Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Film_Fatale

Oliver Stone's "W."

Recommended Posts

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}

> Has Josh Brolin gotten to the point where he's billed above the title?

 

Well why shouldn't he? He plays the title role :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Jake,

 

I think the oil companies get 8% profit per gallon. I just paid $3.60 a gallon, so that means they got 29 cents and the govermin got up to 60 cents. People look at the oil companies' profits and think they're domestic figures, but those companies are global, raking in money from around the world. When you're HQ is in America and you're bringing all those Euros back here the conversion is going to be incredible, especially when foreign gas prices are inflated worse than ours. Also, the democrats love these gas prices. Obama's criticism wasn't about the price of gas, but that it went up too quickly. Had it taken a little longer, I guess that would have been ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You just demonstrated how thoroughly you've misunderstood my position. I believe in egalitarianism within a market society, I never said anything (even remotely) about higher taxes

 

Then would you favor a flat tax of say 15 percent on all citizens earnings?

 

Also, would you be in favor of reducing the present government to about half of what it is today?

 

These countries you mention are not full blown market economies, sorry.

 

The government in all of them controls the markets there to a great extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in market economies in Russia and China (and elsewhere) is that their brand of capitalism is for the sole purpose of building up their militaries and governments. The people never share the wealth. Here we have competitive wages and consumers drive the markets. Over there they don't have competitive wages and consumers from other countries through exports drive their markets. For all their country's wealth, workers in Russia and China make peanuts for wages and are disproportionate with our country's. Market economies are only as good as who the people they serve. If they're only serving a government and not its people, then that's a bad thing. Cuba won't be any better either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I should mention that some people said that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the greatest

president of all time. How is he so great? Roosevelt is not on Mt. Rushmore...,

 

A salient reason for FDR's not being on Mt Rushmore is that it was carved between 1927 and 1941; it would've been a bit unseemly to add a sitting president's likeness to it (the US.'s involvement in World War II hadn't yet begun, either).

 

...broke the rule of only serving two terms by starting a third with Harry Truman...

 

Until the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1951 there was no "rule" as to how many terms a president could serve. And Truman was FDR's vice president during his fourth term (three months into which Roosevelt died). Rather than supporting your case, you just reveal how little you know about all this.

 

...and created the nation's welfare system that is in place today giving people handouts who don't deserve it.

 

Who says they don't deserve it? You? Or is your above opinion a hand-me-down from the omniscient Rush Limbaugh? I suppose you both subscribe to Ronald Reagan's asisnin e observation that as long as there are any want-ads running in the newspaper, anybody without a job is a gold-bricking parasite. Shame on you.

 

So, again, what makes him so great? And don't say world war 2, if he hadn't done it someone else would have.

 

Oh, I don't know. What if somebody like, say, George w. Bush had been in office on December 7, 1941? Besides the obvious fact that he wouldn't have instituted the essential lend-lease program that made an end-run around Republican isolationists in Congress by providing critical war materiel to England so that it could stave off the Nazis' "Operation Sea-Lion," which was nothing less than their plan for complete invasion and conquest of Britain. he might've also let Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini & Co. slide in the same way that he's let Osama bin-Laden marshal his forces in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of course, a World War II Bush might've invaded, say, Argentina, just to get the public's mind off the fact that he screwed up everywhere else.

 

Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist but most people don't give him credit for preserving wildlife and forests just because he happened to be Republican. And he's on rushmore.

 

Theodore Roosevelt (only those who know nothing about him call him "Teddy," which e detested. One can appropriately refer to him, simply, as "T.R.") gets immense credit to this day for beginning what is now known as conservationism and the National Parks System (that he also liked to go on safari and blow little critters' brains out with big guns does suggest a bit of an ulterior motive on his part, however). Nevertheless, his inclusion on Mt Rushmore was inappropriate, because it was a clear sop to relatively modern politics of the day.

 

Mrs ask, you'd do well to remember what British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once stated: "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and leave no doubt."

 

"I love when people say our rights have been taken away, like that of habeas corpus, and leave out the "if you're a terrorist" part. Ditto for the FISA act." - MattHelm

 

No one's a terrorist until they're convicted of being one by a duly qualified court (and "courts" set up by the current Administration that stack the deck against even a semblance of a fair trial is not qualified). The right of habeas Corpus is the only thing that stands between each of us and virtually automatic conviction by a government bent on incarcerating us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=JakeHolman wrote:}{quote}

> >You just demonstrated how thoroughly you've misunderstood my position. I believe in egalitarianism within a market society, I never said anything (even remotely) about higher taxes

>

> Then would you favor a flat tax of say 15 percent on all citizens earnings?

>

> Also, would you be in favor of reducing the present government to about half of what it is today?

>

> These countries you mention are not full blown market economies, sorry.

>

> The government in all of them controls the markets there to a great extent.

 

You show (yet again) that you still do not understand, sorry.

 

Egalitarianism isn't something that *has* to be controlled by a government, and in any event, in any democracy it is the people who choose the kind of government that they want. So if the people elect a government that can be expected to promote and support egalitarian policies, then the government is simply carrying out the will of the people. That's democracy in action.

 

Furthermore, some would also argue that the U.S. experienced its greatest growth during the period that followed the enactment of some egalitarian policies, like the New Deal. By contrast, some of the countries with the greatest income inequality have also been those with the most authoritarian governments.

 

> {quote:title=MattHelm wrote:}{quote}

> The difference in market economies in Russia and China (and elsewhere) is that their brand of capitalism is for the sole purpose of building up their militaries and governments. The people never share the wealth.

 

Contrary to your assumption, there's evidence that there is a growing middle class in countries such as China:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/21/opinion/edwasserstrom.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should go the way of the Fair tax. Get rid of income tax and just have a 23% sales tax on everything. All imbedded taxes in products, which is 22-25% of its price, would disappear so we would still be paying the same prices as we do now. Except that the 23% sales tax would pay for everything that taxes do now, including social security and medicare, and we would get to keep every cent we earn in our paychecks. With more money, there would be more consumerism which means more tax revenue. This way everyone in the country pays into the tax system, even tourists. Here in FL we don't have state taxes, we have sales tax and it works just fine paying for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Matt...

 

We can get gas here, at 87 octane, for 3.29 at some locations.

 

My philosophy is *drill, drill and drill some more.*

 

You are right again about the conversion rate. The weak U.S. dollar is a steal for the Euro when conversion takes place.

 

The Dems want to change America by adopting green policies. Nancy wants to save the planet.

They have no real solutions that will lower prices any time soon. Wind technology goes back to the 17th century. Solar is not consistent. There are not enough corn cobs.

 

Nope, right now in North Dakota there are more reserves than in Saudi Arabia. If I were a young man or woman, I am not so sure I would not relocate there because a true gold rush like boom town may take place--depends on politics. Do a google search for verification...

 

*The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.*

 

*Ronald Reagan*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=JakeHolman wrote:}{quote}

> The Dems want to change America by adopting green policies. Nancy wants to save the planet.

> They have no real solutions that will lower prices any time soon.

 

Nobody has any real solutions that will significantly lower gas prices any time soon. Even the Bush administration's own analysis says that no amount of drilling would have any significant effect on gas prices before 2030.

 

*Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf*

 

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher?2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In society's like China, middle class is not the same as our middle class. Even in Europe the middle class is different. Go to England and see how big the middle class's homes and yards are compared to our middle class's. See how many have cars, or how many TVs they own. The middle class over there might have a shot at being as affluent as ours if they weren't taxed heavier than we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought I should mention a poll was taken here in Tennesee by Fox17 news. They asked people who they would vote for in the election. Right now as it stands 80% said McCain. 20% said

Obama. And 6% were undecided. That should tell you how most people feel about the election right now.

 

No, what it tells us is that 80% of the viewers of this particular Fox station -- who bothered to call or e-mail in, because this was no "poll" at all, but a thoroughly unscientific call-in survey -- in some **** corner of Tennessee think (if they're capable of thinking at all. No doubt they also thought that that "Harold, call me" commercial torpedoing Congressman Harold Ford, jr. in his run for Tennessee's U.S. Senate seat in 2006 was an accurate reflection of the candidate's values). The fact that they watch, and were being manipulated by, a Fox affiliate, says it all.

 

And now that we all now know that you're a proud resident of said **** corner of Tennessee, and an equally proud viewer of Fox, your future musings will be weighted accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call that the Bush administration's analysis. Just because it's a government study doesn't mean it was commissioned by Bush or believed by Bush. But then again, that's just relying on the continental shelf. What about oil in Alaska and upper midwest? Engineers say we could start pumping barrels in 3-5 years. Oil companies haven't been sitting around all these years just waiting to get the greenlight on drilling. They've been investing in technologies that expedite and improve the drilling process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said I was apologizing for Bush. Well, you're wrong. I am defending his honor. You know he didn't do the things that you people said he did. And if I were you, I would take a serious hard look

at Nancy Pulosi. I hope you realize she blocked the media from entering the last meeting of congress. I'm talking about the emergency meeting they had to try and discuss the oil issue before going on vacation. When the meeting was Pulosi blocked all cameras and newsman from getting inside. There's talk of a possible prosecution because she overstepped her authority. And this story was on all channels liberal and conservative. ABC had it, NBC showed it, CBS did a story on it, and Fox covered the whole thing. You can't deny this and there is no justifying what she did.

 

A: Her name is Nancy Pelosi.

 

B: you make it sound as though the press was "barred" from covering all of Congress. Firstly, the woman is Speaker of the House of Representatives, and has no authority to determine what happens at the other end of the building, in the Senate.

 

Secondly, she also does not have the power to exclude the press, or C-SPAN's cameras from full sessions of the House.

 

C: The press was excuded from a single House subcommittee meeting, which is not uncommon.

 

D: Even if Madame Speaker "exceeded her authority," it is not a "prosecutable" offense, merely a censurable one. And I wonder who, exactly, is "talking" about said "prosecution." Could it be, maybe, some You said I was apologizing for Bush. Well, you're wrong. I am defending his honor. You know he didn't do the things that you people said he did. And if I were you, I would take a serious hard look

at Nancy Pulosi. I hope you realize she blocked the media from entering the last meeting of congress. I'm talking about the emergency meeting they had to try and discuss the oil issue before going on vacation. When the meeting was Pulosi blocked all cameras and newsman from getting inside. There's talk of a possible prosecution because she overstepped her authority. And this story was on all channels liberal and conservative. ABC had it, NBC showed it, CBS did a story on it, and Fox covered the whole thing. You can't deny this and there is no justifying what she did. Republican[/i] members of the House who are failing to gain any political traction on the issue?

 

My philosophy is drill, drill and drill some more.

 

Apparently no amount of drilling can penetrate your skull deeply enough for you to understand that any oil recovered from said drilling wouldn't reach the market for 6-10 years, and that its effect on the overall price of gas at the pump would be all but negligible. Not just that, but any oil found would be sold on the world market, and no U.S. oil company will reserve it for the domestic market if they can realize a greater proft by selling itg somewhere else. Of course, the government could mandate that any oil recovered on U.S. territory, or territorial waters be reserved for the U.S. market. The two problems with that is that the courts would strike down any such law as anti-competitive and unconstitutional, and, horror of horrors, it would be socialistic.

 

What does work is conservation. When the average pump price of gas crossed $4.00, people started to cut back on their driving. This tipped the balance between supply and demand far in favor of supply. As a consequence, over the past six weeks or so the pump price has dropped like the proverbial stone measured against historical norms (and this during the traditional summer driving season, when prices have always been at their highest).

 

The bottom line: even involuntary conservation works, and works far better and more swiftly than any minor increase in the world supply (which can also be reduced quickly by petroleum-exporting countries intent on keeping the price high).

 

So, get it into your skull: there is nothing to be gained by more drilling, except greater profits for the oil companies (full disclosure: I own a big block of Exxon stock; it's the single largest investment I have).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*"Oh boy. Well, at least I threatened Rush (tongue in cheek), not him."* - mickeeteeze

 

Lest you think I was trying to be rude and sarcastic, the member shared their medical issue in the thread to which I linked. (And I only offered it as an possible explanation for the spelling and grammar errors.) I was definitely not mocking the member's condition.

 

But I do think, much like what happened to 'ILoveRayMilland', someone else is posting under that poster's account.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

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

"Oohh, I bought a goat and his name was Jack. But he got homesick

so I had to give him ba-a-a-ack"

*F.McGee.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I do think, much like what happened to 'ILoveRayMilland', someone else is posting under that poster's account.

 

That's still going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any special reason why this thread was started on a Friday, making it unlikely that it would be deleted by TCM until Monday? Just a thought...

 

No longer being affiliated with any party, as they're all worthless, I'll offer one observation. I call it "count the flags". Having lived in and among the military my entire life, I've judged (probably unfairly) presidents' performances and popularity by the number of flags flying in my neighborhood, made up mostly of active duty and retired military as well as civil servants. I can say without a doubt that the last two years is the only time *ever* I've not seen any American flags flying daily (they still go up on Memorial and Veterans Day) outside several homes on every block. *Not a single flag.* Lots of POW/MIA flags, but that's all. Couldn't say that even during the Nixon or Carter years. All this in Bush's *home* state of Texas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*"That's still going on?"*

 

Somedays it's "Wild Kingdom" in here. The only thing missing is Marlon Perkins.

 

But in the case of "ILoveRayMilland", her younger brother created an account for "ILoveRayMiland" - with a single "L" - and was only being silly. Though it embarrased "ILRM" greatly. We hear he was severely beaten and sent to bed without his supper. But all is forgiven and the two of them are playing Guitar Hero together now.

 

Now, if only some more folks could learn how to play well with others - something I fully expect you _do_ instill in your students.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

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

"Oohh, I bought a goat and his name was Jack. But he got homesick

so I had to give him ba-a-a-ack"

*F.McGee.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if only some more folks could learn how to play well with others - something I fully expect you do instill in your students.

 

Talk about Wild Kingdom. I feel like Marlon Perkins in class. I wonder if I can get sponsoring from Mutual of Omaha. I do instill it in them, but it's a daily battle. Whenever I ask the class a question and ten hands go up, I have to say, "If your hand's raised to tell on someone, put it down." There's usually only three raised hands remaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>CSJR from the dark side wrote...Apparently no amount of drilling can penetrate your skull deeply enough for you to understand that any oil recovered from said drilling wouldn't reach the market for 6-10 years, and that its effect on the overall price of gas at the pump would be all but negligible. Not just that, but any oil found would be sold on the world market, and no U.S. oil company will reserve it for the domestic market if they can realize a greater proft by selling itg somewhere else.

 

Ah, did we not go over this topic a few months ago?

 

Also, I did not write any of the quote above drill, drill and drill more.

 

You will have to unleash your wrath on someone else.

 

The country has an abundant supply of oil, natural gas, coal and oil shale.

 

85 percent of our coastline is off limits to exploration while China is drilling close to the Florida coast right now because our Cuban friends gave them the go ahead.

 

If government were to get out of the way and allow exploration, I feel confident your prediction of 6 to 10 years might be less.

 

Still, the market and speculators would begin to calculate the U.S. is serious about increasing its energy supplies and supply and demand would find an equilibrium which should lower prices for the consumer.

 

Companies should be allowed to sell their products in any market which brings them the most profits. This does not necessarily mean higher prices for the American consumer. In fact, it will lower prices because of greater worldwide supply and stimulating entrepreneurial activity in the industry which will bring innovation and better products and services to consumers.

 

I am not against green per se...

 

Let the market work for green technologies, too. Again, get government out of the way.

 

Conservation can help, too.

 

Glad to see you believe in Adam Smith's Supply and Demand.

 

I have had my brained drilled with many ideas and theories and I am glad to be free to learn whatever pleases me

 

Your brain, I am sorry to say, seems to be filled with a lot of mush...

 

Message was edited by: JakeHolman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

".....Lest you think I was trying to be rude and sarcastic......."

 

Haha. Not at all, Kyle, not at all.

:D

It was definitely "I" that took the bait, not you. I considered saying something to "ask" a littlle more directly after that "those of your ilk" style post, but took the high road.

Miracles never cease.

So, I definitely didn't mean you. I was just happy I didn't stick my foot so far in my mouth, I could never post again!

Can you see the (proverbial, as pertains) headlines?

"MICKEE ONLY KICKS 'EM WHEN THEY'RE GOOD'N DOWN!"

:D

Actually, I've been taking the high road lately. SEE, I'm not HERE, am I?

No new leafs, just too busy. Good luck on the politics.

I never had any luck with that. Just wound up irritated,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this time you are totally wrong. Every major news channel had a story about as I said the emergency meeting. She deliberately kept even the C-SPAN cameras out of the meeting. So this is one instance in which you don't know what you're talking about. All the reporters were upset about what she did. Republicans brought the cameramen back. Just no reprimand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. Are the Republicans annoyed at secrecy of the press now? A GOOD THING when they do it, after all, national security.

Please.

Stick to Conserv vs. Liberal. At least that way you have an argument.

This Administration has been absolutely "upfront and honest" with all goings on political.

And now that nasty liberal slime Pelosi is showing secrecy towards the Press.

Uh OH!

After all Bush-Cheneys forthcoming practices, is this nasty little Vixen "Eve" ethically COMPROMISING THEM?

Man just stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake,

 

I'm not against green (only hate that term), but people have to realize that the green technology that we have now is either less effective and/or extremely expensive. There is no realistic alternative to oil right now. I wish there were, but it just isn't so. Ethanol cost more to produce, and uses more energy to create it, than gasoline. Not to mention the rise in costs of corn-related products and the fact that third-world countries who depend on corn and corn-based products from us, are being hurt by it. Farmers bought into this craze and some stopped producing corn for our food supply thinking that they'll cash in big time. You'd need land the size of India to produce enough corn to fuel the worlds' cars and other modes of transportation. And it's not even green!

 

Where I live, we have two 25 foot long solar panels just to heat our pool. How are you going to heat a whole house unless you have more solar panels that you do house?

 

Hydrogen fuel cells are science fiction in the way they're being spun. That technology doesn't create energy, it only redirects it. You have to create the hydrogen to fuel the cell, but in order to do that, you need energy which means you still need gas. And the size of the tank you'd need would be much bigger than a car can handle, and the costs of fueling your car with it is just staggering. You'd have to be rich to afford it., and elitist to use it. But all the water vapor it would produce would cause even more problems if the world were full of these cars.

 

Wind turbines aren't that effective and you'd need an equal amount of space as the space you're trying to power with them. We don't have the space to power a city with them. We'd have to litter the places we don't want to drill in with these things, and we know that's not going to happen or we may as well drill. The argument for not drilling in Alaska is the porcupine reindeer, who happen to love existing oil pipelines for their warmth. What about all the dead birds the turbines massacre? Incidentally, salt water ecosystems thrive on offshore oil rigs. Green documentarians who thought they'd expose horrors that would shut down offshore oil drilling, took their cameras underwater at these rigs and were amazed at the lush and abundant aquatic life they found. The water is warmer around these rigs from the thermal vents created by the drilling, without any polluting of the waters. These guys had to scrap their original documentary and admit the were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...