Bill Clinton and North Country

[DinoDoc]

Why is it this gets harped on most yet the technology transfers to China get ignored by Ned?

[mrmitchell]

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!!

That's one difference. If Clinton could have ran in 2000 he would have won by a landslide.

Hell, you know what? Even Clinton minus charisma and charm (Gore) "won".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Ever seen a Lynch or a Coen Brothers movie? If so, I can't believe you think the "symbolism" in Thin Red Line was the slightest bit interesting. For instance, interjecting a combat scene with a scene of a chicken being born, christ, can it get any tackier than that?

I own a number of Coen Brother films on DVD, including The Big Lebowski, Fargo, and O'Brother Where Are Thou. And with that background, I think the symbolism in Thin Red Line, especially the juxtaposition of nature scenes with combat was very well done.

And if you couldn't spot the intrigues, the manipulation or willy-nillyness in Paths Of Glory, well...

Oh please. Did you really think the tribunal was going to let them go? Did you think the commander would change his mind? It was very well done, if fairly predictable, and you talk about hitting you over the head with a message!

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I own a number of Coen Brother films on DVD, including The Big Lebowski, Fargo, and O'Brother Where Are Thou. And with that background, I think the symbolism in Thin Red Line, especially the juxtaposition of nature scenes with combat was very well done.

Try Barton Fink, that is use of intruiging symbolism.

The juxtaposition with nature scenes was as corny as it could get, only to be beaten by the voice-overs. The only impression it gave me was that of egotistical ****ing: "LOOK, at how I, the artist with a MESSAGE, shock YOU into hating war!"
A lot of war movies make that point far more effectively by simply staying sober and by bringing it as realistically as possible. No need to engage in pseudo-artistic navel-gazing.

Oh please. Did you really think the tribunal was going to let them go? Did you think the commander would change his mind? It was very well done, if fairly predictable, and you talk about hitting you over the head with a message!

[Arrian]

The Thin Red Line sucked.

Clinton was the best president in the last 30 years, and that is an indictment of the American political system and electorate.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

The juxtaposition with nature scenes was as corny as it could get, only to be beaten by the voice-overs. The only impression it gave me was that of egotistical ****ing: "LOOK, at how I, the artist with a MESSAGE, shock YOU into hating war!"

You missed the whole point. The nature scenes (especially the croc stuff) were to show how much like nature, man's destructive impulse is. There was no 'shock you into hating war'. It was asking a question about war. WW2 is, by all corners, considered a 'good war'. Malick isn't saying that we shouldn't have gone to war (which hating war does). He does show the cost of war, but wonders if it simply an inevitable part of the human condition, being a part of nature that we are.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144
and im calling bull**** on your feigned disgust for clinton's cheating when you call yourself a kennedy democrat and he made clinton look like an undersexed college freshman.

Good point there.

You will note that I have consistently said that Clinton was an otherwise good president. Ditto Kennedy. What I can't stand, though, it the utter hypocrisy of the left about Clinton. They will defend his philandering and sexual abuse of women even to the extent of defaming the women he abused. That is more than indefensible to me. It is just plain sick.

[Ned]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Ned, you've sunk to a new low.

Or, reached a new high. Depends upon your politics.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ned


Good point there.

You will note that I have consistently said that Clinton was an otherwise good president. Ditto Kennedy. What I can't stand, though, it the utter hypocrisy of the left about Clinton. They will defend his philandering and sexual abuse of women even to the extent of defaming the women he abused. That is more than indefensible to me. It is just plain sick.

except that ive never heard, and no one else has, heard a clinton supporter call the women sluts.

and maybe the clinton support squad just doesnt care about something that wasnt tied to his presidency being used to drag it through the mud. you cant care about every issue a person holds if you like the person. its called comprimise and thats what supporting people is about.

[Arrian]

I'm amused about Ned's wife's role in this.

-Arrian

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The juxtaposition with nature scenes was as corny as it could get, only to be beaten by the voice-overs. The only impression it gave me was that of egotistical ****ing: "LOOK, at how I, the artist with a MESSAGE, shock YOU into hating war!"

You missed the whole point. The nature scenes (especially the croc stuff) were to show how much like nature, man's destructive impulse is. There was no 'shock you into hating war'. It was asking a question about war. WW2 is, by all corners, considered a 'good war'. Malick isn't saying that we shouldn't have gone to war (which hating war does). He does show the cost of war, but wonders if it simply an inevitable part of the human condition, being a part of nature that we are.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, TRL sure seems to be having as many interpretations are there are viewers.

[Ned]

Re: Re: Bill Clinton and North Country

Originally posted by Zkribbler


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.)

1) True, L was not "abused." But she was labeled a slut regardless b/c the left was quick to point out that she went to Washington with her "presidential kneepads" fully intending to seduce the pres. In other words, Clinton was not at fault, or at least, not as much at fault for having the affair with L.

2) As to the merits of the Jones suit, we will never know if her allegations would be substantiated. However, if they were true, the allegations certainly were not frivolous. Any private CEO would be fired for such behavior.

3) Then there is Kathleen Willey (sp) and the woman who claimed Clinton raped her. It is interesting that Newsweek, IIRC, held the rape story until just after the Senate vote on Impeachment. Had they not been so supportive of Mr. Bill and ran the story, the vote may have been to convict.

Now, Kennedy had affairs. So did Clinton. But Clinton also took advantage of women and used power or force when necessary to get his way. Now that is where he differs from Kennedy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by AnnC
For the record, Monica Lewinsky is a slut, no question about it. Really, she and Clinton are two of a kind.

As far as I know, Paula Jones is not a slut and I believe her story about Clinton dropping his pants in front of her. However, she should have filed a sexual harassment complaint that very day instead of waiting for years and allowing herself to be used as a pawn by the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

No doubt there is truth in this.

But, my wife's opinions of Lewinsky and Jones seem to be shared by most Clinton defenders.

[MRT144]

according to what zogby poll?

[Arrian]

Projecting your wife's opinions on all Clinton-supporters. Brilliant.

Actually, I have indeed noticed that women generally gave Clinton a total pass. That he was a womanizing liar just didn't matter to them.

And frankly, though it's not attractive, I don't see why it should really matter to us either. Damn him for lying about it, though.

-Arrian