Juror#8

I recall 'M' being the impetus for 'Dark City.' Dark City is one of my favorite movies. I'll check it out. Thanks for the recommendation. Gonna check out Second Hand Lions. Thanks.

Is that Fritz Lang's "M"? I've heard all kinds of interesting things about Pi - literally from one end of the opinion scale to the other. That lack of consensus makes me want to see it more. The Larsson movies - is it related to the Fincher version from a couple of years ago? If so, I'd be surprised to find out that that was an adaptation.

It's every bit of exotic and if you have cash and play your cards right, you can have one with about 75,000 miles for $20,000-$25,000. 75,000 on a Honda engine (especially an early 90s Honda engine), is just breaking it in.

I made a thread last year for recommendations for a marathon movie watching session that I do once a year: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/146084-any-great-obscure-movies/ Well, vacation is a month away and I'm trying to watch about 15-20 movies in a week. Movies that were recommended, that I didn't get to from last year, but will be watching this year, are: 1. ADAM and PAUL (Tcali recommedation) 2. Brick (Mark Vader recommendation) 3. American Splendor (Max Fischer recommendation) Other movies on my list are: 1. Last Year at Marienbad 2. Saragossa Manuscript 3. Mulholland Drive (again to see if I can make sense of it this time) 4. Pi 5. 21 Grams 6. Triangle 7. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy Looking for 5-10 more good, relatively obscure, preferably "indie" or "foreign" movies. Recommendations, please.... Also, if you've seen any on my list of 7 above that were decidedly bad (or good), please share. Would love to take different perspectives into my movie marathon experience. Thanks!

1991-1996 NSX. Aluminum chassis. 8,000 RPM redline. And you won't find another exotic that will get you 150,000+ miles. Would love to add one to my stable next to the Shelby but that's a few years off.

Movies that I LOVE, but everyone else seems to hate: 1. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas 2. Lost Highway 3. The Postman and Waterworld (both "razzie" winning, Kevin Costner efforts) 4. Inland Empire 5. I Heart Huckabees 6. Original Clash of the Titans (the Harry Hamlin version with the cheesy claymation and bad makeup) 7. The Mack (blaxploitation film that 8 people in the world have probably seen) Movies that I don't like, but everyone else seems to love 1. Any 90s or early 2000s film with Adam Sandler 2. Matrix Revolutions 3. "The Dark Knight" ( didn't hate it, but everyone seemed to think it was cinematic genius - I just thought it was "pretty good" but not nearly as good as "Batman Begins" or "The Dark Knight Rises")

Want to see Creed at his best. Check out an episode called "Product Recall." Incidentally, that is when the show was hitting on all cylinders. Michael Scott is so hilarious when he is reading the cue cards at the end. I'm not sure that there has ever been a funnier moment on that show. "You have one day." Anyway, great show. I've seen every episode and watched this season as well. I agree that the show dropped when Michael left. The attempts to explore biographics of each character was probably a bad one. They should have thrown the farm at a Chris Kattan or Steve Colbert to play the role and centered it around them and how they influence the office dynamic - much like they did with Carell for 7 years.

I can't comprehend this idea of an "affirmative action" president. What makes him that? Because he is black? His experience? Do you really think that an entire nation of voters would put a man in office because of his racial identifcation? And then re-elect him? Your premise is built on the idea that he was initially an affirmative action candidate - but then he was re-elected to preserve the image. I think that you're losing sight of a plain evidentiary truth - more people thought he did a good job than thought he did a bad job. And in order to reconcile that reality with your vision of the archtypal commander-in-chief, you've created this fancy about "preserving the symbol." Let's just call it what it is...there are people who feel that the guy is competent and knows what he's doing. And count me in with those folks. I differ with Obama supporters in that I think that there are folks who could do a better job and I'm not willing to settle for just "ok." That is why I voted for someone else. But let's go back to his "experience" (which is what I assume predicates your case for the "affirmative action president" characterization). Why do we pick presidents? Because of their "resume" or because they are more persuasive? If it is strictly "resume," why did it take McCain so long to get the nomination? How did Kennedy beat Nixon? How did a man with extensive military experience, CIA background, ambassadorships, VP, and US presidential experience, lose to a two term governor from the arm pit of America? How did an ambassador, a senator, wife to a two term president, and someone who had dealt intimately with the machinations of legislative politics, lose to a first term US Senator from Illinois? While we're at it, how did Dwight Eisenhower even become president - he was just a general? Ulysses Grant too. What about Grover Cleveland, Buffalo's favored son? Was Lincoln qualified? Were there even qualifications back then? Woodrow Wilson was a governor for two years. Teddy Roosevelt, one of my favorite presidents, had to have been a lifelong politician to be so effective once he ascended to the presidency, right? No, he was a state governor for half a term, and a VP for 7 months. Surely Roosevelt, the younger, was a prior beheamoth of national politics? He was one of the singularly greatest and most influential presidents that we've ever had. Alas, he was only a one term governor. Carter was more qualified than Reagan. How did Reagan defeat him? Reagan was a two term governor of California and an actor before that. Jimmy Carter was the president, and governor before that, and a state senator prior to that. Jimmy Carter was substantially more qualified under the circumstances to BE president. And while we're on the topic, how does any challenger beat an incumbent absent reckless behavior or dereliction of duty on the part of the incumbent. The incumbent is doing the job. Who can be more experienced than that? Obama had MUCH MORE political experience than Eisenhower did prior to becoming president. Eisenhower is my favorite president. Why isn't Eisenhower an affirmative action president? He can represent the contingent of old white guys with male pattern balding. Obama had as much experience as Teddy Roosevelt (though you'll make the distinction of executive vs. legislative experience). Is Teddy Roosevelt similarly an "affirmative action" president? And if so, what class would he represent? How about the big game hunter, wilderness, thrill seeking, class? Why is Obama the only affirmative action president? If it's cause he's black, then ok. It would invalidate the thrust of your argument but at least we'd know that you think that black canadidates who don't conform to your philosophical political persuation HAD TO HAVE BEEN elected based on their skin color. Cause otherwise, OC, Obama is just another in a long trend of folks (Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, etc.) who were elected because they appealed to the electorate as refreshing and better than the next guy at the debate table. The point that I was making, am making, have made, (best expressed in the "incumbent vs. challenger" portion above) is that there is some reason that the electorate chooses a less qualified person over a more qualified person. Why do you assume that the reason is any different than the same reason that the electorate has relied on for the last 200+ years to justify their votes for inexperience over experience in that exact same scenario? Just because he's black? Was Clinton secretly "black"? Was Eisenhower a mulatto? How about Lincoln? He did free the slaves. Could there have been some personal motivation there to free *his* people? Black folks do come in all colors, and hues. Mariah Carey could pass as white but she is black. Wentworth Miller, Maya Rudolph, and Rashida Jones, Vin Diesel, and Slash (of Gun's and Roses fame) are all black. My brother's close friend (and I think he's screwing her), Karen Finney, could also pass as white. Nope, she's black. Maybe all those comparatively inexperienced presidents were affirmative action hires too. They just had the Vin Diesel ambiguity going on so you assumed they were white. All jokes aside, absent some creative explantion, it seems like the only one preoccupied with color is you (and please don't respond with "you can bring up history all you want, but you know..." Cause no, I don't know).

I'm not going to say I predicted it, cause I didn't - but I mentioned in threads leading up to the election that a friend of mine was telling me that WH internals were showing Obama in a near landlside (check out some of those old election threads). I mentioned (because I was told) that they had VA and PA solid for BO a week out. That is what I was being told. So somebody knew something that was statistically accurate. Literally, two weeks before election, I was being told that it was entirely turnout - that they had the mechanics and the preliminary numbers for the win...with a cushion. I still remember Doc commenting something to the effect of: "Obama would think that because he is delusional..."

I hate to think that black folks came out to vote simply because there was a black candidate. And doesn't the Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, etc. experiences belie that thought somewhat. Kerry received the lion share of the black vote in 2004 even against a determined Sharpton candidacy (trying to find the stat sheet but I've seen them before). EDIT In the interest of fairness and willingness to admit being wrong (cause it goes completely against my thesis that 'black folks aren't going to turn out in greater numbers simply for a black candidate'): http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/13/us/jackson-share-of-votes-by-whites-triples-in-88.html Apparently Jesse Jackson was the solid number two in the 88 Democractic primary largely on the strength of the black vote. He still had 2.1 million white voters in that contest but nearly twice as many blacks. I guess my people WERE not as heterogenous and philosophically diverse as I may have deluded myself into thinking... But the Kerry/Sharpton point still stands. As does the Keyes/Bush point. The black candidate didn't receive the majority of the black vote in those recent instances.

So what social issues can the GOP co-opt without it seeming as if they're compromising their extant fundamental political priniciples? Immigration? Welfare? Healthcare? Gay Marriage? My thoughts are that they should use the ACA as an opportunity to create a legislative program that accomplishes the broadscale objective of healthcare reform, but without so many of the inefficiencies and waste in the current system. Because the complaining about the ACA, with the only proposed alternative being what we had before (so many people being sick, without insurance, over-burdening the system, etc.) is unsustainable. I think that they can also make some headway on gay marriage. My understanding is that gay males are the wealthiest demographic in this country. Realistically, they should be a republican base. It creates a bit of a logical dissonance, though, when the GOP is telling them that though they appreciate their financial solvency, independence, and community sense of economic manifest destiny, they unfortunately don't feel that they're "human" enough to marry who they love, have any consistutional support for their orientation, or share benefits with the individual whom they love. Cheers to that. But don't you think that the trend since 1996 is somewhat determinative even with the last 8 years being with a black candidate?

Me personally, I don't care about claims of videos and cover ups. As I said in another thread, all these idiots cover up their misdeeds. I like to think that there is a national security purpose for the subterfuge since it's so prevalent - administration after administration, both republicant and democrap. That said, the issue that I have with this bubble headed administration (really the State Department but that's an extension of the WH) is their innability to protect the consulate when it was APPARENT that it was in danger of attack. Whether the attack on Benghazi was background noise originating from similar-type demonstrations in Cairo precipitated by a video or whether it was premedidated months in advance is inconsequential to me. I just know that folks there were reaching out to the SD and asking, rather begging, for guidance. They indicated in no uncertain terms that there was a marked safety concern. Other nations removed their officals in the months leading up to the Benghazi attacks because of the volume of violence attempts and terrorist movements in and around the consulate. So for the SD to be so tone deaf was reckless in my opinion. This administration has done a very good job of protecting US citizens on US soil from terrorist activity (even despite the Boston marathon bombings), but they were derelict on Benghazi and haven't accounted for it.

I had to read that 3 times for it to make sense. That probably has more to do with my reading comprehension. Anyway, I believe that you're right and I haven't had to time to check my facts. I was hoping that someone with more knowledge on the subject would check my memory. Was I was accurate on the points about the Reagan doctrine and the Reagan administration's funding of the mujahideen? Ok and I will.

...Blacks voted at a higher percentage than whites (in the 2012 election). 66% to 64% http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/black-voting-rate-higher-whites-first-time-2012/ Someone who is more used to interpreting trend lines may be interested and able to say what this portends for the elections moving forward. If it were just 2012, I'd think that it was anomalous. But it appears as if things have been trending in this direction for almost 20 years. Anyway..."rah rah, who cares?" right... Truthfully, I agree. Either the GOP gets "it" right, or they watch elections slip away to a Democratic party that is stale and out of fresh ideas. I'm actually more interested to know what happened to the decisive 2010 voter who was out to send Washington a statement? There were a few here who mentioned that "that" voter would be dispositive in 2012. What happened? Paging the tea party...

I agree that it doesn't make it true. I even acknowledged that I'm making a lot of assumptions about your beliefs. I just know that I have NEVER seen you post, with the same ire, anything about an ( R ) that you have about a (D). Even though many of the instances that you bring up are equally attributable to ( R )presidents, you discuss them as though they're one off cicrumstances in history attributable to that (D) president or others similarly politically situated. Even in closing, you try to ameliorate the impact of Reagan's folly by presupposing some laudable motivation that was undoubtedly selfless and patriotic. Whereas with Obama, the "lesser" level of "scandal" has to have nefarious, deeply personal, and selfish origins. You don't know Reagan. You don't know why he did what he did. I did't say that Reagan's actions were "illegal." They were just strategically short-sighted, bone-headed, and incompetent. However, they were probably "illegal" too. My point is that you can't bring yourself to write that about Reagan because he has an ( R ) after his name. Although, if one were to give the same fact pattern attributable to the Reagan doctrine, but in the context of an Obama administration effort, you'd be effusive if your criticism. And there is nothing wrong with that. We can root for politicians just like we root for sports teams I guess. But you shouldn't even feign objectivity or that you're able to look at the political landscape squarely or dispassionately. It's my opinion but I believe it to be true.

I think that my facts are right on my points. I'll admit, though, that I jumped to some conclusions on how you would have responded. But it's based on how you dismissed Reagan's Iran Contra involvement as basically a means to an end. But as for your question, I guess that I'd trust both the same. I think that Reagan was, and Obama is, a decent, honest public servant who is doing a difficult and thankless job. If you were to ask me who would I trust more to invest my million, I'd say Reagan. If I wanted to donate it and wanted to choose the best person to give it to the most needy and most deserving, I'd choose Obama. I like them both as people. I just can't comprehend how anyone thinks that the only president(s) who makes mistakes, displays incompetence, or who is disingenuous, has a (D) after their name. Cause for my dollar, I think that the blow back that we've had, that find their origins within the penumbras of the Reagan doctrine, FAR supercede anything Obama has been able to screw up.

It's funny how we create justifications in our mind to insulate the ones whom we like from the criticism that, if directed at the ones whom we don't like, we'd support. I'm not an expert on Iran Contra, but from what I can remember, the US was funding Contras who were basically raping, pillaging, plundering, and terrorizing anyone that they suspected as enemies. The Reagan administration was complicit in aiding terrorists. If Obama did the exact same thing right now, I have a sneaking suspicion that you would find an angle to criticize him. It's just like the criticism of the Obama administration for the drone stuff on US soil. If that would have been Bush II, many here would wax poetic about taking necessary precautions an being diligent to ensure that we weren't infilitrated by cells that could perpetrate another attack of 9/11 scale. But that was back when the line of attack and talking point against Dems was that they couldn't keep the country safe cause they wouldn't do what it takes from a national security standpoint. So disingenuous. And remember Reagan's efforts to stop the scourge of Soviet incursion by funding those mujahideen folks in Afghanistan. You know, when Reagan significantly expanded Carter's comparatively small program to supply mujahideen rebels with guns, ammo, and other resources to combat the Soviets. The problem with that, as I understand it, is that the program provided weapons that Taliban forces used against our own troops years later, AND, since we were using Pakistan as the go-between to the mujahideen (so as not to get our hands dirty), a strategic and diplomatic link was created between Islamic extremists and the Pakistani government which exist to this day. We were funding and arming many of the same native Afghan rebels that comprised some of the Taliban fighting force that we encountered in 2001-2003. And that's why we had a weapons "buy back" program because the Reagan administration KNEW that many of the resources were going to extremists who might turn our own weapons against us at a later date. It was forseeable but it was an acceptable risk in their estimation. That was a profoundly short-sighted calculation. Seriously, read about Hekmatyar, our support for him, and his connection with Bin Laden. Read about Operation Tornado. I didn't know about many of these links until I watched "Charlie Wilson's War" and then did some following up reading. I do believe that many of these programs led to the successful downfall of the Soviets, but at what cost... If Obama were president at that time, and made the same decisions, you would be as relentlessly critical of him, as you are an apologist for Reagan. You can see it now..... "O administration sold guns to terrorists" "O administration is indirectly responsible for 9/11..." "They should have known that this would have happened!!!" BS. So I renew my point, Reagan was disingenous, and actually, like most every other president (and human beings in general), light-weight unprepared in some respects. But you're willing to give him a pass because of this: ( R ) Remember, they're presidents but they're also human beings; ergo they're fallible.

Which presidents in the last 75 years do you feel have been competent and ingenuous? I'm struggling to think of a single one who has been both but I can think of a few who have been neither. FDR, Nixon, Clinton and Reagan were brilliantly competent but were about as conniving and disingenuous as they come. Reagan and Clinton could lie to your face and make you feel good about yourself. Kennedy was largely competent and definitely cool under pressure, but he was only about as faithful as his options so sincerity was in short supply. Carter, Bush II, Eisenhower, and Lyndon Johnson (aside from trying to !@#$ Jackie O) were ingenuous but somewhat incompetent. Gerald Ford was neither but he was under a strong post-Watergate microscope. Bush I struggled with both competence and ingenuousness. I mean, who else can screw up a relatively good economy and a post Desert Storm euphoria? Just trying to figure out who you feel had both qualities...

My "if" was almost rhetorical. They've all demonstrated incompetence and (except maybe Bush II) talked out of 5 different sides of their mouth. I'm with you that Bush II was a principled guy and really thought he was making decisions that were honest and forthright. I just think he got talked into some bad situations and then was left on an island trying to explain his way out of the corners he was led into.

Serious question for anyone to answer... If Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc. had analogous (but perhaps, explainable)situations happen during the course of their presidencies, would that make them characteristically incompetent and duplicitous too? And if so, have we ever had a president, in your estimation, who was competent or ingenuous?

That sounds awesome! I have a pullied GT500 that I race but not the type of racing that most here would condone. If you're in the DC area, Greenbelt Metro Kiss and Ride between 11 pm and 2 am on Friday nights or Lilypons in Frederick on Saturday nights. Even if you don't race, it's tons of fun to watch some light to lights, look at engines, talk **** about cars, and win some money. And most of the folks out there not driving boosted Civics and Ford Probes are 30-somethings like us. Remember, racing began in the shadows - from bootleggers to light-to-lights. If the Committee on Professional Discipline is reading this, I'm obviously referring to 'Need for Speed' for Playstation 3 and any mention of locations above are what the various atmospheres within the game remind me of.

"Brilliant ruling!" he ejaculated.

You, sir, have a good taste in women.

I would tend to agree with you...to a point. Tom might correct me on this point, but my understanding is that there was A LOT less crime when there was community justice and corporal punishment in schools. This is gonna sound oddly self-depricating, but even during Jim Crow south, there was a weird balance and not much vice or crime in the black community because white folks would just string up a rope and lynch. I'm not saying it's right, but there was order in the organized chaos. People didn't step too far out of line because of the fear that there would be societal repurcussions. The ability for your immeidate community to exact justice was a deterrent. I believe that there are still places (mainly Middle Eastern and southeast Asian) that still abide by that theory of justice. Not sure what their crime rates are but I'd bet my newly acquired Walther PPK that they're lower than ours here in the states.

You would think that those with that mentality would be the ones being purged. It looks like it would be legalized vigilante justice for a night. And if the result would be record low crime rate and no prison over-population, it's at least worth a good laugh and a fanciful thought.... But poor George Zimmerman.... Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!