Bill Clinton and North Country

[PLATO]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
He hasn't touched the White House in five years.

Indeed...and Thank Goodness!



However, this does bring up a point. Most Republicans have now acknowledeged some of Bush's shortcomings. The issue with Clinton continues to be that so many of his supporter's keep believing that "OMG Clinton is teh God!".

Until people realize that Clinton was simply lucky enough to be at the right place and time, then people will keep up with the "Clinton is teh EVIL!"

I, for one, still believe that Bush has done some good things, BUT...I wouldn't vote for a 3rd term...I'll tell ya that!!

[MRT144]

plato, we do realize that. clinton certainly didnt go to great lengths to mess it up. i call clinton "lazireagan" simply cause reagan actually did stuff in his presidency but not even half of it was all rosy. but they both have this aura of godliness among them that if you even dare take away from or discount, their followers will give you hell.

So until people realize that Reagan was simply lucky enough to be at the right place and time with the right people around him, then people will keep up with the "Reagan is teh EVIL!"

thank god no one is proposing replacing 1 of the top 3 most important men in our nation on the 10 dollar bill with clinton.

[Imran Siddiqui]

and clinton had the benefit of being in the catbird seat and NOT ****ing it too badly. thats why we like him plato. cause he could have ****ed up royally like bush has in every regard but he didnt. his only shortcoming was that he was a hedonistic man.

QFT!

He was smart enough to realize after his first couple years (and missteps) that you just let things be. The hardest thing for a President to do is to realize things can go on fine without you.

Clinton

And while Ned turns into a drooling idiot, claiming some vast left wing conspiracy that North Country wasn't nominated because the left likes Clinton, the truth is.. well, a bit more tame:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/north_country/

69% positive reviews, 68% positive by cream of the crop. It was a story designed to be melodramatic and, frankly, formulaic. Didn't reach an Oscar standard.

In the end, we should all echo Verto on this to Ned: STFU!

[MRT144]

america loves winners and hates losers, and you cant lose if you dont play the game. clinton was riding bench for 48 minutes

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Ned, you've sunk to a new low.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by PLATO


Indeed...and Thank Goodness!



However, this does bring up a point. Most Republicans have now acknowledeged some of Bush's shortcomings. The issue with Clinton continues to be that so many of his supporter's keep believing that "OMG Clinton is teh God!".

Until people realize that Clinton was simply lucky enough to be at the right place and time, then people will keep up with the "Clinton is teh EVIL!"

I, for one, still believe that Bush has done some good things, BUT...I wouldn't vote for a 3rd term...I'll tell ya that!!

America was in the crapper when Clinton came in and doing great by the time he left. For this reason, and essentially this reason alone, will Clinton remain "teh God!".

Pretty much the opposite is true for Bush.

[Thedrin]

You know, I've actually never heard someone who was a fan of Clinton call Lewinsky or Jones a slut or a whore.

[MRT144]

no, we called them stress relieft. its all those "family" "values" "types" that go on about what whores they were

[Colon™]

I stopped believing in the Academy Awards ever since I discovered a monstrosity like Thin Red Line managed to get 7 nominations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thin Red Line

Great movie... ( for Colon)

[MRT144]

its no thin blue line

[Zkribbler]

Re: Bill Clinton and North Country

Originally posted by Ned
...When I said this, my wife began to denouce Lewinsky and Paula Jones once again, calling them sluts. Then I asked about all the other women who accussed Clinton as well. I asked her, could they all be lying sluts?

Just a reminder: Lewinsky was NOT sexually harassed. She bragged to her Beverly Hills friend before ever leaving for Washington D.C. that she was going to seduce the President. She therefore classifies as a slut.

Paula Jones is not a slut. She, unlike Lewinsky, claims to have been sexually harassed (i.e. she claims Clinton dropped his pants in front of her). Of course, Jones waited until every statute of limitations she had on her claims expired, except the one for civil rights violations. So, she brought a frivolous suit based upon that. She was supported during this suit but right-wing financiers. When her lawsuit got thrown out when Clinton showed that she had no claim for damages recognized in a civil rights suit (i.e. loss of job, loss of wages, she filed a frivolous appeal.

During the course of this frivolous lawsuit Clinton was exposed to the American public and his wife as a philanderer, and was also later impeached but acquited of alleged criminal charges. Is it any wonder that the President agree to Jones's extortionistic demand of $850000 to settle the frivious suit??

(BTW IMHO, if Clinton had not been distracted by the right-wing financed frivolous lawsuit of Jones, he would have been able to pay more attention to his duties as President and may even have been able to nab Usama bin Ladin.)

[MRT144]

but if clinton captured bin laden then who would bush capture? strive to capture? day dream about capturing? reading a marmaduke comic where marmaduke captures the seat of the mailman's pants.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Thin Red Line

Great movie... ( for Colon)

It's tacky, pretentious, long-winded, pseudo-arty, unrealistic, melodramatic, self-consumed, and falling over itself in its rush to Tell Us A Message. The acting stinks too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll let James Berardinelli answer:

Although The Thin Red Line will not go down as the kind of war movie classic that Saving Private Ryan will, there are still many reasons to see this motion picture, especially for those who appreciate epic battle stories. See it for Malick's unparalleled visual style, for the primary character portrayals, and for the effectively chaotic, in-your-face combat sequences. The movie has the capacity to engage on both an intellectual and a visceral level. It's just a little disappointing that it could only do that for a majority of the running time instead of for the whole duration.

http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/t/thin_red.html

And as Roger Ebert says in his review, there isn't an overbearing message, but question posed that the audience has to answer for themselves:

The central intelligence in the film doesn't belong to any of the characters, or even to their voice-over philosophies. It belongs to Malick, whose ideas about war are heartfelt but not profound; the questions he asks are inescapable, but one wonders if soldiers in combat ever ask them (one guesses they ask themselves what they should do next, and how in the hell they can keep themselves from being shot). It's as if the film, long in pre-production, drifted away from the Jones novel (which was based on Jones' personal combat experience) and into a meditation not so much on war, as on film. Aren't most of the voice-over observations really not about war, but about war films? About their materials and rationales, about why one would make them, and what one would hope to say? Any film that can inspire thoughts like these is worth seeing. But the audience has to finish the work: Malick isn't sure where he's going or what he's saying. That may be a good thing. If a question has no answer, it is not useful to be supplied with one. Still, one leaves the theater bemused by what seems to be a universal law: While most war films are "anti-war," they are always anti-war from the point of view of the winning side. They say, "War is hell, and we won." Shouldn't anti-war films be told from the point of view of the losers? War was hell, and they lost.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990108/REVIEWS/901080302/1023

(both gave it 3/4 stars, btw)