| Author |
Topic:
First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic "W"
|
Penguinator-176
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
5/13 6:41pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
Zaz posted:
I doubt it, actually.
Controversy is pretty much free publicity. Any debate surrounding the movie will draw attention, and there will be some who go to see it out of simple curiosity; some will go because they get sucked into debate, some will just go to see the film.
I suppose a statement like "it probably will make the big bucks" is a bit more appropriate, though.
-----signature-----
"Sweet, soft and low, I will poison you all - canary in a gilded cage."
"Everything burns."
.
.
GDG
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
5/13 7:29pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
...if you want long posts, you'll just have to send me food, I tell you; food. ASAP.   
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
5/13 7:47pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
Re: FDR. That is simply not true. Japan DID NOT have to attack after FDR restricted their oil. They could have done a number of other things, but they were run by a bunch of aggressive nutbars.
Absolutely. I get very annoyed at people who act as if the US somehow deserved to be attacked for that.
Poor, poor Japanese. They only raped Nanking a little bit...
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
rogue_wookiee
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
5/14 8:33am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
Zaz posted:
I don't know that it would have been political suicide at all re: Lincoln, but it would have involved a violation of democracy, and that he was not prepared to do.
Did you know the man, Zaz? Do you have any way of judging his character besides what you've read in non-critical biographies?
The only thing we have that we can truly use to define Lincoln are the facts. Those of his actions and those of the political situation. His approval rating was at an all time low and he had to chose a democrat as his vice president to help him beat McClellan. He was losing the war and was very unpopular. Any further violations of the constitution would have most likely seen him impeached and listed in history as the worst president ever.
As for his character. I think his generals and their actions speak a great deal that Lincoln was truly a bastard. Don't even think about claiming Grant and Sherman were war criminals against his desires. Had they gone against his wishes they would have been replaced in a heartbeat like the other generals who didn't please him.
But hey, Sherman only raped Georgia a little bit...
-----signature-----
“You’re probably the biggest taxer in the country, even bigger than the Congress,” - Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve. Be aware of inflation and how it affects our daily life. http://mises.org/story/2914 -What You Should Know About Inflation
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
5/14 8:49am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
- Date Edited:
5/14 8:52am (4 edits total)
Edited By:
Zaz
|
|
The South started it. And wanted to maintain instititionized slavery. And I don't think I would rely on a bunch of ambitious time-servers--most of whom wanted to replace him--as to whether Lincoln was a 'bastard' or not. His mother was, of course (in the technical meaning of the term.) No, I'm not naive, nor do I think Carl Sandberg's biography is anything but garbage. But I still admire Lincoln. And FDR, despite Paul Johnson's best efforts. And you didn't know the man, either.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
5/14 9:38am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
The point here is not that Lincoln or FDR were or were not "bastards" but if thier actions in the leadup to the wars they are known for act as an adequate precedent for Bush's actions for 2003.
Whether or not either man was a "bastard" is irrelevant. I'm freely willing to believe that FDR at least was more of a "bastard" as a personality than GWB -- I mean, FDR fooled around on his wife.
Regardless, neither situation is an adequate comparison. It is wholly a decision on the other side to fire first, and the South did so at Fort Sumter, and the Japanese most definately did at Pearl Harbor. The US was attacked and so immediately responded in a cause and effect relation.
The invasion of Iraq occurred 12 years after an ally on the other side of the world was attacked and liberated. There's no comparison for precedent.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Hammurabi
Registered:
Jan '07
|
Date Posted:
5/14 1:44pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
IMO, the key differences between the Civil War, World War II, and the Iraq War are as follows:
1. The Civil War and World War II were meaningful. In one, the fate of our nation was at stake; in the other, the fate of Europe was at stake. We didn't have any reason to go into Iraq - none at all. Looking back, either we were horribly misled or W and friends had no idea what they were doing.
2. We won the Civil War and World War II, whereas in Iraq, the situation is still shaky after five years of involvement. Admittedly, we were somewhat hesitant in WW2 and the Civil War also had some management issues, but up until Petraeus, the guys in charge of Iraq didn't seem to have any sensible plan in Iraq.
The point is, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, and even if we did anyway, we should've done it differently.
-----signature-----
and i know no one can sing the blues like blind willie mctell
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
5/14 2:40pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
Gonk posted:
I mean, FDR fooled around on his wife.
HOW?!?!?!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
5/14 3:06pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
BEFORE that! *smack!*
The man was not born into the wheelchair.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
The2ndQuest
Title: :
-Games
-LACWAC
-Lit Mod of Death
Registered:
Jan '00
|
Date Posted:
5/14 3:56pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
-----signature-----
K'Kruhk, 140 ABY: "Why haven't I come forth earlier to share my Jedi knowledge with Skywalker?
Well, it's kinda a long story, see, I had this freaking sweet hat..."
Is your Death Magnetic?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
rogue_wookiee
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
5/14 6:38pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
- Date Edited:
5/14 6:41pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
rogue_wookiee
|
Zaz posted:
The South started it.
Nice to know playground logic still takes precedence.
Zaz posted:
And wanted to maintain instititionized slavery.
Which was their right according to the constitution. Was it moral? I don't believe so. Was it legal? Yes. Until a 2/3 majority of congress and then states voted in favor of an amendment it was perfectly legal.
It was an issue of state against federal government. The south had as many legitimate reasons to succeed as the colonies did from Britain. And they would have won the war easily had Lincoln not turned to barbarism and butchery to win.
Had the South won or the war never happened slavery still probably would have been abolished within 50 years or so because that was the trend in European societies. America couldn't have been too far behind or we would have been considered a backwards and immoral nation in the eyes of our allies.
Zaz posted:
And you didn't know the man, either.
No, I did not. But I have studied his political actions and strategies. They were not the actions of a compassionate man, but rather of a cold and brilliant politician who hungered after power.
EDIT: And no the issue is not a comparison of Bush's war to Lincoln's. It a study of how time and history manipulation can twist our perception of certain men. Which is relevant to Bush as the "worst president in history".
-----signature-----
“You’re probably the biggest taxer in the country, even bigger than the Congress,” - Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve. Be aware of inflation and how it affects our daily life. http://mises.org/story/2914 -What You Should Know About Inflation
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Hammurabi
Registered:
Jan '07
|
Date Posted:
5/14 7:12pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
rogue_wookiee posted:
Zaz posted:
The South started it.
Nice to know playground logic still takes precedence.
You see, the problem with your point is that 'he started it' is a perfectly valid argument. In fact, it's one of the few valid reasons to start a war. In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that an attack necessitates a war. I mean, it feels weird explaining this, because I thought it was common sense, a universally-held principle. Generally, you're entering shaky moral ground only when you attack someone who hasn't attacked you - as we did with Iraq.
rogue_wookiee posted:
Zaz posted:
And wanted to maintain instititionized slavery.
Which was their right according to the constitution. Was it moral? I don't believe so. Was it legal? Yes. Until a 2/3 majority of congress and then states voted in favor of an amendment it was perfectly legal. It was an issue of state against federal government. The south had as many legitimate reasons to succeed as the colonies did from Britain.
Did the South have a right to maintain slavery? Legally, yes. However, the Union did not illegally take away that legal right. They eventually did - long after the South has seceded. Did the South have a constitutional right to secede anyway? Not explicitly, and precedent indicated that they did not. The issue of state vs federal government had been resolved thirty years prior to the start of the Civil War, and at this point it was really more a matter of growing sectionalism. And keep in mind, the South's main objection was to the democratically elected President of the United States. Their secession simply due to that disagreement is quite clearly a withdrawal from the democratic process ordained by the Constitution - in essence, the South breached the social contract. So it doesn't make sense for you to compare them to the American revolutionaries, because in that instance, the Americans were not being represented in the British government. Arguably, the opposite was true in examining the American South: because of the 3/5 clause, they were disproportionately influential in the democratic process, and in the end, they (not the North) voided the social contract.
rogue_wookiee posted:
And they would have won the war easily had Lincoln not turned to barbarism and butchery to win.
Except all the industry and most of the population was focused in the North. The South never had a reasonable chance of winning - throughout the war, they were on the defensive. And excuse me, but are you trying to form a moral high ground for the South? Because if you want to shift from a legal standpoint back to a moral standpoint, we can get into the whole slavery thing again.
rogue_wookiee posted:
Had the South won or the war never happened slavery still probably would have been abolished within 50 years or so because that was the trend in European societies. America couldn't have been too far behind or we would have been considered a backwards and immoral nation in the eyes of our allies.
Except they did think us a backwards nation, and they still do. And in plenty of ways, they're right.
rogue_wookiee posted:
I have studied his political actions and strategies. They were not the actions of a compassionate man, but rather of a cold and brilliant politician who hungered after power.
I agree with you (to an extent) on FDR. But whether or not he was compassionate, he was undeniably brilliant, and whether or not he was power-hungry, he was a highly capable man in terms of using his power.
-----signature-----
and i know no one can sing the blues like blind willie mctell
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Drac39
Registered:
Jul '02
|
Date Posted:
5/14 7:32pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
- Date Edited:
5/14 7:34pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Drac39
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:
Gonk posted:
I mean, FDR fooled around on his wife.
HOW?!?!?!
He preceded Kennedy in the playful flirtaous category of President. Eleanor was a good woman but she wasn't much of a looker 
As for Stone's Bush film, well I'll have to see some trailers. I just think it's too soon for this movie to achieve any sort of success. Bush right now is embedded with infamy from pretty much both ends of the spectrum and I don't see a way Bush could be portrayed in a picture that would really work right now. History needs some time to digest Bush( and probably get a case an upset stomach and expel him )
-----signature-----
Go Cubs!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Penguinator-176
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
5/14 8:29pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
...so yeah, I'm interested in this movie.
-----signature-----
"Sweet, soft and low, I will poison you all - canary in a gilded cage."
"Everything burns."
.
.
GDG
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
rogue_wookiee
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
5/15 5:54am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
Hammurabi posted:
You see, the problem with your point is that 'he started it' is a perfectly valid argument. In fact, it's one of the few valid reasons to start a war. In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that an attack necessitates a war. I mean, it feels weird explaining this, because I thought it was common sense, a universally-held principle. Generally, you're entering shaky moral ground only when you attack someone who hasn't attacked you - as we did with Iraq.
Look up your facts. Lincoln provoked the war at Sumter. He could have backed out of the south and tried to resolve things peacefully, but instead he resupplied the fortress against the warnings of the Confederate leadership. If Lincoln truly wanted peace he would have given into some initial demands and attempted to negotiate with them. Perhaps a reduction or annihilation of unfair tariffs would have averted war and preserved the union for the time being, but we will never know.
Hammurabi posted:
Did the South have a right to maintain slavery? Legally, yes. However, the Union did not illegally take away that legal right. They eventually did - long after the South has seceded. Did the South have a constitutional right to secede anyway? Not explicitly, and precedent indicated that they did not. The issue of state vs federal government had been resolved thirty years prior to the start of the Civil War, and at this point it was really more a matter of growing sectionalism. And keep in mind, the South's main objection was to the democratically elected President of the United States. Their secession simply due to that disagreement is quite clearly a withdrawal from the democratic process ordained by the Constitution - in essence, the South breached the social contract. So it doesn't make sense for you to compare them to the American revolutionaries, because in that instance, the Americans were not being represented in the British government. Arguably, the opposite was true in examining the American South: because of the 3/5 clause, they were disproportionately influential in the democratic process, and in the end, they (not the North) voided the social contract.
The nullification crisis only postponed the problem. Lincoln won the election without a single electoral vote from a southern state. And the tariffs were unfair and borderline legal at best.
Hammurabi posted:
Except all the industry and most of the population was focused in the North. The South never had a reasonable chance of winning - throughout the war, they were on the defensive. And excuse me, but are you trying to form a moral high ground for the South? Because if you want to shift from a legal standpoint back to a moral standpoint, we can get into the whole slavery thing again.
No. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that the north despite having every advantage was getting it's ass handed to it by Lee until Gettysburg. This is an army that started the war without a single cannon. That hints some belief in their cause and talent that the north was lacking.
Hammurabi posted:
I agree with you (to an extent) on FDR. But whether or not he was compassionate, he was undeniably brilliant, and whether or not he was power-hungry, he was a highly capable man in terms of using his power.
-----signature-----
“You’re probably the biggest taxer in the country, even bigger than the Congress,” - Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve. Be aware of inflation and how it affects our daily life. http://mises.org/story/2914 -What You Should Know About Inflation
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
