The Time is NOW to Help the Movie Suceed


Recommended Posts

But MOM! We don't want to do our homework...

We want to stay up and jump on the bed MOM!

Get the switch Carol!

Discipline the little buggers!

To MSK:

If you ever decide to add a blurb to O:'s existing masthead, I nominate Adam's first two sentences here as Best.Blurb.Ever.

Eloquent, instinctive, says it all.

Mom being Ayn Rand of course, facing us sternly.

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

> the real intent of the producers for its major distribution is on DVD...move to DVD is not necessarily bad, since that seems to be the ultimate distribution channel now for movies.

Jerry, a successful 'box office' movie can make hundreds of millions and that alone sparks DVD sales. But what constitutes a successful straight-to-DVD movie?

Personally I don't watch movies on DVD - I catch them in the theater or not at all. Plus it's often cheaper to pay $8-$10 at the theater..unless you don't want to own it but only to Netfix it? Or am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> the real intent of the producers for its major distribution is on DVD...move to DVD is not necessarily bad, since that seems to be the ultimate distribution channel now for movies.

Jerry, a successful 'box office' movie can make hundreds of millions and that alone sparks DVD sales. But what constitutes a successful straight-to-DVD movie?

Personally I don't watch movies on DVD - I catch them in the theater or not at all. Plus it's often cheaper to pay $8-$10 at the theater..unless you don't want to own it but only to Netfix it? Or am I wrong?

I suppose you're right if you want to watch the film only once. Since I'm inclined to the view that any film worth watching at all is worth watching multiple times, I don't regard your cost comparison as meaningful. Also, in theatres, you have to put up with audiences and their noise and their stupidity and their filth; you can't stop the movie to take a food or bathroom break; you can't run it back to double check a line of dialogue or something that may have been in the background of an earlier shot; and you can't drink alcoholic beverages or smoke your favorite herbs while watching. Theatres suck.

JR

Edited by Jeff Riggenbach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I so hope the movie will succeed. I want it to go all Blair Witch and cause Lenny P to pound his head against his pod, sobbing in rage. "Why did I let Aglialoro rob me of those rights for a measly million? That I already spent? There must be some way I can sue him!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> the real intent of the producers for its major distribution is on DVD...move to DVD is not necessarily bad, since that seems to be the ultimate distribution channel now for movies.

Jerry, a successful 'box office' movie can make hundreds of millions and that alone sparks DVD sales. But what constitutes a successful straight-to-DVD movie?

Personally I don't watch movies on DVD - I catch them in the theater or not at all. Plus it's often cheaper to pay $8-$10 at the theater..unless you don't want to own it but only to Netfix it? Or am I wrong?

Vending machines (Redbox) rent movies for $1.00 per night. Check www.redbox.com to see if they are in your area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Vending machines (Redbox) rent movies for $1.00 per night. Check www.redbox.com to see if they are in your area.

Yes, there are two kiosks within a mile of me in each direction. But I do not want to rent a movie to watch on a 3-40-or even 50 inch screen.

Watching movies on television is another step toward whim-worship, hedonism, rationalism, psychologizing, incivility, and the collapse of western civilization.

You are morally required to get up and go out and drive to the theater (or better yet walk or ride a horse.)

I like the pitch blackness and the gigantic screen to wrap around me. When I saw Casablanca for the first time, the nuances, the gentle float of smoke up, Bogey's sad eyed drunkenness in the big room, the flicker of the searchlight drifting in and out.

I thought that giant spherical rock in Raiders of the Lost Ark was going to roll right over my skull and kill all my neurons (no jokes, please).

Any really wonderful film worth watching once, should be watched with as great fidelity as is possible. Especially the classics.

Go to the bathroom before you walk down the long, dark aisleway. Put off your culinary and medicinal and soporific delights so that you can completely immerse yourself and not be distracted. (Yes, I will allow popcorn to break your concentration, but no gummy bears. And no chewing.) Jeff, forcing yourself to appreciate the audience gasps and laughter and to ignore any shifting or rustling or bladder needs builds focus and discipline.

And community spirit benevolence. :-)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the pitch blackness and the gigantic screen to wrap around me. When I saw Casablanca for the first time, the nuances, the gentle float of smoke up, Bogey's sad eyed drunkenness in the big room, the flicker of the searchlight drifting in and out.

Any really wonderful film worth watching once, should be watched with as great fidelity as is possible. Especially the classics.

Go to the bathroom before you walk down the long, dark aisleway. Put off your culinary and medicinal and soporific delights so that you can completely immerse yourself and not be distracted. (Yes, I will allow popcorn to break your concentration, but no gummy bears. And no chewing.) Jeff, forcing yourself to appreciate the audience gasps and laughter and to ignore any shifting or rustling or bladder needs builds focus and discipline.

And community spirit. :-)

and tradition, memory! the glorious crux of the week, Friday night, who will sit with who, who will put whose arm around whom (some of us were getting grammatical around then), who will be ejected by the erratic usher, former Sergeant-Major in the 8th Hussars, for such offences as being cheeky, ...

the movies were great too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose [Phil Coates* is] right if you want to watch the film only once. Since I'm inclined to the view that any film worth watching at all is worth watching multiple times, I don't regard your cost comparison as meaningful.

A perspective I've gladly endorsed for years. And have documented. (JR and others have responded, but not everyone's seen that thread from last Spring.)

It's gotten to the point that I don't even waste the $10 or more (here in SoCal) and the gas and driving time unless I'm reasonably sure in advance that I'll want to see a film at least once more.

Anyway, not only has Redbox relentlessly driven down the price of new-release rentals (and upped the convenience, with their being returnable to any such kiosk), but DVDs as commodities have drastically fallen in price.

You can get a used recent-release DVD in superb condition, withdrawn from rental at one of the few Blockbusters left, for under $7 these days, and sometimes within six weeks of its store debut. Sometimes you can find brand-new discs of worthwhile movies for as little as $5, and not just at Wally World. Amazon.com Marketplace also dredges up almost any forgotten classic (or not!) on disc for a few bucks.

Also, in theatres, you have to put up with audiences and their noise and their stupidity and their filth; you can't stop the movie to take a food or bathroom break; you can't run it back to double check a line of dialogue or something that may have been in the background of an earlier shot; and you can't drink alcoholic beverages or smoke your favorite herbs while watching. Theatres suck.

It makes me sound like the middle-aged fart I've become, but all those teenagers and 20somethings with their cell phones are the height of that stupidity. They can't take in the experience that they've just shelled out $20 or more (with overpriced refreshments) to see? For two hours? Without keeping up chatter, text, voice, sometimes both at once? Those iPhones are like lighthouse beams in my face, dammit.

* Whom I won't quote or respond to until he starts using the quote function himself, which is there for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really ought to look up the word "pacifist" in the dictionary. I am not and never have been a pacifist. The fact that you think that opposing and morally condemning a murderous, non-defensive war launched by the U.S. government that has brought about the death of hundreds of thousands of people and that has turned 10% of the entire population into refugees, constitutes pacifism, shows how utterly distorted your view of pacifism is. This may come as a revelation to you, but the majority of countries in the world today manage to provide for their own defense just fine without launching murderous wars of aggression against other countries. It has been a rather long time since Switzerland last fought in a war. If you think that the Swiss are pacifists, I suggest you gather together an army and try launching an invasion of Switzerland. You'll see first hand just how pacifistic the Swiss are.

I don’t support the war in Iraq, but our (misguided) purpose in fighting it was a warped view of our own self-defense. Calling it a “murderous war of aggression” is just too laughable to merit discussion. It’s a pacifist argument, whether or not you call yourself a “pacifist.” You really think America is evil for getting rid of Hussein? What utter nonsense. My objection to the way we fought the war (once we committed to it) was that we were not aggressive enough. I don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqis. They allowed their country to be run by a madman who could potentially have threatened Israel and America.

As to your view that they want to kill us, why don't you try doing some basic arithmetic. Add up the total number of Americans killed by Muslims. Then add up the total number of Muslims killed by Americans. See which of the two is greater. When you're done with this exercise, add up the total amount of American territory occupied by Muslims. Then add up the total amount of Muslim territory occupied by Americans. See which of the two is greater. Perhaps, after you have gone through this exercise, you will come to realize that a more logical conclusion would be for them to believe that "we" want to kill them, rather than for us to believe that "they" want to kill us.

Furthermore, I have never advocated that we "love" the Iraqis. This is a false dichotomy, that we must either love them or murder them and occupy their country. How about we leave them the hell alone, stop killing them, stop occupying their land, and get the hell out of their country?

Of what point is your “basic arithmetic” if you’re killed by a suicide bomber? You're still dead. Will those who care about you be sitting around saying, “Oh, it’s okay. To defend ourselves, we killed lots more of them than they did us. We are still ahead of them in the numbers.”

Talk of our “occupying” Muslim territory is tantamount to insanity, and I won’t address it. Frankly, I wish we did occupy Iraq in the same way that we occupied Japan after World War II. But, as a nation, we don’t have the moral self-confidence we did then, so we hang around and "keep the peace" and leave our sons and daughters in harm's way while they vote their dumb asses into a theocracy.

Moreover, having a sense of humor is more important than ever during wartime. It is a way for people to maintain their perspective and their sanity. Attacking someone for that is just pure pompous bullshit. Give me a freakin' break.

My point was to show that your attack on Ted was baseless, silly and nonsensical. Which it obviously was.

I'm glad you can have a sense of humor about all of those dead, wounded, and homeless Iraqis. Yeah, that's really funny. Of course, it's easy for you to laugh about it. You can sit here safe in your cocoon, watching the devastation your government has inflicted on a people who live far, far away. And in your spare time, you can write moral justifications for this carnage. And you can pretend to be a highly moral person, an exemplar of the highest principles of objectivist morality, a believer in freedom, liberty, and individual rights. Except for those other nonpersons, that is.

Martin

Obviously no one is laughing at the “dead, wounded, homeless Iraqis.” (I’m touched that you only care about the Iraqis. I guess you can ignore the Americans who lost their lives because they are the evil servants of the Great Satan.) There are endless jokes made about any and every war that has ever been fought, and they are often told by the men and women fighting them. To suggest that such humor amounts to “laughing at the dead” is just sick. People are laughing at the irony and absurdity of life. If attacking others while twisting reality into that kind of ugly perspective makes you feel like a "moral person," please don't expect anyone to give a damn about meeting your wacked-out moral standards.

Here's the website for you:

Code Pink for Peace

You can sign their petition urging Bed Bath & Beyond to stop selling Ahava & SodaStream. That should make you beam with pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

By the way, there is this movie being released called Atlas Shrugged on April 15th 2011:

Here is another group that now has the debut in 63 theaters!

'Atlas Shrugged': Coming soon to a theater near you? If the Tea Party has anything to do with it, yes.

"And no less a supporter than Dick Armey -- former House majority leader and now head of FreedomWorks, a Tea Party organization -- has made it his business to put the movie in as many theaters as possible. So far he's lined up 63 theaters out of the hoped-for 300.

"In a lot of ways this project reflects the ethos of the tea party," FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe tells the National Journal. 'You had both Republicans and Democrats who felt rejected by the establishment, and the same process is going to happen with "Atlas Shrugged": We're going to build a constituency of people who believe in limited government and individual liberty.'"

Just thought I would put it on this war thread.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Just thought I would put it on this war thread.

You got a lotta nerve, putting a post on a thread that the post is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Just thought I would put it on this war thread.

You got a lotta nerve, putting a post on a thread that the post is about.

Phil:

I know, I just got delirious and forgot my place.

Call me silly. Call me stupid.

Just don't call me....________________

There are so many good answers.

Now, I have not checked the movie site out yet to see if these additional 45 or so theatres are listed.

I will check later, but I hope that 1) the news story is true, and, 2) that these disparate groups are coordinated with the movie site.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current count is 84 theatres

The goal is 300 -

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes! Big Jump in just a few days...great news!

(This is what happens when an organization like FreedomWorks which knows how to make things happen gets involved....now, let's hope for a -big- turn out so a wider release can happen soon. Another piece go good news is the conservatives starting to join the bandwagon...now let's hope the movie is not disappointing and is worth it....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes! Big Jump in just a few days...great news!

(This is what happens when an organization like FreedomWorks which knows how to make things happen gets involved....now, let's hope for a -big- turn out so a wider release can happen soon. Another piece go good news is the conservatives starting to join the bandwagon...now let's hope the movie is not disappointing and is worth it....)

Oh, yes, oh, yes, indeed. Nothing could be more important that getting a bunch of statists who shout libertarian slogans during election campaigns to get behind the Atlas Shrugged movie. What would we do without the invaluable contribution of these contemptible statists?

Wonderingly,

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes! Big Jump in just a few days...great news!

(This is what happens when an organization like FreedomWorks which knows how to make things happen gets involved....now, let's hope for a -big- turn out so a wider release can happen soon. Another piece go good news is the conservatives starting to join the bandwagon...now let's hope the movie is not disappointing and is worth it....)

Oh, yes, oh, yes, indeed. Nothing could be more important that getting a bunch of statists who shout libertarian slogans during election campaigns to get behind the Atlas Shrugged movie. What would we do without the invaluable contribution of these contemptible statists?

Wonderingly,

JR

Jeff:

I am consistently amazed that Phil plays right into this line of thought especially since Ayn had clearly divorced herself from the conservative position numerous times.

I am a realist when it comes to advancing the movement, be it anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, minarchism or limited government Randianism. I will establish political alliances with the home school movement, the old new left on the draft, etc. However, these are political alliances and that is as far as it goes.

But Phil, good lord, to phrase it as :..the conservatives starting to join the bandwagon..." is pretty poor salesmanship!

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really ought to look up the word "pacifist" in the dictionary. I am not and never have been a pacifist. The fact that you think that opposing and morally condemning a murderous, non-defensive war launched by the U.S. government that has brought about the death of hundreds of thousands of people and that has turned 10% of the entire population into refugees, constitutes pacifism, shows how utterly distorted your view of pacifism is. This may come as a revelation to you, but the majority of countries in the world today manage to provide for their own defense just fine without launching murderous wars of aggression against other countries. It has been a rather long time since Switzerland last fought in a war. If you think that the Swiss are pacifists, I suggest you gather together an army and try launching an invasion of Switzerland. You'll see first hand just how pacifistic the Swiss are.

I don’t support the war in Iraq, but our (misguided) purpose in fighting it was a warped view of our own self-defense.

That's nonsense. The purpose of fighting the war had nothing whatever to do with self-defense, warped or otherwise. War with Iraq was advocated by the Project for a New American Century during the Clinton administration. 9/11 provided the justification the war advocates had long been seeking. The actual purpose was to replace Hussein with an American friendly puppet government and to establish military bases in Iraq for use as a forward area for further American influence in the Middle East. That purpose has been achieved beyond the warmongers' wildest dreams, as the U.S. has constructed massive military bases in Iraq which it intends to occupy with a permanent garrison of American soldiers. The war has also enriched the military industrial establishment, all at the expense of the American people who will have to pay for this entire war crime.

Calling it a “murderous war of aggression” is just too laughable to merit discussion. It’s a pacifist argument, whether or not you call yourself a “pacifist.”

Of course it was a war of aggression. The only moral justification for going to war is self-defense. Since the war had absolutely nothing to do with self defense, it was a war of aggression. The U.S. government attacked a nation that was absolutely no threat whatever to it, leading to over a hundred thousand Iraqis being killed (exact death toll unknown, some estimates are as high as one million), an unknown but undoubtedly huge number of Iraqis wounded from the war, over two million Iraqis driven from their homes and turned into refugees, many of whom fled Iraq to Jordan and Syria, and massive destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. Iraq was carpet bombed ("shock and awe") and attacked with lethal weaponry, including white phosphorus and depleted uranium. All of this was done with no justification whatever, just to enrich the U.S. empire. According to your twisted definition of "pacifist", a pacifist is anyone who is opposed to starting wars of aggression.

You really think America is evil for getting rid of Hussein? What utter nonsense.

"America" is not evil. The U.S. government is evil for engaging in this war crime. You commit the all too common fallacy of equating the U.S. government with America, as though they are one and the same. Using such rhetoric, anyone who criticizes the U.S. government can be accused of being anti-American or of hating American, since, of course, they are treated as identical. A perfect argument from intimidation to stop anyone from criticizing the U.S. government, no matter how criminal its actions.

Your question is idiotic on its face. The U.S. government didn't just get rid of Hussein. It launched a war that led to a mini holocaust. You don't just push a button and get rid of an evil dictator, without this little thing called "collateral damage". A good analogy would be if Russia launched a nuclear attack against Washington, killing hundreds of thousands of Washington residents, including Obama, in the attack. The Russian president, to justify this attack, could say, "You really think Russia is evil for getting rid of Obama?", ignoring the fact that he also killed several hundred thousand innocent people in the attack.

Your argument is even more absurd, given that Hussein was a one time U.S. government ally. How many Americans are even aware that the U.S. government aided Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, a war which led to the death of about one million Iranians, all with assistance from the U.S. government? So we had to start a war in order to remove a brutal dictator whom we helped in another war. This is consistent with various other instances of brutal dictators who were one time allies of the U.S. and who the U.S. subsequently removed after they turned against us. Manual Noreiga was a one time U.S. ally who was on the CIA payroll. Bush ended up launching an invasion of Panama in order to remove this dictator whom the the U.S. government had at one time supported. There are other such examples.

My objection to the way we fought the war (once we committed to it) was that we were not aggressive enough.

How many Iraqis would you like for the U.S. government to have killed? One million? Five million? Ten million? Maybe we should have just nuked the entire place, killing every man, woman, child, dog, and cat, leaving nothing behind alive but cockroaches. That would have been a really excellent "final solution". All launched against a country that never threatened us and never could threaten us.

I don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqis. They allowed their country to be run by a madman who could potentially have threatened Israel and America.

That's interesting. I always thought that objectivism was a philosophy based on ethical individualism, in which people are only held morally responsible for their own actions, and in which there is no such thing as collective guilt. To say that they allowed their country to be run by a dictator implies that individual Iraqis somehow had the power to overthrow their dictator. Now, of course, if millions and millions of Iraqis banded together against Hussein, they could probably have overthrown him. But, from the perspective of an individual Iraqi, should he/she try to overthrow Hussein alone, he/she will almost certainly end up being run through one of Hussein's shredders. Since an individual has little power to convince millions of others to join the rebellion, choosing to do this on one's own is certain suicide.

But let's go along with your assumption that individual Iraqis are somehow morally responsible for living under a brutal dictatorship. Does this responsibility extend to children and infants too? During war, lots of children and infants are killed as well as adults. Are the children and infants fair game, sharing moral responsibility for the crime of living under a dictator? Since you don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqis, you presumably don't give a rat's ass about the children and infants killed either. Your compassion, humanity, and just plain decency are noted.

Ayn Rand lived in the Soviet Union under a brutal communist dictatorship. Was she responsible for this fact? Would it have been morally justifiable to kill her too, since she allowed her country to be run by a madman?

Lets take your moral principle a little further. If Iraqis are morally responsible for living under a dictator, such that it is morally justifiable to massively kill them and to feel indifferent to this loss of human life, wouldn't we Americans also be morally responsible if we lived under a dictator, such that it would be morally justifiable to kill us? Of course, we're not living under a dictatorship, at least at this moment. But a future dictatorship is more than just a hypothetical possibility. One more terrorist attack here and the president could declare martial law, commandeer the state national guards, and establish a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States. If this were to happen, suppose that a Russian objectivist, espousing exactly your philosophy, were to argue that it's okay to nuke the United States, even if this means killing millions of Americans, since they are morally responsible for living under a dictatorship with a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Would you agree with this reasoning? It is somehow much easier to concoct moral justifications for killing other people than to concoct moral justifications for other people to kill us.

As to your view that they want to kill us, why don't you try doing some basic arithmetic. Add up the total number of Americans killed by Muslims. Then add up the total number of Muslims killed by Americans. See which of the two is greater. When you're done with this exercise, add up the total amount of American territory occupied by Muslims. Then add up the total amount of Muslim territory occupied by Americans. See which of the two is greater. Perhaps, after you have gone through this exercise, you will come to realize that a more logical conclusion would be for them to believe that "we" want to kill them, rather than for us to believe that "they" want to kill us.

Furthermore, I have never advocated that we "love" the Iraqis. This is a false dichotomy, that we must either love them or murder them and occupy their country. How about we leave them the hell alone, stop killing them, stop occupying their land, and get the hell out of their country?

Of what point is your “basic arithmetic” if you’re killed by a suicide bomber? You're still dead. Will those who care about you be sitting around saying, “Oh, it’s okay. To defend ourselves, we killed lots more of them than they did us. We are still ahead of them in the numbers.”

My point is very simple. Your whole argument hinges on the absurd idea that attacking Iraq was somehow an act of self defense. Well, my point is that, by any objective analysis, the U.S. was much more of a threat to Iraq than Iraq ever was to the U.S. Not only has the U.S. killed far more Iraqis than Iraq has killed Americans, but the U.S. has orders of magnitude more fire power than Iraq. So, if you're going to justify a "preventive attack" on Iraq, based on what it might do to us, than Iraq would be far more justified in launched a "preventive attack" on the U.S., given the relative risk of attack faced by each nation against the other.

Talk of our “occupying” Muslim territory is tantamount to insanity, and I won’t address it. Frankly, I wish we did occupy Iraq in the same way that we occupied Japan after World War II. But, as a nation, we don’t have the moral self-confidence we did then, so we hang around and "keep the peace" and leave our sons and daughters in harm's way while they vote their dumb asses into a theocracy.

So talk of our occupying Muslim territory is tantamount to insanity? Does this mean that we're not actually occupying Muslim territory, or that it's insane to talk about it? Of course, if Iraq built a huge, heavily fortified embassy in an American "green zone", built permanent military bases, and garrisoned thousands of soldiers in their military bases on our land, you would probably think that we were under occupation by Iraq. But, of course, it's just wrong to apply the same standards to us as to them. We're special! We're Americans! They're just so much dirt under our feet. They should give us candy and flowers for being nice enough to show such a special interest in their country. The ungrateful bastards!

Moreover, having a sense of humor is more important than ever during wartime. It is a way for people to maintain their perspective and their sanity. Attacking someone for that is just pure pompous bullshit. Give me a freakin' break.

My point was to show that your attack on Ted was baseless, silly and nonsensical. Which it obviously was.

I'm glad you can have a sense of humor about all of those dead, wounded, and homeless Iraqis. Yeah, that's really funny. Of course, it's easy for you to laugh about it. You can sit here safe in your cocoon, watching the devastation your government has inflicted on a people who live far, far away. And in your spare time, you can write moral justifications for this carnage. And you can pretend to be a highly moral person, an exemplar of the highest principles of objectivist morality, a believer in freedom, liberty, and individual rights. Except for those other nonpersons, that is.

Martin

Obviously no one is laughing at the “dead, wounded, homeless Iraqis.” (I’m touched that you only care about the Iraqis. I guess you can ignore the Americans who lost their lives because they are the evil servants of the Great Satan.) There are endless jokes made about any and every war that has ever been fought, and they are often told by the men and women fighting them. To suggest that such humor amounts to “laughing at the dead” is just sick. People are laughing at the irony and absurdity of life. If attacking others while twisting reality into that kind of ugly perspective makes you feel like a "moral person," please don't expect anyone to give a damn about meeting your wacked-out moral standards.

I'm touched that you care so much about the Americans who lost their lives, not to mention those who are permanently wounded. Of course, had the war never been started, as I have clearly advocated, all of those Americans would be alive and uninjured today. Because of people like you who come up with moral justifications for going to war, these Americans were sent into the meat grinder of Iraq to fight and die for nothing.

And why shouldn't you be "laughing at the dead" Iraqis, being as you have stated quite explicly that you don't give a damn about any of them.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really ought to look up the word "pacifist" in the dictionary. I am not and never have been a pacifist. The fact that you think that opposing and morally condemning a murderous, non-defensive war launched by the U.S. government that has brought about the death of hundreds of thousands of people and that has turned 10% of the entire population into refugees, constitutes pacifism, shows how utterly distorted your view of pacifism is. This may come as a revelation to you, but the majority of countries in the world today manage to provide for their own defense just fine without launching murderous wars of aggression against other countries. It has been a rather long time since Switzerland last fought in a war. If you think that the Swiss are pacifists, I suggest you gather together an army and try launching an invasion of Switzerland. You'll see first hand just how pacifistic the Swiss are.

I don't support the war in Iraq, but our (misguided) purpose in fighting it was a warped view of our own self-defense.

That's nonsense. The purpose of fighting the war had nothing whatever to do with self-defense, warped or otherwise. War with Iraq was advocated by the Project for a New American Century during the Clinton administration. 9/11 provided the justification the war advocates had long been seeking. The actual purpose was to replace Hussein with an American friendly puppet government and to establish military bases in Iraq for use as a forward area for further American influence in the Middle East. That purpose has been achieved beyond the warmongers' wildest dreams, as the U.S. has constructed massive military bases in Iraq which it intends to occupy with a permanent garrison of American soldiers. The war has also enriched the military industrial establishment, all at the expense of the American people who will have to pay for this entire war crime.

Calling it a "murderous war of aggression" is just too laughable to merit discussion. It's a pacifist argument, whether or not you call yourself a "pacifist."

Of course it was a war of aggression. The only moral justification for going to war is self-defense. Since the war had absolutely nothing to do with self defense, it was a war of aggression. The U.S. government attacked a nation that was absolutely no threat whatever to it, leading to over a hundred thousand Iraqis being killed (exact death toll unknown, some estimates are as high as one million), an unknown but undoubtedly huge number of Iraqis wounded from the war, over two million Iraqis driven from their homes and turned into refugees, many of whom fled Iraq to Jordan and Syria, and massive destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. Iraq was carpet bombed ("shock and awe") and attacked with lethal weaponry, including white phosphorus and depleted uranium. All of this was done with no justification whatever, just to enrich the U.S. empire. According to your twisted definition of "pacifist", a pacifist is anyone who is opposed to starting wars of aggression.

You really think America is evil for getting rid of Hussein? What utter nonsense.

"America" is not evil. The U.S. government is evil for engaging in this war crime. You commit the all too common fallacy of equating the U.S. government with America, as though they are one and the same. Using such rhetoric, anyone who criticizes the U.S. government can be accused of being anti-American or of hating American, since, of course, they are treated as identical. A perfect argument from intimidation to stop anyone from criticizing the U.S. government, no matter how criminal its actions.

Your question is idiotic on its face. The U.S. government didn't just get rid of Hussein. It launched a war that led to a mini holocaust. You don't just push a button and get rid of an evil dictator, without this little thing called "collateral damage". A good analogy would be if Russia launched a nuclear attack against Washington, killing hundreds of thousands of Washington residents, including Obama, in the attack. The Russian president, to justify this attack, could say, "You really think Russia is evil for getting rid of Obama?", ignoring the fact that he also killed several hundred thousand innocent people in the attack.

Your argument is even more absurd, given that Hussein was a one time U.S. government ally. How many Americans are even aware that the U.S. government aided Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, a war which led to the death of about one million Iranians, all with assistance from the U.S. government? So we had to start a war in order to remove a brutal dictator whom we helped in another war. This is consistent with various other instances of brutal dictators who were one time allies of the U.S. and who the U.S. subsequently removed after they turned against us. Manual Noreiga was a one time U.S. ally who was on the CIA payroll. Bush ended up launching an invasion of Panama in order to remove this dictator whom the the U.S. government had at one time supported. There are other such examples.

My objection to the way we fought the war (once we committed to it) was that we were not aggressive enough.

How many Iraqis would you like for the U.S. government to have killed? One million? Five million? Ten million? Maybe we should have just nuked the entire place, killing every man, woman, child, dog, and cat, leaving nothing behind alive but cockroaches. That would have been a really excellent "final solution". All launched against a country that never threatened us and never could threaten us.

I don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqis. They allowed their country to be run by a madman who could potentially have threatened Israel and America.

That's interesting. I always thought that objectivism was a philosophy based on ethical individualism, in which people are only held morally responsible for their own actions, and in which there is no such thing as collective guilt. To say that they allowed their country to be run by a dictator implies that individual Iraqis somehow had the power to overthrow their dictator. Now, of course, if millions and millions of Iraqis banded together against Hussein, they could probably have overthrown him. But, from the perspective of an individual Iraqi, should he/she try to overthrow Hussein alone, he/she will almost certainly end up being run through one of Hussein's shredders. Since an individual has little power to convince millions of others to join the rebellion, choosing to do this on one's own is certain suicide.

But let's go along with your assumption that individual Iraqis are somehow morally responsible for living under a brutal dictatorship. Does this responsibility extend to children and infants too? During war, lots of children and infants are killed as well as adults. Are the children and infants fair game, sharing moral responsibility for the crime of living under a dictator? Since you don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqis, you presumably don't give a rat's ass about the children and infants killed either. Your compassion, humanity, and just plain decency are noted.

Ayn Rand lived in the Soviet Union under a brutal communist dictatorship. Was she responsible for this fact? Would it have been morally justifiable to kill her too, since she allowed her country to be run by a madman?

Lets take your moral principle a little further. If Iraqis are morally responsible for living under a dictator, such that it is morally justifiable to massively kill them and to feel indifferent to this loss of human life, wouldn't we Americans also be morally responsible if we lived under a dictator, such that it would be morally justifiable to kill us? Of course, we're not living under a dictatorship, at least at this moment. But a future dictatorship is more than just a hypothetical possibility. One more terrorist attack here and the president could declare martial law, commandeer the state national guards, and establish a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States. If this were to happen, suppose that a Russian objectivist, espousing exactly your philosophy, were to argue that it's okay to nuke the United States, even if this means killing millions of Americans, since they are morally responsible for living under a dictatorship with a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Would you agree with this reasoning? It is somehow much easier to concoct moral justifications for killing other people than to concoct moral justifications for other people to kill us.

As to your view that they want to kill us, why don't you try doing some basic arithmetic. Add up the total number of Americans killed by Muslims. Then add up the total number of Muslims killed by Americans. See which of the two is greater. When you're done with this exercise, add up the total amount of American territory occupied by Muslims. Then add up the total amount of Muslim territory occupied by Americans. See which of the two is greater. Perhaps, after you have gone through this exercise, you will come to realize that a more logical conclusion would be for them to believe that "we" want to kill them, rather than for us to believe that "they" want to kill us.

Furthermore, I have never advocated that we "love" the Iraqis. This is a false dichotomy, that we must either love them or murder them and occupy their country. How about we leave them the hell alone, stop killing them, stop occupying their land, and get the hell out of their country?

Of what point is your "basic arithmetic" if you're killed by a suicide bomber? You're still dead. Will those who care about you be sitting around saying, "Oh, it's okay. To defend ourselves, we killed lots more of them than they did us. We are still ahead of them in the numbers."

My point is very simple. Your whole argument hinges on the absurd idea that attacking Iraq was somehow an act of self defense. Well, my point is that, by any objective analysis, the U.S. was much more of a threat to Iraq than Iraq ever was to the U.S. Not only has the U.S. killed far more Iraqis than Iraq has killed Americans, but the U.S. has orders of magnitude more fire power than Iraq. So, if you're going to justify a "preventive attack" on Iraq, based on what it might do to us, than Iraq would be far more justified in launched a "preventive attack" on the U.S., given the relative risk of attack faced by each nation against the other.

Talk of our "occupying" Muslim territory is tantamount to insanity, and I won't address it. Frankly, I wish we did occupy Iraq in the same way that we occupied Japan after World War II. But, as a nation, we don't have the moral self-confidence we did then, so we hang around and "keep the peace" and leave our sons and daughters in harm's way while they vote their dumb asses into a theocracy.

So talk of our occupying Muslim territory is tantamount to insanity? Does this mean that we're not actually occupying Muslim territory, or that it's insane to talk about it? Of course, if Iraq built a huge, heavily fortified embassy in an American "green zone", built permanent military bases, and garrisoned thousands of soldiers in their military bases on our land, you would probably think that we were under occupation by Iraq. But, of course, it's just wrong to apply the same standards to us as to them. We're special! We're Americans! They're just so much dirt under our feet. They should give us candy and flowers for being nice enough to show such a special interest in their country. The ungrateful bastards!

Moreover, having a sense of humor is more important than ever during wartime. It is a way for people to maintain their perspective and their sanity. Attacking someone for that is just pure pompous bullshit. Give me a freakin' break.

My point was to show that your attack on Ted was baseless, silly and nonsensical. Which it obviously was.

I'm glad you can have a sense of humor about all of those dead, wounded, and homeless Iraqis. Yeah, that's really funny. Of course, it's easy for you to laugh about it. You can sit here safe in your cocoon, watching the devastation your government has inflicted on a people who live far, far away. And in your spare time, you can write moral justifications for this carnage. And you can pretend to be a highly moral person, an exemplar of the highest principles of objectivist morality, a believer in freedom, liberty, and individual rights. Except for those other nonpersons, that is.

Martin

Obviously no one is laughing at the "dead, wounded, homeless Iraqis." (I'm touched that you only care about the Iraqis. I guess you can ignore the Americans who lost their lives because they are the evil servants of the Great Satan.) There are endless jokes made about any and every war that has ever been fought, and they are often told by the men and women fighting them. To suggest that such humor amounts to "laughing at the dead" is just sick. People are laughing at the irony and absurdity of life. If attacking others while twisting reality into that kind of ugly perspective makes you feel like a "moral person," please don't expect anyone to give a damn about meeting your wacked-out moral standards.

I'm touched that you care so much about the Americans who lost their lives, not to mention those who are permanently wounded. Of course, had the war never been started, as I have clearly advocated, all of those Americans would be alive and uninjured today. Because of people like you who come up with moral justifications for going to war, these Americans were sent into the meat grinder of Iraq to fight and die for nothing.

And why shouldn't you be "laughing at the dead" Iraqis, being as you have stated quite explicly that you don't give a damn about any of them.

Martin

Bravo, Martin. I'm glad you can summon the will to write a detailed reply to such a tiresome opponent. Of course, they're all tiresome with their collectivist crap about "we" and how the U.S. government and anything it does is "America." But they aren't all this pompous and puffed up with their own supposed importance.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLAS SHRUGGED Fans Shock Theater Chains

Good press release by The Strike productions - it made Yahoo.

"AMC called directly to report their online contact system was being hit too hard. They requested we direct traffic to a specific address just to handle the volume," said producer Harmon Kaslow.

"While it's unusual for showtimes to be listed this early, the doors of the exhibitors have been thoroughly beaten down by Ayn's fans. Many of the theaters are now posting showtimes so tickets can be pre-purchased," continued Kaslow. "And, theaters and showtimes are now being reported as sold-out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLAS SHRUGGED Fans Shock Theater Chains

Good press release by The Strike productions - it made Yahoo.

"AMC called directly to report their online contact system was being hit too hard. They requested we direct traffic to a specific address just to handle the volume," said producer Harmon Kaslow.

"While it's unusual for showtimes to be listed this early, the doors of the exhibitors have been thoroughly beaten down by Ayn's fans. Many of the theaters are now posting showtimes so tickets can be pre-purchased," continued Kaslow. "And, theaters and showtimes are now being reported as sold-out."

It's a cult film already! The Torrance, California theatre (AMC Rolling Hills) where I bought advance tickets has decided to offer a special midnight showing of Atlas Shrugged Part One on Thursday night. I'll bet other theatres will follow suit.

Yes. I'm definitely going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLAS SHRUGGED Fans Shock Theater Chains

Good press release by The Strike productions - it made Yahoo. [...]

As much as I hate to ask this, I have no choice, due to the calendar and our culture's annual dementia on this day. And due to its claim of more than quadrupling the number of markets.

Is this a joke (or ultra-hyped) press release, or is it serious?

Edited by Greybird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLAS SHRUGGED Fans Shock Theater Chains

Good press release by The Strike productions - it made Yahoo. [...]

As much as I hate to ask this, I have no choice, due to the calendar and our culture's annual dementia on this day. And due to its claim of more than quadrupling the number of markets.

Is this a joke (or ultra-hyped) press release, or is it serious?

Hmm, I took it as serious.

However, now that you mention it, anything is possible today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLAS SHRUGGED Fans Shock Theater Chains

Good press release by The Strike productions - it made Yahoo. [...]

As much as I hate to ask this, I have no choice, due to the calendar and our culture's annual dementia on this day. And due to its claim of more than quadrupling the number of markets.

Is this a joke (or ultra-hyped) press release, or is it serious?

Hmm, I took it as serious.

However, now that you mention it, anything is possible today.

Who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory? In this one's case:

i_want_to_believe.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now