MovieChat Forums > ccr1633
ccr1633 (1531)
Posts
What a strange beginning
Gopnik screwed up the math
Where's Quentin
Jaaack....
When she's announced as the presidential candidate...
One of the many small moments that make this film great
Exley
How it should've ended
How many times did Harford repeat dialog?
Border enforcement in the early 80s
View all posts >
Replies
Her only base consists of neocons with government influence, not regular people. It's remarkable how Democrats have embraced her. Democrats have become the Republicans I used to hate in the 1980s for their crass warmongering.
It is a great movie, a very unusual entry in the film noir genre in my view. I'd just never much thought up the post-mortal narration before. You also get that in "Carlito's Way" among other films.
Mad was still good throughout the 80s. William Gaines, the original brains behind the operation, died in 1992 and was likely losing steam years before that. Add to this the aging of Al Jaffee, Mort Drucker, etc, and you have the reason for Mad's decline.
Why not? People get excoriated for making the "ok" sign with their fingers and having it interpreted as a white power sign. If those are going to be the rules then let 'er rip on Beyonce. For the promotion of gang violence, she should lose all her endorsement deals and every concert venue should cancel her permanently.
There are 1440 minutes in a day. She's a slacker. She could've serviced 288 guys.
Try laying off the lysergic acid and you might have a different opinion.
The artistic shelf life of hip hop had already expired by 2000. By then it was dogshit replacing a different style of dogshit.
<blockquote>I think Romans were multicultural, they had to be due to the vastness of the Roman empire.</blockquote>
It's one thing for relatively dark skinned immigrants to have been accepted as citizens, but as candidates for emperor? They would've bumped their heads on a very low glass ceiling.
When I heard Cori Bush got the boot my first thought was, "I wonder what the successful challenger's stance is toward Israel?" Sure enough, Wesley Bell has made numerous statements that make it clear he's a complete shill for Israel. Imagine that. What a coincidence.
Spot on. Not only that, but in a continued American effort to shield Israel from criticism (1984 style) the US Congress wastes its time passing declarations that officially expand the definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel. Even US congressmen and senators themselves aren't worthy of such protection (never mind conservative supreme court justices). The bill was written so broadly that a government titsucking lawyer would have no problem arguing that calling Netanyahu a war criminal would qualify as "anti-Semitic" speech, should the US government decide to go after you. And all of this having the purported motivation to protect the massive escalation of hate crimes against Jewish students on college campuses (a lie). Of course, the real motivation is to suppress as much as possible any political dissent that doesn't coincide with the US government's narrative of the day.
View all replies >