Jump to content
Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Bob

  1. Well, I just saw the movie. 4 out of 5 stars. The only thing glaringly hard to overlook was when Maher made factually inaccurate statements about certain things in the Bible. For instance he tried to claim the Pope was not in the Bible (Matthew) and that the New Testament had no condemnation of homosexual actions (Corinthians, Romans). On the whole, I thought the movie was brilliant. He gave no free pass to anyone. I loved the tie-in with Scientology, as he goes, "Ya, you laugh at that, but a pregnant virgin, now THAT is rational." Charles is an artist in the way he directs and the clips of movies and raw footage were compiled perfectly. The message makes you question your most strongly held beliefs. And for good reason, as Bill Maher presents the reasoning why people of faith adversely affect him and the world. For those of you who say he shouldn't go there, and it's a personal thing, Bill's response is that it is only as personal as your influence. If you can vote, and you vote for a person who works off of faith, rather than reason, or a specific form of faith, you can influence how society works based off of one person's skewed set of beliefs. Bill's honest question is this: Why is believing in something without reason good? What good does it provide for society that is unattainable without such assumptions? They are tough questions to answer. I know my faith is something I firmly believe, but I think it is crucial that I at least hear the question and try to respond in a way that satisfies my own curiousity. P.S...You will cry in laughter regardless of your religion or belief.
  2. Is anyone planning on seeing this documentary/mockumentary? I am, and I am very confident/religious in my Roman Catholic faith. Anyone else in the same boat? Or quasi-interested in the movie? I am a HUGE fan of Maher, and really can't give a good reason to my friends who call me out on supporting a movie de-basing all faiths, including my own. I still though have no qualms seeing the film, as I devour anything and everything Bill Maher (Real Time, his HBO standup). For those of you not aware, Religulous is a film criticizing ALL religion as the final barrier to advancing humanity as a more tolerant and intelligent society. He finds all religious people to have a 'mental' disorder/block from rationally deducing that any faith is 'dumb.' It is directed by the man who directed Borat, wrote for Seinfeld, and directed episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Am I alone on this?
  3. We DID go overboard in our response (or pre-emption in the case of Iraq). We cannot ignore we've been overly aggressive in our own foreign military action. What you do indirectly bring up is that we do have a problem with our credibility now. Our country's actions compared to that of Russia's are not that much morally better. We do have historical precidence though, to see we must return to being a international leader of many countries, rather than a heavyweight throwing weight around. In many ways, the actions of Russia have made us look in the mirror. The United States is at its best when we head off other countries through intense, straightforward multi-lateral action (in diplomacy). This includes haste acceptance of a country that is vulnerable to Russia's own domineering plans. We have only provoked Russia by acting complacent with their attitude to the world (not calling alarm to their contracts with Iran, our lovely president's assertion he saw Putin's soul, etc). We have a common agreement not to start wars by throwing weight around, but I do think we also can allow for wars to start when we withdrawal our focus and stance on foreign affairs of a former super-power. Also, the claim about strong-men in Russia's culture is refuted by former Russian Presidential candidate, Garry Kasparov, in an interview a year ago on Real Time with Bill Maher : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvMHjXMiyy4
  4. I am using the word Soviet because the aggression is de facto Soviet. Maybe not de jure, but in all tenses a true return to the Soviet oppression of the Eastern block. Also, yes, Georgia hit Russia with a flyswatter, so Russia hits Georgia with a lead bat? Please, Russia has been egging Georgia, through political maneuvering. We can head-off Russia if we act to show unity among Western nations early. It's the isolationism/ignorance that allows for massacres and suppression of freedoms in other countries. We need to get these countries into NATO so they can be shown, with resolve, to be a part of the international community, not just Putin's land.
  5. Good try, but big FAILURE on your part. You forget history and why the word, "Soviet" is more than appropriate in the context of current events. Georgia, along with any other eastern block former Soviet territory, is quite vulnerable to Russia's acts of aggression. If you don't recognize what Russia is trying to do, then you are either (a) ignorant (b) blind. You said Russia will not sit idly by. Good point, considering they are making moves like the attack on Georgia. What we cannot do, is sit idly by. We can't ignore that Putin is using a puppet president now to mime democratic rule. We can't ignore the squeeze on the press in that country. And we certainly cannot ignore what Russia has in mind for her former territories. Does that mean we go to war with Russia? No, but we don't watch them slaughter others for living independently. We stay vigilant, and pro-actively urge other nations to accept these Eastern Block countries into NATO as a firm warning we won't let groups of people be killed to satisfy a greed of Russia's elite.
  6. well you all know my feelings about fantasy anything... BUT I JUST GOT BACK TO COLLEGE FROM THE PHILS GAME. AHHA WOOO. Unforgettable time!!
  7. When I first heard she got the pick, I thought, well hey, at least there is energy behind McCain now. As time has passed, it's just become painful.
  8. I finally saw the full debate. I've also been watching much of the responses and I believe that the way the candidates worked the debate made each set of supporters convinced their 'guy' won. For me, I saw a landslide in McCain's favor. Georgia/Russia, out-of-control spending (and Obama's contribution), Iraq, Kissinger question, Iran/preconditions-for-talks, really anything focused on the foreign policy experience/positions all seemed decently expressed by Obama, but absolutely detailed and focused through historical and parallel examples by John McCain. Now the Gallup poll shows Obama won the debate, so I get that people would say Obama came across nicer, less 'hot-headed'. Personally, he seemed lofty, but not so nuanced (which surprised me, considering he usually has that in his corner). McCain came off very agressive, but factually aggressive, with some strong nuance on Soviet influence of the world. It's weird for me too, cause I like Obama much, and I never let myself fall into one corner or start hating one group just because I support a different one. So I would have been very open to him winning and I thought I had agreed more with him on Iran before the debate. McCain's reasoning historically just really put his position in perspective much more than any stump speech or town hall could. The only thing with which I was really disappointed was the bailout discussion, because both Obama and McCain hardly answered the question, with McCain finally giving an OK to it after much push.
  9. I came here, what 2 months before him and I got a quarter of this fool's tally. I'm ashamed.
  10. I first heard this song on the Can't Tell me Nothing mixtape June 2007. It's ok. The bass line is a little different a year and 3 months later, but I'm really indifferent to the song.
  11. No one is gonna go in on anyone anymore. There are no allegiances. Everyone has their own things independently, which is good. There are no uber wars where Jay and Nas collab to kick Jones and 50. I actually like the environment now where if you have a problem, you hype it, then make a record together (Hello Brooklyn anyone?). Maybe hip hop is maturing a little? (Not in content, LOL)
  13. This return will put to rest any of the unfounded rumors. They are tested extensively for markers in their chemical balances now. So it's not a question of what drugs they look for, but instead if any previous levels their body has jump or become erratic.
  14. klsdhfklasdjhfakdhfiqehfaisdfhuaksldfhaskdjfhaskldfhaslkdhfklasdjfhlkasdhfklsadj fklashfklasdjhfklasdhf IF any of you have figured out, I kinda live for LE TOUR DE FRANCE. And the very guy who brought me into cycling....IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6A-Qsb...lhCUEgD933DQNG0 AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Lance Armstrong is getting back on his bike, determined to win an eighth Tour de France. Armstrong's return from cancer to win the Tour a record seven consecutive times made him a hero to cancer patients worldwide and elevated cycling to an unprecedented level in America. The Tour "is the intention," Armstrong's spokesman Mark Higgins told The Associated Press, "but we've got some homework to do over there." Added Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's lawyer and longtime confidant: "We're not going to try to win second place." What team he'll ride with and in what other races he'll compete are undecided, Higgins said. "I am happy to announce that after talking with my children, my family and my closest friends, I have decided to return to professional cycling in order to raise awareness of the global cancer burden," the 36-year-old Armstrong said in a statement released to The Associated Press. "This year alone, nearly eight million people will die of cancer worldwide. ... It's now time to address cancer on a global level." In an exclusive interview with Vanity Fair, Armstrong told the magazine he's 100 percent sure he's going to compete in the Tour de France next summer. "I'm going back to professional cycling," he said in the story posted Tuesday on the magazine's Web site. "I'm going to try and win an eighth Tour de France."
  16. Eh, I'd have to say that is the biggest misnomer of the campaign. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30705 http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/200...s-bundlers.html http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/29/lobbyists/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8041004045.html http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638 While it is true he certainly has raised more than any other candidate in history in small donations, his campaign is tied deeply to Wall Street and major law firms. He is definitely absorbing less from bundlers than McCain, and his lobbyist ties are less distinct, but he certainly has not frozen out the lobbyists. Even more dangerous, though, is that big investment bank CEO's are all putting their resources together. They have a heavy hand in his campaign.
  17. Quantatively, I agree more with Obama...or at least Obama before he switched on FISA and the others. I think giving immunity to telecoms is BS. I believe the death penalty should be done away with, not only b/c I think it's immoral but the system has institutionalized racism, thus more black and hispanic men are put on death row. Obama fought that in Chicago and I thought that was admirable. And I'm a big public financing person; I actually like the Clean Money financing system. In short, it wasn't an attack as much as an expression of annoyance with both candidates. They both have pandered, as McCain once accurately said Jerry Falwell was an agent of intolerance, and then went back on that. He said the Bush tax cuts "disgusted" him by the absolutely lopsided breaks for big business. And Huckabee makes me mad. He's so disarming, it would be cool....except he publicly supports amending the Constitution to follow the Bible. That's dangerous.
  18. My hope is that McCain's moves to the right are only by calculation. I think the 2000 McCain is probably the best presidential candidate our country has seen in decades. This McCain is good enough for me, and I think the fact Lieberman is willing to go with McCain reassures me that John is still the same guy, but smart enough to make the right moves at this moment. And let's not forget Obama has been twisting around everything from public finance, to FISA, to the Death Penalty, to NAFTA. He made his appeal in the primaries to the liberal audience, and now he's made some sharp changes. I agree the conventions are different in tone, mainly because I always find the GOP to be so focused on one goal: get their nominee the advantage and do it as efficiently as possible. The DNC had many speakers up talking about themselves, trying to recreate the amazing speech Obama gave in 2004. I wouldn't say darker, but much more about the battle in getting votes, rather than the discussion of getting on the right track. It has shown to work in the past. Plus, I don't know if you saw, Sarah Palin really put together a great speech. Guiliani pissed me off for dismissing Obama when Guiliani has one policy: 9/11. Taxes? 9/11. Abortion? 9/11. Healthcare? 9/11.
  19. Now that's not true. He is very knowledgable and has worked across party lines. Obama has the scholarly advantage. He was the editor of Harvard's distinguised review. That's one of the top academic positions in the world. This doesn't mean McCain isn't knowledgable nor equipped to lead. He's shown great character in tackling global warming, campaign finance reform, torture, congressional standoffs on judge appointments, etc... He's been in war, so he knows the dynamics of war, of troop morale, and of dealing with a gorilla enemy. Joe Lieberman made the best case I've heard yet. I suggest you listen to it, as this is the same man who ran with Gore in 2000. Lieberman knows that McCain gets things done, and doesn't do what works just for his party. "I have personally seen John, over and over again, bring people together from both parties to tackle our toughest problems we face - to reform our campaign finance, lobbying and ethics laws, to create the 9/11 Commission and pass its critical national security reforms, and to end the partisan paralysis over judicial confirmations. My Democratic friends know all about John's record of independence and accomplishment. Maybe that's why some of them are spending so much time and so much money trying to convince voters that John McCain is someone else. I'm here, as a Democrat myself, to tell you: don't be fooled. God only made one John McCain, and he is his own man. If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never would have taken on corrupt Republican lobbyists, or big corporations that were cheating the American people, or powerful colleagues in Congress who were wasting taxpayer money. But he did! If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never would have led the fight to fix our broken immigration system or to do something about global warming. But he did! As a matter of fact, if John McCain is just another partisan Republican, then I'm Michael Moore's favorite Democrat. And I'm not."
  20. I understand exactly what you are saying. The reality is, it is a long process that won't be automatically cleared with the Roe v Wade overturn. It's a deliberation, and long, arduous process. For a pro-life person like myself, I'm not doing enough to make the neccessary changes if I don't vote for the first steps. Martin Luther King had all the roadblocks in his way, like the legislative process at Washington, yet his work helped make the foundation for eventual legislation (Hillary Clinton mentioned that months ago and got flack for it, but there is truth that the movement could only go so far without the Congressional moves). I agree 100% that Republicans mandate without giving the proper funding/plans, etc. That's why I love Senator Bob Casey (Democrat-PA) who supports the Democrats For Life "Pregnant Women Support Act" that would help eliminate the root problems (and he also supports the overturn of Roe v Wade). Unfortunately though, allowing a legal system that supports the killing of a distinct human life different than your own, is inherently corrupting the very foundations of goverment: to protect the innocent. It needs to be a concerted effort, but I can't sit here and be fine with a legal system put in place for people to commit robberies (since they'll do it anyway and may be impoverished due to a corrupt, racially biased institution). This analogy is light, considering a robbery does not come close to the ending of a life. I get everything you say. And I think Obama has shown to be the first Democrat to say "I get it" when asked about this divisive issue. He said, "Look, I've always said that if you believe life begins at conception, and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you. I recognize that there will be people, of faith or conviction, that will not be able to consciously vote for me due to my stance on abortion." ^That made it even harder for me to not vote for him, since he's one of the most nuanced, intelligent, thoughtful, and patient candidates we've had in my lifetime.
  21. I get that, and we certainly can't say that the right alternatives have been funded. When it comes down to it though, if someone does something trying to kill another person, I don't give that person a legal means to do it just because he/she is endangering his/her own life.
  22. First for Max: It is not the only litmus, but a litmus, yes. But it is THE litmus for someone like me, who believes it is a life. Regarding the Senate...we saw how McCain was able to get the gang of 14 congressmen to get through an agreement on the judges. Obama would push for the respect of choice, McCain for the respect of life. And as long as Roe v Wade is upheld, I will vote for candidates who will appoint pro-life judges. And ash trey, For me, a separate human DNA sequence is all I need to recognize human life. It's a tough issue for some. For me, it's the clearest issue.
  • Create New...