Friday, August 12, 2005

Susan Sarandon is Destroying Hollywood (Part I)

"Igby Goes Down." "Earthly Possessions." "Alfie." "Shall We Dance." "The Bangor Sisters." "Moonlight Mile." "Joe Gould's Secret." "Cradle Will Rock." "Noel." "Anywhere But Here."

Not counting parts voiced for animated features, those are Susan Sarandon's last ten movies.

"Illuminata." "Twilight." "Safe Passage." "Dead Man Walking." "Little Women." "The Client." "Lorenzo's Oil." "Bob Roberts." "Light Sleeper."

These are movies 12 thru twenty in Sarandon's recent career.

In fact, in a career spanning thirty-five years and roughly sixty-five major motion pictures (and a half score of other projects), Ms. Sarandon has been in only one movie that could be called a major hit. That was the cult favorite "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" -- made thirty years ago in 1975 in which Ms. Sarandon spent three-quarters of the film running around half-naked and having sex with Dr. Frank-N-Furter's monster. The film was a flop in its original release and only became profitable as a midnight movie to be laughed at.

Since that day some thirty years ago, Ms. Sarandon has never had top billing in a movie that has grossed even half the figure usually associated with a major hit. In fact, a rough estimate of the gross domestic box office of Ms. Sarandon's live-action movies in which she received top billing comes to about fifteen million dollars per picture -- or less than the fee for any of a dozen top-named actors and actresses.

Even baseball players have to get a hit one out of every three times. Zero for thirty years? Only in Hollywood. This is because Hollywood is no longer in the entertainment or money-making business and Ms. Sarandon hasn't been for years. Both are now in the ideology industry and in this way -- and this way only -- Ms. Sarandon is a superstar.

That is, while Ms. Sarandon's movies have been failures at the box office. her choice of film scripts has reflected the far-leftist agenda nearly one hundred percent of the time. This is not to say that some weren't good. Ms. Sarandon is a terrific actress and, through the years, not so bad to look at. Rather that the actress selects her movie projects based not on quality of script or the chance to connect with an audience but solely to advance her far-leftist agenda.

Thus, while "Igby Down Under" may have been a poorly written flop, it's "message" of contempt for the nuclear family was one that was attractive to this Liberal actress. Similarly, while the concept of "Earthly Possessions" -- a minister's wife who is so bored with her marriage that she falls in love with the bank robber who has kidnapped her -- is laughably ludicrous it's attack on marriage (and religion) was one the starlet couldn't refuse.

In fact the only two things one can safely count on regarding Ms. Sarandon's career is that her movies will likely flop and that the movies; message will be anti-mainstream America.

A quick perusal of her movies bears this out:

The themes of Ms. Saradon's movies were anti-American (Bob Roberts), pro-communist("Cradle Will Fall") anti-heterosexual marriage ( "Earthly Possesions", "Shall We Dance"), pro-homosexuality ("The Rocky Horror Picture Show", "The Celluloid Closet") pro-promiscuity ("The Bangor Sisters"), anti-male ("Thelma and Louise", "The Client") and/or anti-nuclear family ("Igby Goes Down", "Anywhere But Here").

Ms. Sarandon's more recent choices -- soon to be released -- are along these same lines with "Bernard and Doris" -- The story of tobacco billionairness Doris Duke and her relationship with her gay butler, "Irresistible" -- about yet another bad heterosexual marriage, and "Mr. Woodcock" about a man trying to break-up his mother's storybook (heterosexual) wedding by proving that beneath this man's perfect image lies the same monster Liberals sell as beneath all heterosexual males.

By traditional Hollywood standards -- the box office -- Ms. Sarandon's career has been an unmitigated failure. As someone selling the leftist line she remains near the top of Hollywood's A-list.

In Part II I will explain why it is that actors and actresses like Ms. Sarandon can continue to find employment in Hollywood and thus explain why Hollywood is mired in an historic slump which threatens its very viability.

12 comments:

MiamiMiami said...

Actually Susan Sarandon is really a symptom of a great problem in Hollywood. Movie attendance is way down. Could it be that the American public is finally tired of being lectured to by the likes of Sarandon and her ilk?

Very very interesting...

ouwt74tkik said...

Big News From The Healthcare Industry!!

+++++++++++Current Profile+++++++++++
Faceprint Global Solutions (FCPG)
Current Price $0.15
A company with hot new identity solution products
and licenses with over 40 current governmental and
non-governmental contracts in negotiations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is this an undiscovered gem priced to go higher!!
Please read the following Announcement in its Entirety and Consider the Possibilities�
Watch this One to Trade!

FCPG volume trading is beginning to surge with this landslide Announcement. The value of this
stock appears poised for growth! This one should not remain on the ground floor for long.

BREAKING NEWS!!

Faceprint Global Solutions (FCPG) is pleased to announce that its European partner, Keyvelop, has teamed up with IBM's Partner World Industry Networks to deliver customer software requirement solutions for the international healthcare industry.
With FGS owning the exclusive North American rights to distribute the worlds leading encryption and transmission software developed by Keyvelop, FGS is poised to capture large volumes of sales generated by customers currently using IBM's software in the healthcare and other industries.
With traceability and security now deemed a serious business priority, companies are increasingly focused on employing procedures and controls designed to ensure the authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of electronic records.
"This is a very positive move for FGS and for Keyvelop," said FGS CEO Pierre Cote. "We are very happy about the decision to go with IBM. This is a continuation of the progress made by everyone associated with FGS and its partners."
Buell Duncan, IBM's general manager of ISV & Developer Relations commented, "Collaborating with Keyvelop will ensure that we develop open solutions that are easy to maintain and cost effective for our customers in the healthcare and life sciences industry."
Among other things, this new software technology which is currently being used by a number of European healthcare companies, is used to send any file, regardless of format or size. Encryption keys, evidence of transmission integrity with fingerprint calculation, time-stamping of all actions and status record updating, pre-checking sender and receiver identities, validating file opening dates are part of Keyvelop features.
About FacePrint Global Solutions, Inc.
FGS operates a business, which develops and delivers a variety of technology solutions, including biometric software applications on smart cards and other support mediums (apometric solutions). FGS's products provide biometric solutions for identity authentication and a host of smart card- and biometrics-related hardware peripherals and software applications. Apometrix, FGS's wholly-owned subsidiary, combines on-card or in-chip multi-application management solutions with best-of-breed 'in-card matching' biometrics. Keyvelop's secure digital envelope solution and Apometrix's on-card biometrics work together to produce the winning combination in the fields of security, traceability and identity management. FGS is headquartered in Fresno, California.
Conclusion:

The examples above show the Awesome, Earning Potential of little known Companies That Explode onto Investor's Radar Screens. This stock will not be a Secret for long. Then You May Feel the Desire to Act Right Now! And Please Watch This One Trade!
GO FCPG!

All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. This profile is in no way affiliated with the featured company. We were compensated one thousand dollars from third party (IR Marketing) to distribute this report. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects". in compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of FGS shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. This is not solicitation to buy or sell stocks, this text is for informational purpose only and you should seek professional advice from registered financial advisor before you do anything related with buying or selling stocks, penny stocks are very high risk and you can lose your entire investment.

Alva Goldbook said...

Or is the problem with Hollywood is that CORPORATE movie studios have resorted to nothing but remaking films from the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s (when the originals were better), or making feature lengths out of 2nd rate TV shows? Look at the current box office “hits”. The Dukes of Hazzard. Deuce Bigalow 2. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Must Love Dogs. Wow, real radical liberalism isn’t it? I guess they had trouble filming these movies, as the Chocolate Factory gnomes and Boss Hog was hard at work in Senator Byrd’s office, pressuring other Congressman to pass a law that eliminates capitalism, huh? I guess Hollywood has always been the center of all things liberal since they made such LEFTY propaganda as True Lies, Independence Day, Rambo, Top Gun, Black Hawk Down, and Shaving Private Ryan. This is why for YEARS genuine movie fans have instead turned to underground films, that aren’t produced by corporate dimwits, but by ARTISTS who know what the hell they’re doing.

As a general rule, you can always judge if a movie will be good or not by looking at how the critics judge it. If they give it 5 stars you can bet your bucks that it will not only be bad, but it will suck. Case in point: Magnolia. If the critics despise it and give it a thumbs down, then there’s a good chance it will be amazing. Case in point: Fight Club.

And of course Susan Sarandon only makes horrible lefty movies. Which explains why she played a nun in Dead Man Walking, helping a convicted murderer to find God. And I’m sure she’s never had a decent role in her life, except of course in Cats & Dogs, the Rugrats sequel, Dead Man Walking, Thelma & Louise, The Witches of Eastwick, Bull Durham, and Rocky Horror….three of those which are recognized as some of the best classics of all time. I’m sure since Saran don’s a HACK who’s past her prime, that might explain why she’s working on 6 movie projects currently, to add to the SEVENTY films that has spanned her career.

But maybe you’re right, those lefty women are ruining Hollywood by making crappy movies. Of course those Reich wing women are fairing much better. After all, in the last 20 years Bo Derek did manage to get a small part in the box office smash TOMMY BOY.

Evan Sayet said...

I have a bit in my stand-up act about how leftists make a foolish point and then, when caught, simply jump to another foolish point. And how they don't care that those two points utterly contradict each other.

For example: "Bush LIED when he said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." "Uh, but we know Saddam had WMDs" "That's right. And who gave them to him???"

So corporate America only makes horrible movies but then to defend the leftist Sarandon you say "and what about all the great movies she's made (corporate all)!!!"

It is telling, though, that out of the list of movies you show that Sarandon made that were good you have to include two cartoons she voiced just to get to, what, five or six out of SIXTY-FIVE?

Meanwhile, I don't think any of the movies you listed were made in the past decade (other than the cartoons).

Can you imagine any other profession where you've utterly failed in every effort for the last decade (and never once had top billing in a hit) and you still get to work on six more projects?

Alva Goldbook said...

Evan,
Unfortunately your bit leaves out some relevant facts that you cons somehow seem to never fail to forget. Yes, the US gave Saddam WMDs, as it is PUBLIC RECORD that we did so, during the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations. What you’re forgetting is the UN Weapon Inspectors, who removed or destroyed about 90% of Saddam’s WMD capabilities. But don’t let those pesky facts get in your way.

Yes, Evan, movies, like most popular culture (this is particularly true with music) is controlled by massive corporations that produce garbage. That does not mean that every once in a while a real ARTIST can act within that frame work and produce something brilliant. But you will find that the best art work is, and always has been underground, while the corporate influences is the LEAST.

I’m not exactly a huge Sarandon fan, but for ANY actor to make three separate movies that are considered to be all time classics is a title very few in Hollywood can claim. I can’t think of a single film that Eddie Murphy has done that can compare to Saradon’s work, yet would you say that Murphy isn’t successful? For the most part Murphy still gets major roles, although they are primarily voice roles.

Dead Man Walking I believe was made in 1995.

By what measuring stick are you calling Saradon’s work an utter failure? She gets plenty of roles, not because of her being a “liberal”, but because she is a fine actress. Also I might add that many artists are happy to seek more diverse rolls after they have MADE IT then when they are still struggling to build name recognition. You see this in both film and music. Hell Evan, if it wasn’t for Thom Hartmann, I would have never heard of you, despite that I love the art form of stand up comedy. Would that mean that YOU have been a failure for the last two decades?

sic said...

wow! liberalism really IS a mental disorder. alva says she really doesn't like susan saranwrap, but then rabidly defends her (becuase you call her her a liberal ) like everyother topic she says shelter does care about.
of course she would probably call moore a "real artist" also.
well......he did tell a fairy tale....

MiamiMiami said...

Ok it's a dirty job but someone's gotta love doing it....


Evan,
Unfortunately your bit leaves out some relevant facts that you cons somehow seem to never fail to forget.
====>careful here. You have been playing fast and loose with the "facts" for awhile now. But I have always been there to keep you "fair and balanced". I will try once more. You can thank me later....


Yes, the US gave Saddam WMDs, as it is PUBLIC RECORD that we did so, during the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations. What you’re forgetting is the UN Weapon Inspectors, who removed or destroyed about 90% of Saddam’s WMD capabilities. But don’t let those pesky facts get in your way.
======>So then why were 17 UN resolutions passed regarding Saddam's stockpile of WMD's? Why did a majority of Democrats saying that Saddam was a threat since the Clinton years?

Yes, Evan, movies, like most popular culture (this is particularly true with music) is controlled by massive corporations that produce garbage. That does not mean that every once in a while a real ARTIST can act within that frame work and produce something brilliant. But you will find that the best art work is, and always has been underground, while the corporate influences is the LEAST.

=====>Most of these liberally slanted movies are dying in the box office for a reason and it's not because they are made by corporations.

I’m not exactly a huge Sarandon fan, but for ANY actor to make three separate movies that are considered to be all time classics is a title very few in Hollywood can claim. I can’t think of a single film that Eddie Murphy has done that can compare to Saradon’s work, yet would you say that Murphy isn’t successful? For the most part Murphy still gets major roles, although they are primarily voice roles.

Dead Man Walking I believe was made in 1995.

By what measuring stick are you calling Saradon’s work an utter failure? She gets plenty of roles, not because of her being a “liberal”, but because she is a fine actress.
=====>Wrong again. Think of how many "right-wing" or publically declared conservatives have been working lately? Mel Gibson couldnt even get help to make Passions of the Christ and even after it kicked Farenheit 9/11's butt in the box office it still wasn't recognized for its work but Farenheit 9/11 was....

Also I might add that many artists are happy to seek more diverse rolls after they have MADE IT then when they are still struggling to build name recognition. You see this in both film and music. Hell Evan, if it wasn’t for Thom Hartmann, I would have never heard of you, despite that I love the art form of stand up comedy. Would that mean that YOU have been a failure for the last two decades?

======>Alva, you need to do standup. You constantly crack me up. But it's usually when you are trying to be serious!

10:17 AM

Alva Goldbook said...

Sic,
Liberalism is a mental disorder? How is it classified in the DSM-IV? Oh, that’s right you get your psychology lectures from a racist dimwit named Michael WIENER. Perhaps you could ACTUALLY learn a thing or two about psychology by taking a look at a piece I wrote called Is George W. Bush A Pychopath?

By the way, if you question Moore’s artistic ability check out the last film John Candy ever starred in, called “Canadian Bacon” It’s hilarious.

Alva Goldbook said...

Miami,
Your refutes are getting lamer by the day.

Yes, it is public record that the US gave Saddam WMDs throughout the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Look up the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report “Duel Use Technologies to Iraq 1983-1989” reported on May 25th, 1994.

17 UN resolutions were passed in order to get rid of those very same weapons. Guess what? THEY WORKED.

Sure, those liberally slanted movies are dying in the box office. That silver screen classic “THE DUKES OF HAZZARD” reeks of liberalism doesn’t it? Next you’ll tell me that it’s the liberal’s fault that music is now being dumped with garbage like Jessica Simpson, Brittany Spears, and every other corporate plastic pop hit.

Um, last I checked, The Passion was not a CONSERVATIVE POLTICAL movie, but a RELIGIOUS one. Oh, that’s right, you guys have the damnedest time keeping church and state separate in your heads. Just a reminder, Dubya is NOT the Messiah.

MiamiMiami said...

Oh well someone's gotta do it, might as well be me....


Miami,
Your refutes are getting lamer by the day.

Yes, it is public record that the US gave Saddam WMDs throughout the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Look up the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report “Duel Use Technologies to Iraq 1983-1989” reported on May 25th, 1994.

17 UN resolutions were passed in order to get rid of those very same weapons. Guess what? THEY WORKED.

======>Apparently not. The 17 UN resolutions were never enforced. And if EVERYONE believed this to be true then why would all of these folks have agreed with the President. Here are theie quotes....


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

And further more if Saddam had complied as the UN had required him to do then why not just let the UN in there first? Also during this whole time after the cease fire he still kept shooting at our planes and monitoring aircraft in the no-fly zone. But keep apologizing for him. i am sure hat he would appreciate it.


Sure, those liberally slanted movies are dying in the box office. That silver screen classic “THE DUKES OF HAZZARD” reeks of liberalism doesn’t it?
====>Actually that one is great because of Jessica Simpson. But if that's the ONLY one you can find fault with I guess I will have to let that one pass. I haven't seen it personally.


Next you’ll tell me that it’s the liberal’s fault that music is now being dumped with garbage like Jessica Simpson, Brittany Spears, and every other corporate plastic pop hit.

=====>Ummm. No. Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson actually have a head on their shoulders. Enoguh of a business head to keep their opinions to themselves and stick to what they know and that's entertainment. Notice the difference???

Um, last I checked, The Passion was not a CONSERVATIVE POLTICAL movie, but a RELIGIOUS one. Oh, that’s right, you guys have the damnedest time keeping church and state separate in your heads. Just a reminder, Dubya is NOT the Messiah.


====>Ok let's take this one slowly. First of all I never equated it with conservatism. You have a pension to want to attach a political affiliation to Jesus who had no political affiliation. You see in your head you have assumed that the only reason "Dubya" won was because the "religious right" ,as you like to call people with religion and vote conservatively, somehow overwhelmed the polls and got this president elected. The problem with this thinking is that it's flawed from the beginning to the end. Bush won not because of his so-called religious affiliation or appearance. He won because people couldn't stand to hear the words "President Kerry". It scaered them. Scared them worse then Bush could ever scare them. The majority of Americans had two choices. Go with the guy who scared them, had no plans, ran on the platform of blame Bush for everything and was caught in more than a few discrepencies in his life story. Yes everyone knew Kerry was in Vietnam. That could only have been played so many times before people were tired of that and were ready for his so-called plans that somehow could never be explained. Or they could go with a guy that, well wasn;t such a great speaker, said a few idiotic things at times, got some bad intel that OTHERS ALSO AGREED WITH at the time, but overall was doing what was right after having had our asses handed to us on 9/11/01. Yeah it wasn't a landslide of Reagan porportions but to many people Bush was the lesser of the two evils.

It wasn't about religion. No one is trying to paint "Dubya" as a messiah. But then again most Americans do have religion and DID vote fro "Dubya" so it is a natural but false assumption on your part to label them as the "religious right". I guess it softend the blow for you in some way.
Now that you mention this so-called "separation of church and state' I challenge you to show me where in the US Constitution where it says that church and state are supposed to be separated. It's not there. Try as hard as you might you won't find it. And before you try to tell me it is please keep in mind that the writers of the consitution where literal men and if they wanted that in there I am sure it wouldf have been that way as such it isn't.

The Passion actually kicked Farenheit 9/11's ass in the box office.

why is that?

I mean one could assume that it's because Americans are dumb. I mean if they voted for "Dubya" how can you not agree with that, right?

Maybe it's because the liked a good stroy, whther they believed in Christ or not. I mean you have to admit it's a good story regardless of your religion. It's kind of like the Matrix in many ways. Almost similar plots.

Or maybe they inherently knew that Michael Moore is nothing but a blow-hard. Or their friends saw it and said how bad the movie was either for it's flawed message or just not very entertaining.

Maybe it is a sign that most Americans don't see things your way, or MOore's way and that you really are the political minority. Either way Hollywood shunned the Passion and lifted Farenheit 9/11 to celebrity status but it wasn't because of the success of the movies but because it suited their political agendas and satisfied either their disdain for religious people, or their obvious liberal bias, or maybe both.

Sounds familiar don't it.......

jon said...

We are trying to find good movie rating to take the kids this weekend. Good movie rating reviews are hard to find

I just stumbled onto your blog while looking. Seems to happen to me a lot since I am a knowledge mooch LOL

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Stock Alert - FPPL On The Rise!