Ben Stien "Troops Were Snubbed..."

Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyp56 said:
Though I can understand and even respect what you are saying, I don't agree with everyone assessment that the reason(s) why the box office is doing so poorly is because Hollywood is playing movies that everyone don't want to watch, because of the movies "vulgar, immorality, swearing, and self righteousness that is portrayed in the movies." As you said, instead, I really believe the reason why, is because generally, people don't have the money to go to the movies, at an average of $9 per person, plus popcorn, candy, pop, etc. it is a costly proposition to go.

I know this is the reason why I don't go, though I would like to go, I just simply can't afford it. And if it was because of the reasons that you listed, then why does TV shows that show the same thing (sex, vulgar humor, swearing, etc.) do so well? Last time I checked, there is very few if any G or PG rated shows (I know shows use different rating, but I think those rating say enough, without throwing in the others) on every night between 8 PM and the news at 10 (on CBS, ABC, FOX, WB, and UPN). At least in my opinion those shows aren't very family friendly, yet, they do very well.

Here is a link to Nielson media's weekly top ten rated broadcasted shows.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/port...toid=9e4df9669fa14010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD
None of them, with their content would rate above a PG in the movie theatres. That's my opinion. They don't contain nudity, strong sexual scenes, or any of the 7 words on George Carlin's list. They are in a sense PG-13 movie's content with out cussing, or nudity. And shows like American Idol don't even come close to that.
 
he was richard nixons head speach writer in his second term. he also holds a masters in economics.

i do believe he also was called in during the reagan years for advice.
 
Last edited:
dragon002 said:
you ought to write speaches for pelosi and boxer..

because my man they have imbedded the dem/left coast talking points in your brain.

It's all about freedom.

Boxer et al has always voted yes with the President on all issues regarding the"war". Both the demoplublicans and republocrats have put us in this spot. Wasting our youth for what? Attacking our inalienable rights for what?

No worries, you are with most of America who have wrapped themselves in their old glory security blanket. Since the 80's the majority are very comfortable ignoring reality and believing the mass media propaganda machine. From Clinton in Bosnia, Gulf Wars I and II.

Left and right is just a political version of good cop bad cop.
 
T2k said:
You're hilarious, seriously, with your pathetic wishywashy posts with zero substance... :D

Only for you, only here, only now - here's a short collection of our Mighty Freak's bald-faced lies about Iraq and 9/11 in his public speeches:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Get a grip, pal.

I read the link you provided and there is not one statement there that I would call a "lie" or that I personally disagree with. And many Democrats have said or were saying the same things and I can provide a list if you need it. So why is only Bush "lying"?

In fact, the article does not attempt to refute the statements and even provides this admission:

"Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington..."
 
Last edited:
You can post all the stories you want, but I don't know about the case and I don't know if that is an accurate representation of what happened. But as I said, it doesn't matter-I believe the vast majority of the people will be better off and only a very few will be inconvienced (not have their lives "destroyed").


T2k said:
<Arrrghhh>

Did I tell you to read up on the subject first, didn't I?

Your ignorance doesn't mean it's not happening - here's your daily embarrassment (you seem to be addicted to it):



And I can quote other stories.



This is one of the most ignorant crap I ever heard: NO WE ARE NOT BETTER OF IF WE DESTROY 1000 LIFES FOR NOTHING, because field-agent losers have unlimited power.
The justice system is based on the assumption of innocence, on evidence against somebody, not assumption of guilt. If you don't like it, move to Saudi Arabia or UAE or Iran - those places operate the ame way as Bush does.

Newsflash: since the outrageous case of the low-life Nixon, we do have the FISA courts to oversee this issue. Bush simply wants to show he's above the law. HE IS NOT.



As many examples suggest already, the world is much more difficult than you'd ever grasp...:p
 
kenny911 said:
I never got Ben Stein. Is he an actor? What does he do? I remember he had that game show on comedy central.


Ben Stein (Benjamin J. Stein) was born November 25, 1944 in Washington, D.C., (He is the son of the economist and writer Herbert Stein) grew up in Silver Spring, Maryland, and attended Montgomery Blair High School. He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1970 as valedictorian of his class by election of his classmates. He helped to found the Journal of Law and Social Policy while at Yale. He has worked as a poverty lawyer in New Haven and Washington, D.C., a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., a university adjunct at American University in Washington, D.C., at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. At American U. He taught about the political and social content of mass culture. He taught the same subject at UCSC, as well as about political and civil rights under the Constitution. At Pepperdine, he has taught about libel law and about securities law and ethical issues since 1986.

In 1973 and 1974, he was a speech writer and lawyer for Richard Nixon at The White House and then for Gerald Ford. (He did NOT write the line, "I am not a crook.") He has been a columnist and editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal, a syndicated columnist for The Los Angeles Herald Examiner (R.I.P.) and King Features Syndicate, and a frequent contributor to Barrons, where his articles about the ethics of management buyouts and issues of fraud in the Milken Drexel junk bond scheme drew major national attention. He has been a regular columnist for Los Angeles Magazine, New York Magazine, E! Online, and most of all, has written a lengthy diary for ten years for The American Spectator. He also writes frequently for The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, op. ed. and almost every other imaginable magazine.

He has written and published sixteen books, seven novels, largely about life in Los Angeles, and nine nonfiction books, about finance and about ethical and social issue in finance, and also about the political and social content of mass culture. He has done pioneering work in uncovering the concealed messages of TV and in explaining how TV and movies get made. His titles include A License to Steal, Michael Milken and the Conspiracy to Bilk the Nation, The View From Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood Days, Hollywood Nights, DREEMZ, Financial Passages, and Ludes. His most recent book is the best selling humor self help book, How To Ruin Your Life. He has also been a longtime screenwriter, writing, among many other scripts (most of which were unmade ) the first draft of The Boost, a movie based on Ludes, and the outlines of the lengthy miniseries Amerika, and the acclaimed Murder in Mississippi. He was one of the creators of the well regarded comedy, Fernwood Tonight.

He is also an extremely well known actor in movies, TV, and commercials. His part of the boring teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off was recently ranked as one of the fifty most famous scenes in American film. Starting in July of 1997, he has been the host of the Comedy Central quiz show, "Win Ben Stein's Money." The show has won seven Emmies. He appears regularly on the Fox News Channel talking about finance. He is currently a celebrity judge on the CBS hit, Star Search.

He is also at presently at work on a detective show for CBS. He lives with his wife, Alexandra Denman ( former lawyer,) his son, Tommy, four cats and two large dogs in Beverly Hills.

Would you like Ben Stein to speak at your gathering or host an event? Click here for more information!


last update 01/15/03. This website was created by Blue Cheese Design
 
T2k said:
Or perhaps you shouldtravel outside of Indiana?
Fortunately we can see official numbers about this, we don't have to rely mpirical evidences from somebody in Indiana or New York...:rolleyes:

Wake up, check the polls.
People who are saying Bush is mishandling the terrorism/war are close to 70% now, according to latest polls. Bush's index is at 30% - this idiot is struggling yet he's stumblilng his nose against everybody. He's an ignorant redneck, we knew it, he just proved he's compleetely clueless and incapable to run an Administration - he should go.

I do not know where in my post I said anything about my support of Bush. My post was about our involvement in Iraq and how we should be there. You stated in a previous post that Iraq had nothing to do about the US. I was disagreeing with you on it. We absolutely should be there and it is for the USA and Iraq. I am too tired tonight to debate this subject with you. For your information I have traveled outside of Indiana extensively. In general I find people that need to belittle people, make fun of them or attack their beliefs usually have some self worth issues. Obviously just by reading some of your past posts and seeing how closed minded you are on the subjects being discussed, makes my point for me. Even though you will not see it. On a personal note I do not agree with everything Bush has done. However, I do believe in our government. With that being said go ahead and attack me and my beliefs if it makes you feel better. We all know you are the only educated and culturally sophisticated person on this forum anyway.
 
T2k said:
I take it as another evidence you can't rebuke anything...

Why should I even attempt to debate you? As soon as anyone disagrees with you, you throw around insults like an eighth grader, if you were capable of having an intelligent debate without all of the personal attacks.....nevermind, you're not capable. Sorry for wasting your time.:)
 
T2k said:
Wake up, check the polls.
People who are saying Bush is mishandling the terrorism/war are close to 70% now, according to latest polls. Bush's index is at 30%

Last time I checked, the U.S. constitution said absolutely nothing about polls. I believe we have an election for president every four years, and if I recall correctly, Bush won the election hands down. ;)

But I don't have to tell you this, you are a scholarly individual, right? In fact I am pretty sure that you would agree that you are possibly the most intelligent person that has ever posted on SatelliteGuys.:rolleyes:
 
joedekock said:
Here is a link to Nielson media's weekly top ten rated broadcasted shows.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/port...toid=9e4df9669fa14010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD
None of them, with their content would rate above a PG in the movie theatres. That's my opinion. They don't contain nudity, strong sexual scenes, or any of the 7 words on George Carlin's list. They are in a sense PG-13 movie's content with out cussing, or nudity. And shows like American Idol don't even come close to that.

Despite your opinion shows like Sopranos, Sex and The City Rome and similar HBO productions are far the most popular ones, with sex, vulgarity or violence.

It's the *story*, that's what missing. BTW this year we had unusually good movies nominated to Oscar: Crash was actually a great story (though a bit too "glazed" for my taste), Brokeback Mountain was OK, Capote was great (though a bit slow), Good Night and Good Luck was OK (though misses a real drama).
 
kenny911 said:
I never got Ben Stein. Is he an actor? What does he do? I remember he had that game show on comedy central.

He served one of the most disgusting person that ever sat in the Oval Office, so you can imagine his qualities and the level of hypocrisy...
 
W_Tracy_Parnell said:
You can post all the stories you want, but I don't know about the case and I don't know if that is an accurate representation of what happened.

Ouch, suddenly you don't know? So why TF did you state originally anything?
Ignorance is bliss, ehh?

And questioning the credibility of "the messenger" is very typical sign of somebody is a loser in a debate, lt me tell you...

But as I said, it doesn't matter-I believe the vast majority of the people will be better off and only a very few will be inconvienced (not have their lives "destroyed").

Which I already called ignorant Bullsh!t, see my points above, that's what it is. And yes, lives were destroyed - not in your micro-existence but nationwide, try to understand the difference, please.
 
Last edited:
jhogue@hrtc.net said:
I do not know where in my post I said anything about my support of Bush.

Umm pal, you're not saying the truth...

jhogue@hrtc.net said:
We are the mainstream America. Most of us support the war and our government (including our president).

Did you notice the "we" and "us" pronouns?

My post was about our involvement in Iraq and how we should be there.

Well, I hate to say it but it's not true again:

jhogue@hrtc.net said:
People who share your thoughts and beliefs are very vocal, even though they are in the minority. However most people feel like Ben Stein. We are the mainstream America. Most of us support the war and our government (including our president).

Which is, once again, egregiously false information, according to all current polls.
Overwhelming majority do not support the war, want to bring the troops home ASAP, do not support the idiotic loser in the White House - that's what every poll shows for month now.
You're either dangerously full of yourself or simply joking here - but you are certainly not the mainstream voice in this country, period.

jhogue@hrtc.net said:
You stated in a previous post that Iraq had nothing to do about the US. I was disagreeing with you on it. We absolutely should be there and it is for the USA and Iraq. I am too tired tonight to debate this subject with you.

So you won't be bothering yourself explaining how would you come to this conclusion after this war was started on lies, false pretenses, wasting thousands of America's best young lives who could have served comething worthwile cause instead of outrageous lunatic and corporate takeover.

I see, you're tired after the second post... Too bad, I'd be interested in your explanation...

For your information I have traveled outside of Indiana extensively. In general I find people that need to belittle people, make fun of them or attack their beliefs usually have some self worth issues. Obviously just by reading some of your past posts and seeing how closed minded you are on the subjects being discussed, makes my point for me. Even though you will not see it. On a personal note I do not agree with everything Bush has done. However, I do believe in our government. With that being said go ahead and attack me and my beliefs if it makes you feel better. We all know you are the only educated and culturally sophisticated person on this forum anyway.

Well, when somebody will be able to come up with something else than "this is what I believe and you're wrong" type idiotic answer here, then perhaps I'll take this team of funny comments, this blast from the past (around '50s) here seriously.
I'm open for any meaningful political debate but unfortunately it's not possible when people here does nothing but virtually hug each other even for the most idiotic posts, filled with plenty of false, patriotism-mimicking stupid burbs.

FYI: all I was saying is - pretty politely actually - that your (or mine) empirical evidence doesn't worth a flying frog: there are factual poll numbers, showing you're dead wrong about the American public opinion with regard to Iraq, Bush, anything.
Now you're talking about everything else except this original point and acting like a teen girl after somebody told her she isn't the best looking one in her class... what do you expect me to answer, seriously? :)
 
W_Tracy_Parnell said:
I read the link you provided and there is not one statement there that I would call a "lie" or that I personally disagree with. And many Democrats have said or were saying the same things and I can provide a list if you need it. So why is only Bush "lying"?

In fact, the article does not attempt to refute the statements and even provides this admission:

"Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington..."

Jesus Christ, what a pathetic spinmaster trick... :rolleyes:

Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.

BBC News Online looks at some of the remarks made by Mr Bush and members of his administration both in the run-up to war and after hostilities had officially ended.

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror."

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.

"We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America."

President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.

"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime."

President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.

"For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.

They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.

We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September."

US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.

"We don't know."

Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it."

Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.

"[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.

Once again, stop rewriting the history...
 
T2k said:
He served one of the most disgusting person that ever sat in the Oval Office, so you can imagine his qualities and the level of hypocrisy...
SO he worked for Bill Clinton. Learn something new everyday.
 
Can someone tell me how to use the ignore function on the Communist T2K ?? Talk about polluting a thread.
:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)