Everyone on the internet seems to see in this film whatever they are looking for, be it religious, racial, economic, political, or cultural. I have not seen it, and really have not had the desire to go watch it up to this point, but at the same time, as was the case throughout my un-cool childhood (not that the situation is any different now), there is the fear of passing over this cultural phenomena, be it for better or worse, and then forever not understanding all future references.
So two questions: 1) Did I not just write one of the most convoluted sentences ever? and 2) Should I go see Avatar?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The spiritual and the temporal are different spheres which ought not to be confused. -FA Hayek
17 comments:
That was a long opening sentence, but not the longest ever, and since you and I hang out a lot, I would definitely not describe you as uncool because that might reflect poorly on the unwarranted opinion I have of myself, which is that I am extremely cool, but that being said, we do spend a lot of time blogging, enjoy classical music, play/sing in church orchestra/choir, and would buy ourselves a video game console if we thought our self-discipline could handle it, and don't forget the book club or the collection of rare stamps.
I thought I should keep with highly conjunctivized sentence structure.
As to your actual question of Avatar, I haven't had much desire to see it, but the three or four people that I know have seen it, said it was pretty good. I think it is about three hours though.
The answer to your questions Justus, is Yes and Yes.
Just got back from seeing Avatar. Fantastic as a movie. Tree huggin, pagan, liberal, and anti-military, and very anti-Bush.
But, brilliantly done.
That's OK that James Cameron decided to make an anti-Bush movie, because according to Rudy Giuliani, we never had a domestic terrorist attack under Bush, only under Obama. We just have to wait until Avatar Part II in which Sarah "The Quitter" Palin and Rudolph "Pinocchio" Giuliani tell us what exactly is the truth--this is, of course, after we find out that Barney "Wesley Mouch" Frank, Nancy "The Collectivist" Pelosi, and Harry "Jesus was in Utah" Reid have bankrupted us (but not the banks or insurance companies). YAY!
*Wesley Mouch is the ultimate evil character in "Atlas Shrugged."
Jose,
I must say that is the funniest post I have ever seen you write.
I was worried that you had lost your sense of humor, but I have hope at last.
Is it possible, and I am just saying, that Rudy meant "post-9-11"?
It may be possible, but I take all comments at face value, especially coming from politicians. So let's look at what Giuliani said, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama."
1. He may have implied "post 9/11" in saying that, but why would anyone, especially America's Mayor, "imply" something so tragic as 9/11? Since he did not explicitly say "post 9/11," therefore, the inference may be that nothing ever happened under Bush's watch. But we know better.
2. He asserts that there was a domestic attack under Obama. There was not, it was an ATTEMPT.
3. Rudy also stated that Obama should be "following the right things Bush did." Well, Bush waited for 6 days to react after the shoe bomber ATTEMPTED his terrorist attack. And he never said what Obama said, "The buck stops here." In other words, Bush waits for a longer amount of time and takes no personal responsibility. Yeah, Obama should definitely do follow Bush's lead, Rudy.
Keep in mind when he runs for President once again, that he said the following:
"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Are you sure you want this man in power? Wake up, sheeple!
Oh, and here is my sense of humor for you:
Rudy cross dresses for kicks.
http://www.windypundit.com/archives/2007/images/2007-06-26-Giuliani_Marilyn_With_Trump.jpg
Funny. I think you professor types forget that people make mistakes. I think he clearly meant post 9-11. In that I give him benefit of the doubt. Your other points I have little problem with. Except, that when Obama said the buck stops here, it was right after he said there should be no finger pointing, which was right after he pointed fingers as to the security breach!!!
Read the whole speech. Punk.
Nice going, Lumbee. You just excused Rudy for stating a blatant lie. Keep lying to yourself, keep thinking that it is just an "honest" mistake. (Have you heard Rudy stating he made a mistake? Not yet.) Wait until you elect him and he makes an "honest" mistake--you know, just like that whole weapons of math instruction debacle that Bush made. And I just love how you turned this around to blaming Obama for making a mistake. I can smell ad hominem arguments a mile away. Stick to the subject. I have a feeling you are going to vote for a "liar" and a "quitter" in the near future. Now that is UN-American!
You uneducated types are all the same.
Professor, I assume that you voted for Ron Paul?
If not that would just be UN-selfish.
Justus pushed for Paul last election, but I couldn't quite do it. Maybe next time, I'll vote for the light.
I am a registered Independent, therefore, I was not able to vote in the primary elections. In the presidential runoff, I voted for President Obama. He was, BY FAR, the better candidate.
Back to Lumbee,
Do you agree with Rudy when he said that there was a domestic attack under Obama? I'll give you a look ahead at my response to either answer you give me.
If you say no, then Rudy's statement was false, and therefore he was lying. The burden of proof lies with Rudy to show that there was an attack.
If you say yes, then Rudy was lying. If he believes that the actions by this Nigerian terrorist in Detroit constitutes a "domestic terrorist attack," then he needs to add the following:
Apparently he forgot the SHOE BOMBER attempt, he also forgot the attempt to attack an L. A. skyscraper (it may have been a library), he also forgot the Lackawanna six terrorists WHO WERE FROM NEW YORK, let's include the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, there was also the Al Qaeda operative Ali Salih al-Mari who was targeting water reservoirs, the New York Stock Exchange, and military academies, the dude wanting to blowtorch the Brooklyn Bridge, two mosque leaders in ALBANY NEW YORK, and about 41 other attacks that were thwarted by Bush's administration. That's way too many attempts for Rudy to forget. And just like these were all attempts, the Detroit terrorist was simply an attempt.
Rudy, in either answer you give, is a liar--a conscious, intentional liar. Or do you still believe he made an honest mistake? Put a fork in Lumbee, he's WELL done. EXORCISE THE DEMONS!! I think this room has been cleansed (say it a la Ace Ventura).
Kudos for the Pet Detective reference. Love that movie.
I think you dismissed the comment I made where I said I agree with you. I think that the security breach that was uncovered recently was a failed terrorist attack.
I agree that Rudy lied. I agree that Bush lied. I also say that your candidate, Obama lied. Remember when he talked about openness to the media? Need I say more?
We are still in Iraq aren't we?
Look, reality is, they all are liars. I agree professor. I wish I could take my last vote back but I can't. You should, in keeping with your own critical statements, say the same thing publically.
I Jose, sold out, voted against my conscience, against my philosphy, my "god" Ayn Rand. I voted for the enemy.
Your vote for Obama, was no more and no less a sell out than my vote for McCain. I say that I compromised. I was wrong, I should have voted my conscience.
Don't worry Jose, I am not a fan of Rudy, Palin, Bush or any of the others right now. I actually have few candidates that I support. I am disappointed with the repubs.
I won't make that mistake again.
Now you say it. Or are you a hypocrite?
Uh hem, how quickly we forget our recent discussions. Allow me to refresh your memory:
Dr. Leonard Peikoff (Ms. Rand's intellectual heir) pointed out that in order to have a full change in politics, one must vote out the group who may cause the most damage. That group happens to be the Republicans. Now MANY Objectivists did not agree with his strategy, and as a result they basically voted for McCain anyway. I trust what Peikoff says, and I still believe that fighting a one-headed dragon is much easier than fighting a two-headed dragon. The Republicans, I can only hope, will implode. The Democrats are next. Then there may be a sort of "Dark Ages" in which there is a violent power grab among many, resulting in only one party winning it all. It will be much easier to sculpt and finesse that group in the long run. On the other hand, this may result in the death of capitalism. I believe it all depends on the education of the future politicians. That's where I will make my indelible mark. No hypocrisy here.
By the way, Ayn Rand is dead (as are other idols). I can prove she is dead. It's like reeeeaaaalllly simple to show that fact. I follow her ideas, because they are right. I can't follow her because she's dead, dude.
Is voting against one party to instill its destruction, thus violating your philosphy by supporting a candidate that violates the principles you claim to follow, any different that violating your philosphy by supporting a candidate that violates the principles you claim to follow by voting for a candidate that violates fewer of the aforementioned principles than the opposing candidate? How about that sentance?
Lumbee,
It appears you can't see goal-oriented action in the long range. Objectivists learn how to live by setting goals achievable in the long range, rather than in the short. Your questions imply that the ultimate goal is to "vote against one's party to instill its destruction." (Reminder: Republican party is not my party, as your statement seems to imply.) That is very short-sighted, which is typical of your way of thinking. That is not our goal. Our goal is to educate the young into learning and applying a new code of ethical values based on rational self-interest, not collectivism or altruism. (A short-range goal on the way to the long-range goal is to vote out a particularly powerful party.) Apparently you didn't grasp that in my comment above.
I understand completely. This little "imp" you keep working with that is trying to "ply" some falsehood out of me is working in vain.
I was referring to the Republican party as mine. At the time of the previous election, of course. Now, I am in some sort of limbo.
I still think you danced around the accusation of hypocracy. Punk.
c://threadjack.exe
_
_
COMPLETE
Post a Comment