If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The Return of the Blacklist: Has-beens Ed Asner, Martin Sheen want Oscar boycott for 'Zero Dark Thirty'   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 142
    More: Dumbass, Ed Asner, Zero Dark Thirty, Martin Sheen, David Clennon, Mark Boal, democratic principles, serial killing, apologists  
•       •       •

9761 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 4:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-19 07:49:16 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: He also apparently thinks that ar-15s are created primarily as tools for farming or something.

There are few guns that I own that were designed for killing people and that's why I own them. That's the reality of self defense.


You sure you aren't thinking of shields or armor, and not firearms? I can't think of a single gun that isn't designed around killing.

Or are you just pretending you wouldn't shoot to kill so ot stops being legal?

Or are you loading them with snapcaps?
 
2013-01-19 07:53:44 PM

paygun: whidbey: What are the other guns "designed for?"

I have a single shot muzzleloader that would make a pretty damn sad defensive weapon and an even worse offensive weapon since it's about 4 feet long.

If you're going down this road where you say that guns designed for killing people are better for that use, I agree. Like I said before, that's why I own them. I have a fire extinguisher in my house too, but that doesn't mean I'm looking forward to my house burning down.


Funny, my uncle uses his muzzleloader to kill deer. Sounds like an item designed for killing to me.

Look you can kill a guy with a maglite and obviously that isn't the purpose of the light. But just because you can do non-killing activities with a pistol or rifle doesn't mean launching a projectile into something's flesh isn't the primary purpose of a farking gun, defensively or otherwise.
 
2013-01-19 07:55:12 PM
I honestly do not get where those reviews are coming from. Are they watching the same movie?

I remember the scene plainly.

SPOILERS HERE: After the torture had failed to do anything more than have their subject babbling nonsense in hopes of saying 'something' that would make it all stop, to the point of being delirious and out of his head, one of the agents stumbles upon a simple solution.

Pretend like the guy broke down while delirious and gave up all his info. They reasoned that he'd not find out the truth anytime soon, so why not pretend like he gave up the info, tell him that he broke and gave up his compatriots and hey, here's some food and clothes and sit down, take a load off, here's some tea.

And the guy, not realizing that he's being played, thinking that he's already betrayed his companions, cooperates and gives up usable info regarding the courier.

The scene, the entire beginning of the movie, going into the middle, basically screams "Torture is bad on them, bad on us and doesn't give us anything useful. It was a bad idea and it didn't work."

And for them to take 'that' and twist it around and make it out to be the 'opposite' of what the movie portrays...I just don't get it.
 
2013-01-19 07:57:03 PM
Well, I haven't yet seen ZDT, so I can't speak to the film yet.

But APPARENTLY, the torture scenes show very clearly that TORTURE DID NOT WORK. And the actionable intelligence was obtained by careful questioning of the source afterwards. So it SOUNDS LIKE these pro-boycott activists are trying to blame the movie for something that they didn't see or else thought they saw but which they were too busy being indignant about to actually understand.

I could be wrong, because I haven't seen the movie yet. Like most of the people posting here, it would seem. And apparently a lot of the critics as well, since it's beginning to sound like many of them just read their press kit and never sat through the whole movie.
 
2013-01-19 07:57:56 PM
What would Bartlett do?
 
2013-01-19 07:58:28 PM
I'm a liberal who loved the movie. I don't think it endorsed torture. In fact, I would say it makes the case that enhanced interrogation was a waste of time.

Now The Dark Knight, there's a movie that actually endorsed torture (in addition to extraordinary rendition and warrentless wiretapping).
 
2013-01-19 08:03:05 PM

Smackledorfer: paygun: whidbey: What are the other guns "designed for?"

I have a single shot muzzleloader that would make a pretty damn sad defensive weapon and an even worse offensive weapon since it's about 4 feet long.

If you're going down this road where you say that guns designed for killing people are better for that use, I agree. Like I said before, that's why I own them. I have a fire extinguisher in my house too, but that doesn't mean I'm looking forward to my house burning down.

Funny, my uncle uses his muzzleloader to kill deer. Sounds like an item designed for killing to me.

Look you can kill a guy with a maglite and obviously that isn't the purpose of the light. But just because you can do non-killing activities with a pistol or rifle doesn't mean launching a projectile into something's flesh isn't the primary purpose of a farking gun, defensively or otherwise.


I guess it would make you feel better if I just keep repeating that I do own guns that were designed for killing people, and I own them for the purpose of killing people?

Again, that's the reality of self defense. If I could reliably stop a threat with harsh language I wouldn't need a gun.

Just let me know how many times you'd like me to say it and I'll copy and paste.
 
2013-01-19 08:03:39 PM

ciberido: willfullyobscure: I haven't seen it, but I thought the movie did an excellent job in combatting stereotypes about our men and women in uniform and how they conduct the business of ensuring our liberty. Freedom isn't free and I fail to see how keeping a couple of towelheads from getting thirsty is too large a price to pay. If this movie wins enough prizes at the Golden Globes awards then it should send a real message to Hollyweird that the rest of us are sick of their softheaded lies.

[profile.ak.fbcdn.net image 160x160]
You might want to tone it down juuuuuuust a little there, sport.


I thought mispelling "combating" was a nice touch.
 
2013-01-19 08:10:01 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: paygun: whidbey: What are the other guns "designed for?"

I have a single shot muzzleloader that would make a pretty damn sad defensive weapon and an even worse offensive weapon since it's about 4 feet long.

If you're going down this road where you say that guns designed for killing people are better for that use, I agree. Like I said before, that's why I own them. I have a fire extinguisher in my house too, but that doesn't mean I'm looking forward to my house burning down.

Funny, my uncle uses his muzzleloader to kill deer. Sounds like an item designed for killing to me.

Look you can kill a guy with a maglite and obviously that isn't the purpose of the light. But just because you can do non-killing activities with a pistol or rifle doesn't mean launching a projectile into something's flesh isn't the primary purpose of a farking gun, defensively or otherwise.

I guess it would make you feel better if I just keep repeating that I do own guns that were designed for killing people, and I own them for the purpose of killing people?

Again, that's the reality of self defense. If I could reliably stop a threat with harsh language I wouldn't need a gun.

Just let me know how many times you'd like me to say it and I'll copy and paste.


You said earlier that guns weren't designed to kill. If ilI misread that or you want to walk it back that's fine.
 
2013-01-19 08:15:15 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: He also apparently thinks that ar-15s are created primarily as tools for farming or something.

There are few guns that I own that were designed for killing people and that's why I own them. That's the reality of self defense.


So if few of your guns are designed for killing, what is the purpose of the design of your other guns?

If it is also killing, then why did you bring guns into this discussion as an excuse to blame the liberals in your imagination for their dislike of ZD30?

Maybe the real problem is you are dragging the discussion all over the damn place while deliberately leaving open escaoes away from the more stupid shiat you type and imply.

You've gone from strawmen to subject change to shifting the goalposts of your new subject. Ridiculous.
 
2013-01-19 08:16:42 PM

Smackledorfer: You said earlier that guns weren't designed to kill. If ilI misread that or you want to walk it back that's fine.


If that's what I said then you would be able to quote me saying it. I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing. There are lots of them not designed for killing people.

I've never heard any reason why it matters if some guns are designed for killing or not. The argument seems to say that people should pick unsuitable tools for self defense. I'd say it's more likely though that people who make that argument don't think about self defense when they make it.
 
2013-01-19 08:21:27 PM

Smackledorfer: paygun: Smackledorfer: He also apparently thinks that ar-15s are created primarily as tools for farming or something.

There are few guns that I own that were designed for killing people and that's why I own them. That's the reality of self defense.

So if few of your guns are designed for killing, what is the purpose of the design of your other guns?

If it is also killing, then why did you bring guns into this discussion as an excuse to blame the liberals in your imagination for their dislike of ZD30?

Maybe the real problem is you are dragging the discussion all over the damn place while deliberately leaving open escaoes away from the more stupid shiat you type and imply.

You've gone from strawmen to subject change to shifting the goalposts of your new subject. Ridiculous.


You quoted yourself starting down this road of "guns are designed for killing" and I replied. Don't post about things you don't want to talk about.
 
2013-01-19 08:26:34 PM

Gyrfalcon: Well, I haven't yet seen ZDT, so I can't speak to the film yet.

But APPARENTLY, the torture scenes show very clearly that TORTURE DID NOT WORK. And the actionable intelligence was obtained by careful questioning of the source afterwards.


Same here and that's what I've garnered as well.

... the actors are confusing me
 
2013-01-19 08:30:04 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: You said earlier that guns weren't designed to kill. If ilI misread that or you want to walk it back that's fine.

If that's what I said then you would be able to quote me saying it. I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing. There are lots of them not designed for killing people.

I've never heard any reason why it matters if some guns are designed for killing or not. The argument seems to say that people should pick unsuitable tools for self defense. I'd say it's more likely though that people who make that argument don't think about self defense when they make it.


There I just quoted you saying guns aren't designed for killing:
"I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing"
For someone so adamant that they aren't saying that, why did you just say it here?

Now guns are designed for something other than killing, and what are they designed for?
This should be an easy question to answer.

Your muzzle loader's primary design purpose? Killing.
Any pistols you own? Killing.
Any rifles? Killing.

Unless you think we are talking about tazers, cap guns, bubble guns, lazer tag, rubber band guns etc, your guns are ALL designed with killing in mind.

It doesn't farking matter if you are killing to eat, killing to defend yourself, or killing for fun.It doesn't matter if it is a syaye of the art sniper rifle or an antique weapon from the American revolution. Projectile weapons are for killing. They all have a likelihood of lethal results when used.

I have repeatedly been specific that killing in self defense is still killing. Why are you now typing things like "the argument seems to say that people should pick unsuitable tools for self-defense..
"
Whose argument? Not mine. I thought we covered strawmanning already?

If I'm just being trolled at this point +1 to you I guess.
 
2013-01-19 08:39:03 PM

Smackledorfer:
There I just quoted you saying guns aren't designed for killing:
"I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing"
For someone so adamant that they aren't saying that, why did you just say it here?

Now guns are designed for something other than killing, and what are they designed for?
This should be an easy question to answer.


It is. You've heard of the Olympics, right? They have shooting sports events in the Olympics with very specialized guns that would be a really shiatty choice for even a defensive weapon. And I certainly wouldn't volunteer to stand in front of one of those guns not designed for killing while someone fires it. But remember, we're talking about design, suitability. Because that matters for some reason.

But anyway, you started down this road of guns being designed for killing and never gave any reason why that matters. If it would make you feel better I could apologize for agreeing with you when you said guns like the AR-15 weren't made for farming.
 
2013-01-19 08:41:55 PM

willfullyobscure: ciberido: willfullyobscure: I haven't seen it, but I thought the movie did an excellent job in combatting stereotypes about our men and women in uniform and how they conduct the business of ensuring our liberty. Freedom isn't free and I fail to see how keeping a couple of towelheads from getting thirsty is too large a price to pay. If this movie wins enough prizes at the Golden Globes awards then it should send a real message to Hollyweird that the rest of us are sick of their softheaded lies.

[profile.ak.fbcdn.net image 160x160]
You might want to tone it down juuuuuuust a little there, sport.

I thought mispelling "combating" was a nice touch.


Poe's Law gets me every time.
 
2013-01-19 08:44:53 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer:
There I just quoted you saying guns aren't designed for killing:
"I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing"
For someone so adamant that they aren't saying that, why did you just say it here?

Now guns are designed for something other than killing, and what are they designed for?
This should be an easy question to answer.


It is. You've heard of the Olympics, right? They have shooting sports events in the Olympics with very specialized guns that would be a really shiatty choice for even a defensive weapon. And I certainly wouldn't volunteer to stand in front of one of those guns not designed for killing while someone fires it. But remember, we're talking about design, suitability. Because that matters for some reason.

But anyway, you started down this road of guns being designed for killing and never gave any reason why that matters. If it would make you feel better I could apologize for agreeing with you when you said guns like the AR-15 weren't made for farming.


Which guns in the olympics? Starter pistols falls under the capguns etc. exception I pointed out. Target shooting? No those guns are still designed for killing.

As for who brought up guns, that was your cover excuse for the strawman introduction of the imaginary liberals and why the hate zd30. So that would be you.

And why did you say you felt that way about zd30? Because you were upset and influenced by what said imaginary liberals thought about guns. Strawmen, non-sequiters, moving goalposts..
You don't have a shred of honesty in your entire body.
 
2013-01-19 08:45:22 PM
I didn't see the movie or read the article but I'll just say this.

........
 
2013-01-19 08:48:52 PM

Chinchillazilla: I hope the Academy trolls the hell out of everyone and gives Best Picture to Django.

/imagine the outrage


Just finished watching it today. Now THAT is a movie that takes people out of their comfort zones.
 
2013-01-19 08:51:47 PM

Smackledorfer:

Target shooting? No those guns are still designed for killing.

You don't have a shred of honesty in your entire body.


Yeah I think we're done here.
 
2013-01-19 08:52:14 PM

Prey4reign: The boat they missed was bigger than the Titanic.

The movie doesn't endorse torture; it merely gives a realistic depiction of tort, er, enhanced interrogation techniques which were used by the CIA and other intelligence agencies but it does not claim that they led to any meaningful information on the identity of "the courier."

I wonder how Asner, Sheen, et al reacted to demands for boycotts of movies, plays, and programs they supported?


static.prtst.net
 
2013-01-19 08:53:07 PM
David Clennon did have one chilling line in Thirtysomething. It's not on IMDb, but as best as I can recall it was along the lines of "We sell images, Michael, nothing more. I thought you knew that."
 
2013-01-19 09:08:31 PM

WippitGuud: Ed Asner isn't dead?


I saw Ed Asner on one of the crime shows not too long ago. He looks like he's about 90, but he was good as an evil guy. I got a kick out of it since I used to watch the Mary Tyler Moore show, and he was a lovable curmudgeon on that.

/I was young. Shut up.
 
2013-01-19 09:10:22 PM
wow, what a bunch of sad motherfarkers.

of course the USA tortured prisoners, it was a big deal IN REAL LIFE.


good time to get indignant about it though, over a fake movie.
 
2013-01-19 09:55:54 PM

Valiente: Why does America consider famous actors more legitimate political figures than, say, anyone not trained to evoke a fictional character?

Wait, I know the answer.


Everybody knows here in Merica celbs have all the answers .
 
2013-01-19 11:08:26 PM

WippitGuud: leadmetal: A fictional movie based upon a fictional story and people are angry about it not being true?

I hear the hate mail about Apollo 13 was epic.


Oh, yeah. There's a scene where Tom Hanks is driving a red car, but in reality it was a blue car. That's right, the movie changed the color of the car. War criminals, the lot of them.
 
2013-01-19 11:09:09 PM

mrEdude: wow, what a bunch of sad motherfarkers.

of course the USA tortured prisoners, it was a big deal IN REAL LIFE.


good time to get indignant about it though, over a fake movie.


That's been my thought ever since the outrage began over ZDT: "Where were you guys six years ago when the real story about this broke???"
 
2013-01-19 11:12:55 PM
Go be old somewhere else, Ed Asshat.
 
2013-01-19 11:16:04 PM

coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.


It doesn't.

SPOILERS

The main hunt is for a guy known only as Abu Achmed. His name keeps popping up in interrogations, but none of the guys tortured know (or give up) anything concrete on this guy, other than that he's a trusted courier for OBL.

They do get some information out of a guy they've been torturing, but through guile, not torture. There was an attack on a Western hotel in Saudi Arabia, and they trick him into thinking that they actually rounded up the terror cell, based on information he gave up. The guy is so sleep deprived that he believes he snitched, so he agrees to give up everything else, figuring he's already got a snitch label.

They get closer by bribing a Kuwaiti prince with a new Lamborghini, then have their tech boys trace Abu Achmed's mom's cell phone number they get from the prince.

Then they find an old file from the Jordanian intelligence service that has been sitting in a safe for 8 years, that was part of the flood of information from various foreign intelligence agencies offering to help the USA against Al Qaida. It was lost in the rush.

Note: This is how the film portrayed how they tracked down Abu Achmed, who led them right to OBL's front door. I have no idea how accurate any of this is. Torture is portrayed in the film as incredibly inefficient, often taking years to get these guys to cough up even the slightest lead, while guile and bribes have relatively instantaneous results, and have much more valuable leads.
 
2013-01-19 11:28:12 PM

willfullyobscure: I haven't seen it, but I thought the movie did an excellent job in combatting stereotypes about our men and women in uniform and how they conduct the business of ensuring our liberty. Freedom isn't free and I fail to see how keeping a couple of towelheads from getting thirsty is too large a price to pay. If this movie wins enough prizes at the Golden Globes awards then it should send a real message to Hollyweird that the rest of us are sick of their softheaded lies.


Our liberty and freedom hasn't been challenged since the War of 1812. Well, at least not challenged by any foreign power. Glorifying the military is just repackaged Nazi propaganda.
 
2013-01-19 11:33:21 PM

Prey4reign: coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.

Capture, you say? Right after they

claim to put a bullet between the eyes even tho he's probably been dead for 11 years.

FTFY
 
2013-01-19 11:35:47 PM

Sgt Otter: coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.

It doesn't.

SPOILERS

Then they find an old file from the Jordanian intelligence service that has been sitting in a safe for 8 years, that was part of the flood of information from various foreign intelligence agencies offering to help the USA against Al Qaida. It was lost in the rush.


See, THIS is the scene that all of these "it's pro-torture!" people keep forgetting about. Maya thinks the guy is dead...years? Months? I don't really remember. But the trail goes cold, and she doesn't start to put the pieces together again until that random worker digs up the old file. The person who was tortured played a part in the investigation, yes, but that information did not even come close to actually locating Bin Laden.
 
2013-01-19 11:47:33 PM

edmo: Lizardking: How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?

Ding ding ding

Don't get why they oppose it. Awful things get put in movies all the time. This awful stuff might have actually happened  So it's unacceptable?

If they are opposed to torture, fine. Ban torture, not movie awards.


For the record I am not opposed to torture, I think its a useful tool when used correctly.
 
2013-01-19 11:51:46 PM

PunGent: Hagenhatesyouall: Lizardking: How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?

Wasn't good enough for that piece of shiat "The Hurt locker" so, probably not.

Eh, I liked both flicks.

I thought of both of them as allegories of persistence in the face of adversity, rather than documentaries of real events.


I liked The Hurt Locker, I thought it was a pretty good movie. So far I havent liked one of the big nominees yet, I havent seen Lincoln or Life of Pi yet though
 
2013-01-20 12:56:21 AM

paygun: Just let me know how many times you'd like me to say it and I'll copy and paste.


I should report you for threadjacking.
 
2013-01-20 02:19:11 AM

mafiageek1980: ReapTheChaos: "We expect actors as talented and esteemed as Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, and David Clennon"

Talented and esteemed? Sheen had one good movie, Apocalypse Now, what has Asner done in the last 20 years? JFK? As for Clennon, who the fark is that?

What has Ed Asner done in the last 20 years you ask?
"The boondocks" as Ed Wuncler III, among other things!

/Can't wait for season 4, baby!
//biatches love slashies!


Really, only one other Farker watches Boondocks?

I haven't seen the movie. I'd heard it depicted the torture as productive. Until I can reconcile this article with that by actually watching a pirated copy of it, I'll reserve judgement.
 
2013-01-20 10:18:07 AM
I for one found it quite enjoyable and accurate.
 
2013-01-20 02:08:51 PM
The shrug that everybody gives when they find out they can no longer torture detainees is priceless (they're watching Obama on the tv).  It's like, "oh well, maybe we should start using effective intelligence techniques."
 
2013-01-20 06:43:40 PM

OgreMagi: Given that these same people gave Moore an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, this stupidity does not surprise me.


Your opinion of Bowling for Columbine wouldn't be politically motivated by any chance would it?
 
2013-01-20 07:01:00 PM

SpdrJay: People who worry about which movie gets an Oscar need to find better things to worry about.
Like bellybutton lint, for instance...


In 2002, Dr Karl was honoured with the prestigious Ig Nobel prize awarded by Harvard University in the USA for his ground-breaking research into Belly Button Lint and why it is almost always blue.

Link
 
2013-01-20 07:02:31 PM

kg2095: OgreMagi: Given that these same people gave Moore an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, this stupidity does not surprise me.

Your opinion of Bowling for Columbine wouldn't be politically motivated by any chance would it?


My opinion is based on the simple thing, a documentary should have some basis in fact.
 
2013-01-21 07:23:22 AM

Lizardking: PunGent: Hagenhatesyouall: Lizardking: How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?

Wasn't good enough for that piece of shiat "The Hurt locker" so, probably not.

Eh, I liked both flicks.

I thought of both of them as allegories of persistence in the face of adversity, rather than documentaries of real events.

I liked The Hurt Locker, I thought it was a pretty good movie. So far I havent liked one of the big nominees yet, I havent seen Lincoln or Life of Pi yet though


Ya, those two are on my Netflix list.
 
Displayed 42 of 142 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report