Brokeback Mountain
Forum
"You and I both desppise communism.....right??" Yes I do, but i know what real communism is do you?
"You and I and our governments support the War on Terror.....right??"
If you are talking your countrys style of war on terror, in that european terrorists have nothing to do with the US no siree bob!!, but them heathen muslims...ooh they are soo bad we must destroy them...then no i definetely don't support that style of war on terrorism.
You and I respect America's initiative in Iraq....right?? No I definitely do not.
and what Initiative was that exactly..." get in there, Oust Saddam, and the rest...well we will make it up as we go along, everyone will be so pleased we got rid of saddam that there will be macdonalds and Chryslers dealerships in downtown baghdad before you can say God Bless America!!"... no i definitely dont support your government's so called initiative.
as for Sinn fein and your...."I sincerely doubt that any of them would be on the ballot".... are you for real? just go on google and check out Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguiness, both ex IRA top command, both suspected of murdering troops and policemen and now both British members of parlaiment for Sinn fein,
you see in the UK we have a real D E M O C R A C Y...sinn fein 'denounced' violence to be seen as legitimate, and were then able to put members up for ballot... check out Bobby Sands as well, Member of parlaiment for Fermanagh, died whilst on hunger strike in the maze prison in Northern ireland, in prison for terrorist offences...regardless of whether I liked them or the whether powers that be liked them, a large number of northern Irish voted for Sinn fein as was their democratic right.... that sort of democracy doesnt exist in your mind does it?
and i dare say that the People Cindy sheehan rubbed up the wrong way don't have sons and daughters in Iraq right now, i bet the people who despise her haven't lost a son or a daughter, a brother, sister or father in Iraq !!
and why wont you answer the questions that I put to you ...quite simple ones. I will rephrase them for you if they would be easier to understand..
1) what evidence do you have that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
2) You have stated that you despise communism, when your fellow countrymen were sent to combat the expansion of communism in Vietnam, surely a noble cause, did you or did you not avoid the draft?
3) why does the idea of wasting thousands of young soldiers lives for the expansion of US policies in a country which doesnt want US policies, fill you with righteous joy instead of intense sorrow.
>>By BushisaManiac (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 01:35)
Dear Maniac,
You know what communism is...as well as I. And yes you despise communism as I do....is that so hard to say??
Cindy Sheehan's stock hs dwindled of late. If you rely on incorrect information to form your opinions, there is little that I can do to assist you. I'll say it agasin just for you. Her stock (support) has tumbled due to intemperate comments re the War, the President, personal judgements re the President, etc. You can issue lame statements all day long but no one (over here) cares about you or your opinions. Her son died for a cause and, to withdraw prior to finishing the job, would discredit his sacrifice. Our President means what he says....freedom and Democracy will prevail in Iraq. And if you think that the insurgents have broad public support, their is little or nothing that I can do for you.
Waisting live in a battle for freedom?? Please tell me that you need a laxative or something and that you will be well soon. And I hope for your speedy recovery!!
When would you like to get serious?? To summarize:
Homosexuality is normal.
Democracy is slavery.
The Iraqi vote was 'kind of' okay.
Freedom is slavery.
The insurgents are the good guys.
The Iraqi constitution is no better than what they had before.
Iraq did not invade Kuwait---they were invited.
Osama bin Laden does not sabotage US interest.
Sadam did not offer $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers--it is just a Fox and CNN lie.
Iran is no threat to anyone....leave them alone.
North Korea is entitle to launch missles anytime, and in any direction that they choose.
The next fireworks will be in Iran. Aren't you ecstatic that the USA will not allow them to develop their nuclear capability. Any doubts??
Let's put personal feelings aside. Inasmuch as we have no unbiased moderator it is up to us to change the tenor of this discussion. Am sure that you receive (flork) mail as I do....and it is good that there is an interest. I'll hold my tongue/pen...that is until I receive a response like any of those above. My guess is that you won't tire of the thrashing. but.............Why don't we have a healthy focused discussion. Here is the place....no time like the present.
Again, I'm waiting. If you'd prefer to keep this personal, that is okay too. But you need to be better prepared. ***Now I am violating my own rule there. I withdraw the prior sentence.
Here's to a new direction!!!
>>By lv2read (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 02:48)
L2R
You just don't learn, do you?
I was prepared to seek common ground, but as long as you continue the same juvenile tricks, forget it .. OK?
Stop your distortions of what other people say. What are you summarizing? your own delusions?
BIAM was perfectly clear and what he said in no way resembles your "summary". It is annoying as hell to repeat over and over what was perfectly clear the first time to anyone who bothered to read it and think. Just what is your problem?
Stop trying to put words in other peoples mouths. If BiaM hates communism and he thinks it is in any way relevant I am sure he will say so. Furthermore, I am confident that he will say it perfectly clearly and will not need you to distort it.
Stop just making things up. "and probably 99.99% of Gold Star Mothers support the President. " Right, which means only .01% times 2500 = 0.25 oppose? ie even if you thought Cindy Sheehan was the only Gold Star mother your statement was still complete nonsense.
And of course there are many more than Sheehan. You could have taken 30 sec to go to http://www.gsfp.org/article.php?id=85 and seen that dozens of Gold Star Mothers oppose Bush enough to actually join GSFP, never mind how many more oppose the war but have not signed up - something the rest us already know.
If you haven't noticed yet, the rest of us are making a real effort to make intelligent, informed decisions and have an intelligent discussion by presenting our ideas supported by facts, NOT just making up any shit that we want to imagine.
We don't need your lies when we can get the truth with only a few minutes of effort. It seems you do not realize this, perhaps because you never make the effort to try and discover the truth.
If this seems condescending all I can say is that you have begged for it. Here is how adults behave:
When they don't know something, they make an effort to find out. They use things like the internet to inform themselves, to get the facts. They ask other people who might know.
If that fails, they use that magic phrase "I don't know". That's right, adults are not afraid of admitting they don't know something. That is because they are concerned with actually discovering truth and learning rather than just winning an argument.
When they are shown to have been wrong about something they say "Gee, I guess I was wrong." That's right, they admit it! Incredible, but true. It's called maturity.
Adults do NOT distort what others say. They listen or read carefully and respect that the other has said what they mean. If they are not clear, they ask a respectful question like "Do you mean to say that ..."
If any of this was unclear, try reading it again. Repeat until a light goes on.
You claim to be 62, for God'ssake start acting like it.
>>By greenfyre (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 07:46)
I couldnt care less what Cindy sheehans 'stock' is I don't go in for popularity contests...her son died because he was a soldier sent overseas by his government in an illegal crusade which was no different to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979..because of "intemperate comments re the War, the President, personal judgements re the President" because she didn't just accept that her son had died for nothing, you believe she is a traitor? would it be preferential to you if she and all the other parents of the dead soldiers were just sheep, blindly accepting what they are told by the administration.... that would be convenient for that idiot in the whitehouse wouldnt it. I refer you back to the Theodore Roosevelt quote which you will find earlier on this board, or on my profile page
If you are 'serious' about debate L2R, then i tell you what, one question at a time i answer yours you answer mine.. you got enough ;cojones' for that?
which of these do you want me to anwser first?
1) Homosexuality is normal.
2) Democracy is slavery.
3) The Iraqi vote was 'kind of' okay.
4) Freedom is slavery.
5) The insurgents are the good guys.
6) The Iraqi constitution is no better than what they had before.
8) Iraq did not invade Kuwait---they were invited.
9) Osama bin Laden does not sabotage US interest.
10) Sadam did not offer $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers--it is just a Fox and CNN lie.
11) Iran is no threat to anyone....leave them alone.
12) North Korea is entitle to launch missles anytime, and in any direction that they choose.
are they actually questions? really think about it, 'cos some of them seem to be weak attempts at implication that anyone on this board other than you has actaully stated these things
fire away and i will answer, as long as you answer my questions,
>>By BushisaManiac (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 08:22)
Dear Maniac,
1. Homosexuality is not normal.
2. Drmocracy (Iraqi style) is not slavery.....but very, very good.
3. The Iraqi election turnout was spectacular.
4. Slavery is not freedom. The Iraqis are no longer enslaved.
Are you beginning to get the idea??
Let me see, why don't I act 62 and just agree with you?? Is this the best that you can come up with?? If I had known that debate was this easy I would have chosen another field!!!
Well, since I have provided the answers for you, is there anything else that I can clarify for you?
As long as you portray my President as nuts. as long as you imply that a significant number of Gold Star Mothers support you views, as long as you misrepresent the nature and intent of US action in Iraq, as long as you refuse to appreciate the gains in Iraq, as long as you characterize the Americans as the bad guys, yes as long as you do these things I will set you straight---I'll set you straight right here!! I'm betting that you'll catch on sooner or later. And, yes, I can get personal too, but I won't.
>>By lv2read (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 12:34)
You need better glasses mate
i have never mentioned... (a) your age...or (b) the gold star mothers, you should try reading whom has written what in each Post here...and the list i put up was a copy of your last post to me ...I asked if you want serious debate, then lets ask a single question and answer it, each in turn, the list was your list and i wanted to know which you wanted me to answer first...
if you are ready to debate, and can actually differentiate me from greenfyre then ask a sodding question will you, let go of the banal jingoism and just ask a question lets get this debate rolling shall we....
>>By BushisaManiac (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 18:43)
I'm answering offensive barrages from three of you....glasses aside it can get confusing. As far as I am concerned---and some others as well---the three of you are all part of the same argument. And when one of you got personal....another jumped right in. I am not just ready for you, I am waiting for you!!! If you've seen one rude anti-American on this site, you've seen 10 of them. At 15 paces you all look alike and sound alike....and the banter is remarkedly the same. You listen to the Cindy Sheehans of this world and believe that you understand the American people. You listen to a Michael Moore and you come to believe that Bush is universally hated and despised here----which is not true. When you are ready to discuss reality, I am prepared to debate. May I suggest a first question?
1. If it is determined that Iran is preparing an atmospheric test of a nuclear weapon, what will Btritain and America do to stop it?? Remember, reality here. You KNOW we'll prevent it---what fool proof means should WE use?
The question is not should we....reality here....again you know we'll stop it. What is your version of a politically correct method of doing so?
Please, show me something here....and this question is open to all three combatants.
>>By lv2read (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 19:10)
Perhaps it was lost in your condescending tone, but which one of your three combatants are anti-american?
How many times have you accused them of being so, yet all they are are merely protestors of the current American Government.
And quite frankly, anyone with half a mind should be.
I think it rather ironic that you say, and I quote,
"At ten paces you all look alike and sound alike..."
Yet coming from one who is so clearly consumed by the censored, far-from-impartial, propogranda-spinned lies which the American Government and its subsidary media companies have fabricated, it is laughable. "You listen to a Michael Moore and you come to believe that Bush is universally hated and despised here..." I say to you, lv2read: you listen to Fox News and CNN and the like and believe that things are rosy in Iraq now that Democracy has set foot inside it?
It is such a shame that Democracy's foot was covered by the US Marine-Standard Military Boot.
I have had many an argument with such people.... yet nothing new spouts forth from their all too eager-to-insult mouths. America stands for Freedom and Peace - all at any cost. Yet how many of those who genuinely believe this is the Government's agenda realise the true price?
Have we been so numbed by the pictures on TV of the Iraqi of the injured civilians lying in the over-crowded-under-funded hospitals?
How many out in the 'Western World' would cope under the circumstances that millions in Iraq have to suffer to?
lv2read - perhaps we should fund a trip to Iraq and give you the 'Guided Tour' of the situation....
Surely your own eyes cannot deceive you as those media friends of yours have?
As for your question
"If it is determined that Iran is preparing an atmospheric test of a nuclear weapon, what will Btritain and America do to stop it??"
Well I think, as is tradition, they would walk right in and make a mess of things (again).
But then again, I wonder who exactly has a larger collection of nuclear weapons..... ??
Could it be.... no...
No - not in the name of Freedomization!
Not THE country whose economy almost depends on whether Saudi Arabia can still be its best friend????
>>By Tchock (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 19:59)
"Electricity generation at best meets half of estimated demand and fell below pre-war levels in early 2006. A 2004 survey found just over half of households had a stable supply of safe drinking water."
From the BBC website.
Perhaps there are people who would like to see the tables and charts offered on the same page as this quotation.
http: //news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/ in_depth/post_saddam_iraq/ html/1.stm
(A Damn Long Word Was detected, so the URL link is broken up)
>>By Tchock (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 20:10)
And then there were four...and I repeat you all sound/read alike. And now we have a youngster in the fray. Remember Tchock what the groundrules are??? Reality. Again how should we disarm Iran. Just pretend your Social Studies teacher asked you. You and I both know that Iran's nuclear program will be halted by the US (and its Allies I would guess).....now this isn't hard. How would you like to see America disarm Iran?? Reality here only. You may believe that the Iranian leader is cool (is that the right word?), good for ,iddle Eastern stability, smart, Nobel prize deserving...heaven know what else. But the question is simple. The USA will disarm Iran long before it develops a nuclear weapon, how would you like to see the USA accomplish that?? Should we say, Please? Should we ask Mother May I (an American joke that I am sure the Maniac---who is such an expert on all things American--could explain ro you. Or ashould we be decisive in action? Reality, remember??
And thank you for jumping in, the three combatants need your help!!!
>>By lv2read (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 20:22)
I would have imagined that during your adult life you would have realised the world is not so black and white.
Just because I do not support America's Government, does not mean that I support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad nor his regime, nor in fact do I think that Saddam would be best placed back in power.
There is no line of divergance lv2read.
Iran - as every other country - should be disarmed. But America has no right to be responsible for this. We all share the responsibility. Such international affairs (which could easily be mistaken for commercial in many cases) cannot be conducted by one crazy money-grabbing politician/businessman who's funding basically originates from a country with pitiful human rights (allegedly they ARE getting better I might add.....)
It's quite amazing, really. Considering us three are, according to you, in the minority opinion, you seem to be awfully lonely out there lv2read.
>>By Tchock (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 20:40)
Thank you for responding...not to be confused with answering. Iran will be disarmed as surely as you and I are chatting here and now. Whether that is black and white to you or not it is a reality soon to be. Are we pretending that there is no danger on the horizon. Is the US the only country that is confronting the Iranians?? Do you four just think that they are going to go away??
>>By lv2read (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 21:13)
People...seeing as this is a board about Brokeback mountain it is not fair to spoil other peoples desire to use this forum for its intended manner, I have found a forum on the literature discussion linked site (gnooks) where the author is called 'Jack' there is only one post and thats to ask who the heck jack is...so i dont think we will be spoiling anyones fun, and it is a public enough forum for L2R not to be paranoid about being in the enemy's camp...
L2R
i have posted an answer to your question on the 'Jack' board
>>By BushisaManiac (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 21:18)
Thanks BiaM, good job ... on my way there!
>>By greenfyre (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 21:54)
I just tried the gnooks site and Dear Greenfyre is up to more personal invective. If you enjoy that sort of thing, it may be good reading for you.
Has anyone noticed how thin skinned the four are? A little tongue in cheek sarcasm is too much for any of the original three. The young lady appears to be more resilient.
This is fun!!!!!
>>By lv2read (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 22:17)
Now that your diatribe concerning the Iraq war has thankfully been diverted to another location (thankyou so much Bushisamaniac!) I'd to respond to a few of your earlier statements on this thread concerning the topic in question....
On what basis do you claim that most people find gay sexual expession offensive? I'd be interested in seeing such an authoritative global source for a statement with such gravity, as even raw numbers would be unprecedented...
Have you even seen Brokeback Mountain??? From your statements I suspect not. Who - that has actually seen the film - would be so foolish as to state the following otherwise?
"Offensive, tasteless, vulgar.....appealing to the artsy elite and those that believe that it is chic to be gay or to 'party' with gays. We are now told that our heroes (the American cowboy) are men of clay feet. Gays have attacked our icons for years, asking us to believe that Elvis Presley and Abraham Lincoln (diverse as they are) were both gay. A shoddy attempt to legitimize the inclination of the 8-10% that really are so inclined."
Could you please explain what leads you to state the former. Do you even yundertand basic mathematics, like the old west ratio of men to women of 90:10. Do you even realise what the implication of numbers like that mean for human sexuality? Annie Proulx's work is very much in the realm of reclaiming reality not otherwise.
The very point of this film is that it places the whole subject of the film outside the political (unless a warrior of the right is - for the first time - embracing a central tenet of Gloria Steinem's doctine: the personal is political!).. the film discusses people outside the dominant paradigm. Neither of the main characters in this film even identify as gay, let alone get political or "in-your-face" about it. The very point of this film is that they are both outside their comfort zone, have no role models for what they are experiencing and see the whole scenario as less than ideal: neither of the protagonists see themselves as anything even approaching to idea of rebels: they don't even see themselves as gay!) So in what sense is this pushing homosexuality down everyone else's throats? (and what an unfortunate association you chose there...)
No.. you are one of those people who have a problem even with the idea of the film, let alone the reality.
We have witnessed your track record with other matters of substance. We can see that you are neither capable of an honest argument, nor capalbe of recognising that you are outside of your depth when discussing matters of cultural significance. Tere is an old saying: "If you are not going to shit then get off the pot" which is where you are. Put up or shut up.
No doubt, you are one of those stil - canute like - arguing against the validity of post-moden discource decades after that paradigm bacame a reality.
Never mind sweetie: I can think of no one inclined to force you to watch this film: Dog-paddle back up to the shalow end of the pool and all of us who can claim more than three digits to our IQ will politely forget that you ever swam into the deep end.
If you have seen the film and think you can justify your pronouncements, then now is your opportunity to sustantiate your statements: ohterwise shut up and let the adults speak
>>By Sarcophilus (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 16:16)
Postscript to the above for the benefit of IV2unread:
If you have nothing to say direclty related to Brokeback Mountain, find somewhere else to post your diatribe.
>>By Sarcophilus (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 17:10)
Dear Sarcoidiot,
When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.
Shut up?? Are we losing it here?? The next thing I should ask you is your Daddy stronger than my Daddy?? Can you relate to this?? I've outgrown it, 'bout you, Mate?
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 22:07)
I'm waiting....
Are two sites too difficult for you to handle?? So sorry.
What does the Gang of Four think?? Are any of you unimpressed (as I was) with Sarcoidiot's recent post above?? Or do you just make allowances because of his condition??
Again, I can see that your flork mail to me was insincere. And you notice that I haven't copied it here....Do you get my drift?? Funny, I almost believed that you wanted to have a serious debate.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 22:26)
There is nothing you have posted here that indicates you have seen the film.
Perhaps that was why you were so eager to shift the discussion to something else...
All I am asking you to do is sustantiate the claims you have made about this film by indicating what - specifically - you found so offensive.
Or - again - is its mere existence what you find offensive?
Please post anything I miss (you have the advantage of a copy of what I wrote to you)
But I think the substance of it is contained within yours:
<<<<<What will you do when George W gets impeached?>>>
There is no credible movement in the Congress to do that. Keep in mind that the Congress has authorized every dollar spent in Iraq.
<<<These are all just friendly questions: I'd be really interested in knowing how you see the world.>>>>
I'll take you at your word. I view the world primarily as containing areas of great wealth and, correspondingly areas of great neglect. I think--in America's case their is a correlation between our Government, our capitalistic economy and our abundance of natural resources that enable that. If this sounds wishy-washy to you--at least it is an honest response.
<<By the way, I'm very happily married. thankyou for asking>>>
I don't recall asking.
And you believe homosexuality is normal. With due respect, that is hard for me to believe.
Why are you being civil here?? Or, are you??
Have a nice day.>>>>>
Could you please provide your definition of 'normal'?
>>By Sarcophilus (Monday, 10 Jul 2006 16:04)
has anyone else seen this film?
>>By Sarcophilus (Wednesday, 12 Jul 2006 13:22)
What did you think about it?
>>By Sarcophilus (Wednesday, 12 Jul 2006 13:25)
I love the way Eli_Molko turned up slap-bang in the middle of the raging political debate and said in two lines why she didn't like the film, ignoring the debate entirely.
I haven't seen the film, but now I've read this board I know what it's about ^_^
>>By Flagg (Thursday, 13 Jul 2006 23:15)
Yeah..that was sooo cool!
>>By Sarcophilus (Tuesday, 18 Jul 2006 16:26)
I find scientific fundamentalists - those that believe the only way of viewing the world is through the dictates of established science - as scary as the religious ones....scientists get things wrong too...
Any dogma stifles the creativity and expression that we are all capable of.
Is there such a thing as a human that has entirely consistent, unified beliefs/views? or have I just described another flavour of fundamentalist?
Is there such a thing as a moderate fundamentalist?
"We are moderate extremists and are willing to pursue any means to ensure the middle ground prevails"
>>By Sarcophilus (Thursday, 27 Jul 2006 15:42)
What can I say? I cried, and that's a good indicator. After all this time I still looked this movie up here on FLORK. I liked that I could watch it with my daughter & we both were affected. A great movie, carry on discussing it.
>>By flamencoprof (Wednesday, 2 Aug 2006 18:02)
Ahem, back to the movie reviews...
Incredibly brave intent, but failed on the delivery. I just didn't see a real, emotional connection between the two men here, which MIGHT have been fairly close to reality but still failed to move me. I was prepared to get emotionally involved and... well, nothing happened. OK, call me a cold-hearted bastard if you will, but.... nothing. Proulx's written short story did a much better job of involving me, perhaps because you can imagine things much better in your mind than a film can deliver to your eyes. I give it a 2.5 outta a possible 5 points.
PS: If ya havn't read any Proulx, you're really missing out on some great stuff. I'd put her right up there with Cormac McCarthy for sheer brilliance.
>>By keeth (Friday, 1 Sep 2006 14:59)
i saw this film last night and i thought it was very powerfull. am quite surprised that some people didn't feel the chemistry and the strong emotions in it, makes me think they forgot how it feels to love or they never found out. i hope it will not offend anyone, but make them think.
it is much more a love story then a gay story. actually a forbidden love story and a story about how much disaster a society can make with it's rules and it's fears of the "different". so much pain, not only of the 2 main charachters, but of their wives, their families. it was something impossible from the beginning, yet it felt like the one thing meant to be.
>>By piaf (Wednesday, 22 Nov 2006 16:01)
back onto the topic of the movie, i liked it.
>>By raspberry_juice (Sunday, 18 Feb 2007 03:43)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW MOVIES