Last active
1 year, 10 months ago
  • Oh good lord. Again, from the Greenwald article:

    “(Bigelow) is going around praising herself for taking ‘almost a journalistic approach to film’. But when confronted by factual falsehoods she propagates on critical questions, her screenwriting partner resorts to the excuse that “it’s a movie, not a documentary.”

    The CONTENT of the movie would not and could not change the basic contradiction exposed in this situation, in which what is hyped as “almost journalistic” turns out to be”a movie, not a documentary.” Kind of a quick surrender.

    See? See? See? See? Fuck.


    Do you sometimes think, “That person has no OUTWARD manifestations of a hippie, and yet….they disagree with me…..yet they are not Republican. Or even a foreigner.”

    There is only one category of human left: this person is a “hippie” and should be verbally attacked with witty “hippie references.”

    Jokes about hacky-sack and patchouli ensue, to the bewilderment of the “hippie.”

  • Probably explains his bizarre freestyle definition of hippies too, come to think of it.

    Because most of the hippies I know are totally apolitical. Did you see a hippie once in Ocean Beach who appeared to be politically oriented or something?

  • Wow, TBogg can even make the “I may not be the most popular progressive blog because I’m too smart” argument! You’d think shilling for centrism required some kind of daring.

    He’s a classic slightly-above-average-intelligence San Diegan, and that gives me a bit of pity for him.

  • Apparently I am not as dense as a certain poster who doesn’t know what quotation marks mean.

    This is really not that hard. Talk about talk

    is not necessarily

    talk about “the movie.”

    An example would be TBogg’s thread. TBogg would NEVER make the mistake of talking about a movie he hadn’t seen. He would just talk about the talk about that movie. And, well, he’d also accuse everybody talking about the talk of doing the bad thing (which is talking about the movie without seeing it, or listening to the people who had seen it instead of this one guy Spencer Ackerman who will totally set you straight about this movie) and if you point out that he’s full of shit in this regards he will call you “dense” and say you aren’t getting his brilliant point about all the other people and their lamentable inability to restrain themselves from talking about a movie they haven’t seen.

    Fuck this shit anyway, I want TBogg to explain how “hippies” are into Husker Du. I like to hear his Humpty Dumpty “when I use a word” definition of the word “hippie.” See my high-larious comment at the end of the Elizabeth Warren thread for more details.

  • Apparently, I am not as dense as a certain posters who doesn’t know what quotation marks mean. Anyway, I guess I need to repeat, again, that I wasn’t talking about the fucking movie.

    The movie is a distant relative of this fucking conversation, which is plenty fueled by plenty of talk that has ALREADY HAPPENED BEFORE WE STARTED TALKING.

    And you felt like talking about that FIRST. And I felt like talking about that NEXT.

    Meaning you don’t get to say, “how dare you talk about that” without being an idiot.

  • that was in Quotation Marks. Andrew Sullivan wrote that.

    Learn to read.

  • No. I haven’t seen the movie. I haven’t been talking about the movie. I’ve been talking about the talking about the talking about the movie.

    I’ve seen that.

  • I’m too pure to understand farce, owlbear, why don’t you answer my earlier question and tell me where I said the stuff you claimed I did?

  • It’s evidently so stupid that you couldn’t take it apart, TBogg, because you act like what one person who saw the movie thought trumps the other people who also saw the movie thought.

    Evidently there is a disagreement amongst people who saw the movie, and it is not just a matter of “some people” who didn’t see the movie vs. the “someone else” — the one and only “someone else” — who has the real lowdown on the situation.

    By the way, most of the discussion out there beyond this blog is about other stuff, including statements by the filmmakers about how their movie is not just a movie but a kind of journalism….I can quote them for you but I don’t know why I should do such basic work for you.

  • Owlbear, you are tragically inept at argument:

    “Just to clarify so you don’t construe my statement into proof of something or other.”

    When clarifying something you might want to actually “make it clearer.”

    “Declaring there is only one proper way to criticize something(torture) and treating anybody who does it differently as if they are actually supporting that thing(torture) is the problem.”

    Now, I forgot where I declared this. Or implied it. Any of it. Please enlighten me.

  • I’m sorry, I should have added “ponies” to that formula.


  • Oh, the “purity” thing again. Mention unicorns and hippies now and so I’ll know I’ve won the argument because all you have is this junior high school schtick.

  • Oh well that settles it then because obviously there’s no propaganda after elections.

  • Well gee whiz, let’s move on to a conditional argument by good guy Andrew Sullivan that is SURE to take on the main rhetorical thrust of that anti-Obama fanatic Glenn Greenwald…

    “I have not seen the movie yet, so I have to rely on descriptions of its plot.”

    Stop right there, Andrew, how DARE you discuss “descriptions of its plot.” That’s just wrong! It would be like….like…like discussing Mormons without reading The Book of Mormon all the way through oneself!!! And no one EVER does that without incurring the wrath of all of TBOGG’s loyal readers, who are sticklers for withholding judgment until they have ALL the facts.

    All right, let’s continue:

    “But if it portrays torture as integral to the killing of Osama bin Laden, it is a lie. If Bigelow is calling torture “harsh tactics” she is complicit in its defense. And lies do have an agenda, whatever Bigelow says. They pretend that the law allows torture, they violate the historical record, and they make war crimes more likely in the future. Yes, it makes for a more thrilling ride if we start with a torture scene in a movie drama. But actual torture, authorized illegally by war criminals, is not fiction and is far too grave a matter to be exploited as a plot device. It is illegal because it is evil and because it provides unreliable and often false leads, not real ones.”

    Well, I hope everyone will be extra scrupulous about attacking Andrew Sullivan in this regard JUST as harshly as Glenn Greenwald.

  • No, Jay B. It is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to discuss the discussion around movies. We are doing it now. You are doing it now.

  • picverry commented on the blog post Elizabeth Warren Is Already Selling Out The Hippies

    2012-12-11 16:53:38View | Delete

    Great comment and How About That, nobody has responded to travy’s sensible post of quite a few hours ago. I take it there is just so much to choose from that nobody could come up with an all-encompassing response yet…

    I have to say, it takes real gumption to become a conspiracy theorist dedicated to the maintenance of the utterly compromised, middle and mediocre. TBOGG has developed this ability to use the word “hippie” in almost any circumstance if necessary, even weirdly including punk rockers

    (man, how culturally out-of-it does one have to be to include Mission of Burma and Black Flag and Big Black with hippies, precisely?? I think there are Enya fans out there who might have a better grasp of rock culture than TBOGG)

    and the hopelessly square and sober, such as Ralph Nader. SHORT-HAIRED HIPPIE IN A SUIT, THAT GUY!

    Bend over to the all-powerful thrust of centrism, all who would have any principles not convenient at the moment!!

  • And….Jay B. doesn’t engage the argument mentioned by picverry @ 21 either.

    because he’s fixated on a non-existant conversation…

  • And….Jay B. doesn’t engage the “actual argument” mentioned by deBoer @ 18.


    I’ll try to help Jay B. and the other professionally-clueless with a hint: this conversation has been about THE CONVERSATION. It’s about what the filmmakers have been TALKING ABOUT. What they HAVE SAID. What OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID.

    People TALK when movies come out, have you ever noticed that? Are we not allowed to talk about that talk?

  • As nobody at T “Empire is COOL with a Democratic President” BOGG is honest enough to acknowledge it, I provide the following quote:

    “Anyone wishing to claim that I’ve reviewed this film without seeing it would be well-advised to re-read this sentence as many times as is necessary for the clear, simple and obvious point it expresses to click:

    I have not seen this film and thus am obviously not purporting to review it; I am, instead, writing about the reaction to the film: the way in which its fabrications about the benefits of torture seem to be no impediment to its being adored and celebrated. It’s not a review of the film. It’s a critique of the viewpoints expressed by reviewers and the filmmakers.

    Anyone claiming I’ve reviewed this film is plagued either by severe reading comprehension problems and/or a desire to distort.”

    - Glenn Greenwald, writing in the VERY SAME column that constitutes his alleged “film review.”

    Would LOVE to know, by the way, what exactly Greenwald has been “lying” about.

    Especially compared to you shape-shifters.

  • Load More