Dr Grump
Platinum Member
Have you seen the flick? Have you read any articles?
No and no....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Have you seen the flick? Have you read any articles?
You apparantly can't attack the points I'm making, so instead, you try to erode my credibility by claiming that I can know nothing of the content of a movie without suffering through the entire thing. That's bullshit and you know it.
Actually, Jillian did. She pointed out that Lee seemed more interested in the class aspect, not racial. Even provided a link. And of course you have to see the whole thing. It lends to credibility or lack thereof. Nothing bullshit about that. You could be right on the money. Thing is, you will never know. You haven't seen it. And until you do, your opinion is noted...
No and no....
Then really you are like me, uninformed on this subject and we both you should probably shut the fuck up on this thread. Seems Hobbit is more informed from just the articles alone.
Catch my drift?
The biggest problem I noticed when living there was the amount of corruption in that city. From the gas station attendent all the way up to the Governor, nothing gets done in that city with out greasing someones hand. So, it's not surprising that nothing gets done.
Also, to many poor people, after a few generations on welfair, just forget how to help themselves. The towns in Miss. and Florida didn't wait for the gov. to finally get off their ass and help, no they formed church volunteer groups and did it themselves.
And as far as people saying the gov. did nothing for 5 days. The levees broke on Monday and flooded half the city. By Thursday 80,000 people were all but moved out and the city was completely abandoned by Friday. The people, rich and poor, who stayed and had to be rescued weren't clueless about what was about to happen. They knew they were living in a fish bowl with a cat. 5 coming at them. Gretna, Algeirs, Marrero, numerous other towns right across the river, don't need a car to walk, are on higher ground and would have been safer.
I sat through the whole thing. There was plenty of race baiting, no doubt. And to say that there wasn't a racial undertone (or even overtone) to the movie is naive at best. And Nagin and Blanco and local government in general was given a massive free pass. HOWEVER, the article you cited is about as biased against the movie as the movie was against Bush. I wouldn't be surprised if the reviewer watched maybe the first 1 or 2 hours, made up his opinion, and phoned the rest of it in. His statement about no mention of private donations in the movie is outright fallacious, for one.I knew as soon as Clay asked that question that somebody was going to tell me I was full of shit because I had never actually seen the movie in question. Well, how many people jumped on the anti-semitism bandwagon without seeing "The Passion?" or the bandwagon criticizing the South Park movie. It's just a typical tactic of some people. You apparantly can't attack the points I'm making, so instead, you try to erode my credibility by claiming that I can know nothing of the content of a movie without suffering through the entire thing. That's bullshit and you know it.
Seems like he is uninformed, too. As for you being uninformed...what else is new? Catch my drift?
when you aren't feeling persecuted by Christians.
argue shit you know nothing about!
I have never felt persecuted by Christians. Disagreeing with Christians is not being persecuted...it's disagreeing. No Christian, either in cyber or real life, has ever persecuted me.
Yes you do, you feel the need to jump in with your "there is no god" or some other such crap in threads that are designed specifically for Christians. If you were a stand up guy you would simply not reply in those threads...........but you are a douchebag so you reply anyway.
You were right at first, i'm a complete testosterone filled pimp, you are a whiney turd so really we do have nothing in common.
Seems like he is uninformed, too. As for you being uninformed...what else is new? Catch my drift?
It absolutely WAS a class issue. But sounds to me like you're jealous... you ticked off you have to be one for free?
Dude, you got owned. You made off like an "I told you so" bandit only to admit you have not seen the movie either. So your "opinions" are not noted as you read one article whereas the thread starter read numerous sources.?
Ever not seen a movie because it got bad reviews OR someone told you that it sucked?
I sat through the whole thing. There was plenty of race baiting, no doubt. And to say that there wasn't a racial undertone (or even overtone) to the movie is naive at best. And Nagin and Blanco and local government in general was given a massive free pass. HOWEVER, the article you cited is about as biased against the movie as the movie was against Bush. I wouldn't be surprised if the reviewer watched maybe the first 1 or 2 hours, made up his opinion, and phoned the rest of it in. His statement about no mention of private donations in the movie is outright fallacious, for one.
There were compelling parts of the documentary, like the struggle people faced to get money from insurance companies for damage, and the fact that many of the underpriveledged realized upon leaving New Orleans that they could have a much better life, hurricane or not, in other cities.
Without you seeing the movie, you don't really have a frame of reference beyond reading for reviews that pre-agree with your mindset on the issue. Beyond any of this, I didn't think it was really intellectually honest for you to not post whether or not you actually saw the movie. And then you avoided the question. Makes people wonder.
Maybe you'd watch the movie and just see racist racist racist! Most of the beginning of it is heavily coated in that... but if it's ever on again consider acts 3 and 4, I found them much better.
I will admit though, having Harry Belafonte on camera painting Hugo Chavez as this nice guy who just wanted to help out was a good laugh.
Ok?The big question would be why you would watch this thing in the first place? Didn't you live through it for the last year? You certainly can't be naive enough to believe that hack Lee would possibly come up with any facts you don't already know. That would be like the wasting of whatever they were charging at theaters to see Algore's hack piece. 4 hours??????? You could have played a nice round of golf or picked up dog shit in the yard, either would have been more compelling judging by otherworks of his.
I have given that little racist troll plenty of chances and all of his movies are the same, same acting style or lack of it, same pathetic directing, same racist garbage, same awful line delivery, same simpleton. If Spike Lee was white he would have never been allowed to make anything but a short for Youtube. He even made Denzell look bad in "The Inside Man".
I sat through the whole thing. There was plenty of race baiting, no doubt. And to say that there wasn't a racial undertone (or even overtone) to the movie is naive at best. And Nagin and Blanco and local government in general was given a massive free pass. HOWEVER, the article you cited is about as biased against the movie as the movie was against Bush. I wouldn't be surprised if the reviewer watched maybe the first 1 or 2 hours, made up his opinion, and phoned the rest of it in. His statement about no mention of private donations in the movie is outright fallacious, for one.
There were compelling parts of the documentary, like the struggle people faced to get money from insurance companies for damage, and the fact that many of the underpriveledged realized upon leaving New Orleans that they could have a much better life, hurricane or not, in other cities.
Without you seeing the movie, you don't really have a frame of reference beyond reading for reviews that pre-agree with your mindset on the issue. Beyond any of this, I didn't think it was really intellectually honest for you to not post whether or not you actually saw the movie. And then you avoided the question. Makes people wonder.
Maybe you'd watch the movie and just see racist racist racist! Most of the beginning of it is heavily coated in that... but if it's ever on again consider acts 3 and 4, I found them much better.
I will admit though, having Harry Belafonte on camera painting Hugo Chavez as this nice guy who just wanted to help out was a good laugh.
Actually, I read several reviews. That's just the first one I ran across. I was actually hoping somebody who had seen the movie would post in order to give a little more info. So please go on.
Actually, I saw it last night. It was amazing. Very sad. Very powerful. It wasn't racist, though there were some speakers who only saw it from a racial perspective (which I disagree with, btw). Ultimately, though, it was about the victims and what happened to them. And while you may (heck, will....) disagree with the politics of it, it is well-worth seeing. These are voices that should be heard because it makes the tragedy human...not political, per se.