarious notion that every group other than traditional conservatives is anti-intellectual.

[mr_genius]

Oh just go f*** yourself, where have I said I'm an anarchist? All I've been saying here is that your black and white view of what holds water academically is remarkably full of crap. This stems from your hilarious notion that every group other than traditional conservatives is anti-intellectual.

 

 

Lets re-cap portions of this thread:

 

-You said there is a war on intellectualism in the US

 

-I agreed and claimed there are a bunch of dumb neo-cons and liberals.

 

-Lostfan posted that it's not just certain groups which are culprits, it's not that simple.

 

-I agreed, as I may have overstated my opinion, used too broad a brush.

 

- You askd if I actually believed what I type

 

- I said I did and that I care not for far right wing or left wing rhetoric; I do not think it is of quality (I was thinking racist, communist, or facsist type rhetoric)

 

-Then this whole anarchist thing; in which I used a hilarious description of a crazed protestor to show an example of a certain segment which would not be considered an intellectual in the classic sense (which you probably didn't appreciate).

 

-Now, according to you, I think everyone that isn't a conservative is anti-intellectual. Good sir, if anything, your failure to follow a thread within reason is the main issue here. Basically you saw something negative about liberalism early in the thread and got pissed and decided you were going to prove a point. When you failed, your interweb rage boiled over and you resorted to telling me to f*** off (which, I admit, was the best part of the thread).

 

 

And all this because of Roger Ebert.

Edited December 8, 2008 by mr_genius

[bmags]

This would make sense if anarchy wasn't the most historically precedented method of governing in human history. Remember that anarchy is, by nature, a conservative idea.

 

 

Oh just go f*** yourself, where have I said I'm an anarchist? All I've been saying here is that your black and white view of what holds water academically is remarkably full of crap. This stems from your hilarious notion that every group other than traditional conservatives is anti-intellectual.

 

well you had a good run. I think this was longer than last time, no? Terrible recidivism rate.

[DukeNukeEm]

Lets re-cap portions of this thread:

 

-You said there is a war on intellectualism in the US

 

-I agreed and claimed anti-intellectualism is rampant among neo-cons and liberals.

 

-Lostfan posted that it's not just certain groups which are culprits, it's not that simple.

 

-I agreed, as I may have overstated my opinion, used too broad a brush.

 

- You askd if I actually believed what I type

 

- I said I did and that I care not for far right wing or left wing rhetoric; I do not think it is of quality (I was thinking racist, communist, or facsist type rhetoric)

 

-Then this whole anarchist thing; in which I used a hilarious description of a crazed protestor to show an example of a certain segment which would not be considered an intellectual in the classic sense (which you probably didn't appreciate).

 

-Now, according to you, I think everyone that isn't a conservative is anti-intellectual. Good sir, if anything, your failure to follow a thread within reason is the main issue here. Basically you saw something negative about liberalism early in the thread and got pissed and decided you were going to prove a point. When you failed, your interweb rage boiled over and you resorted to telling me to f*** off (which, I admit, was the best part of the thread).

 

It was pretty clear what you meant when you said "neocons and liberals", conveniently leaving one group out or at least breaking the conservative constituency into two parts. You should be proud of your ability to gload somebody into an interweb rage with your stuff.

 

This is kind of related, but neocons have joined the mainstream media as the most tired political cliches. I mean really, liberalism has changed since 30 years ago but I never see the word neoliberalism compared to often I'm subjected to a new rant on neocons. Conservatives saw how disastrous the George Bush presidency has been and there's been this movement to distance themselves from it by blaming it on neocons. Traditional conservative ideologies have gone extinct for a reason, and the only way they've been able to gather votes is behind social issues or a Ronald Reagan type leader with incredible communication skills.

Edited December 8, 2008 by DukeNukeEm

[lostfan]

Oh just go f*** yourself

No need to be so emotional and personal. Please back off this kind of language, or else I'll have to resort to warnings/suspensions.

[lostfan]

It was pretty clear what you meant when you said "neocons and liberals", conveniently leaving one group out or at least breaking the conservative constituency into two parts. You should be proud of your ability to gload somebody into an interweb rage with your stuff.

 

This is kind of related, but neocons have joined the mainstream media as the most tired political cliches. I mean really, liberalism has changed since 30 years ago but I never see the word neoliberalism compared to often I'm subjected to a new rant on neocons. Conservatives saw how disastrous the George Bush presidency has been and there's been this movement to distance themselves from it by blaming it on neocons. Traditional conservative ideologies have gone extinct for a reason, and the only way they've been able to gather votes is behind social issues or a Ronald Reagan type leader with incredible communication skills.

Neoliberalism is actually conservatism/libertarianism. That's been lost in the translation though since "liberal" became a dirty word and was tied directly into socialism (which is still used synonymously with Communism, incorrectly).

[mr_genius]

This is kind of related, but neocons have joined the mainstream media as the most tired political cliches.

 

acutally, the term progressive is by far the most tired (and often least accurate) political cliche

 

Edited December 8, 2008 by mr_genius

[DukeNukeEm]

Neoliberalism is actually conservatism/libertarianism. That's been lost in the translation though since "liberal" became a dirty word and was tied directly into socialism (which is still used synonymously with Communism, incorrectly).

People dont even know what the word liberal means.

Edited December 8, 2008 by DukeNukeEm

[lostfan]

acutally, the term progressive is by far the most tired (and often least accurate) political cliche

 

liberals have taken to calling themselves progressives b/c in the past decade the Republicans have made them afraid to call themselves liberals out loud. Libs have been trying to reclaim the word though.

[DukeNukeEm]

acutally, the term progressive is by far the most tired (and often least accurate) political cliche

 

Progress as in move towards a goal? Hey man, you might not agree with what every party wants but you'd be hard pressed to find one that isn't progressive.

[lostfan]

People dont even know what the word liberal means.

This is what me and mr. genius were getting at earlier in the thread.

[lostfan]

Oh, and BTW I'm going to throw "handout" in as my nominee for least accurate, most tired political cliche.

[Texsox]