Razzie Nominations

[Jinn Fizz]

As if we needed further proof that it's popular to belittle SW and George Lucas...but check out the list of nominees for the Razzies this year.

AOTC got seven nominations. Including worst picture and worst director.

http://razzies.com/asp/content/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=110

I used to get a kick out of the Razzies, but this year, they've gone way too far, as far as I'm concerned. How can AOTC be mentioned in the same breath as putrid fare like The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Swept Away, Crossroads, and Pinnochio????

Good grief, Charlie Brown. o_O >_< :x :verymad :grumble :cry :headbash :thumbdown

[JonathanLB]

That's pretty funny considering that almost everyone liked AOTC, at the very least.

With TPM, it was not as surprising because it was more of a controversial film, even though it was incredibly ridiculous of it to receive any Razzie nominations. Nonetheless, it split the fanbase. Not so with AOTC. Every real fan of the saga loved AOTC almost straight down the line. It was truly a fans film, even inciting many to say (blasphemously to some people, lol) that it is better than all but The Empire Strikes Back. It is my personal favorite thus far, if not just on the strength of the fact that Yoda kicks frickin' butt.

This is really just very ridiculous. How can they expect to be taken seriously? I was going to join the Razzie voting group in the future, but do I want to contribute my money to this organization? I don't think so. I don't know why I even thought about that. Oh well, wake up call I guess.

The Adventures of Pluto Nash was good, in my opinion. I liked it. The critics never even gave it a chance. Very high production values, as it should have for a $100 million film. It just never got the marketing it needed, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. A solid B film.

The other stuff you mentioned is terrible.

[JonathanLB]

I saw everything last year and I can guarantee there is not a randomly selected group of ten people you could find who would actually agree with any one of those categories, at least not among people who saw the films.

I mean, worst song? I like Overprotected by Spears, first of all, and Die Another Day is an awesome song. That's the stupidest category I've ever seen.

Furthermore, xXx is excellent. I'm not the only cinema buff who found it to be one of the better action films in ages. I have seen other people at other forums, including the brother of my old best friend at RottenTomatoes, who put it in his top ten list even though he saw every film in 2002, just as I did. Best action movie I've seen in years.

Most people found Die Another Day quite enjoyable. Second, where is Jason X, Ya-Ya Sisterhood, Martin Lawrence Live, Fear Dot Com, Deuces Wild, or any of the other AWFUL films? These people have no clue what they are talking about. Nobody can take these opinions seriously when it's obviously a bunch of MORONS who saw exactly 25 movies in 2002 voting on publicized awards. You know, at least the Academy WATCHES the movies upon which they vote. That's more than can be said of these people.

Also, I Spy is not truly a remake or a sequel. Not in the sense that they should be using. Next, Hayden is a LEADING ACTOR you idiots, Natalie is a LEADING ACTRESS. Those are the definitions of the category. NOT Supporting. A supporting actor would be Samuel L. Jackson or Ian McDiarmid certainly. A supporting actress would be one of the handmaidens or something. Natalie is a lead actress, Hayden is a lead actor. Only the retards at the Razzies would not understand such a simple concept. My god.

Next, Death to Smoochy was not that bad, better than it had any right to be, anyway, which was largely because of Williams' performance, same with Norton. Ryder was fine in Mr. Deeds, which was a very good comedy. Jolie was actually GOOD in Life or Something Like It, which has a great premise and only decent execution, leading to a 2.5 star film that was still somewhat entertaining.

Is this just not totally ridiculous that anyone could put a Star Wars film in with stuff like this when 99% of everyone on Earth would agree that AOTC was one of the better 50% of the movies in 2002, at the very least? I mean come on, even for the people who were disappointed, guaranteed they would give the film a solid 2.5 star rating anyway for the effects, the incredible action sequences, and the imaginative nature of the film. Plus, the musical score is unquestionably enjoyable, the production values are high (any such film with high production values really cannot get below two stars unless *everything* else blows), and the time that went into it is obviously apparent. I don't believe there was a critic in the nation who gave the film below two stars. There wouldn't be many, that's for sure, who would put it on their worst list of the year. In fact, most liked it.

Oh well people are stupid I guess you just have to accept that eventually. If they cannot see genius and recognize it, then it's their own problem -- sure won't help if any of them expect to make it into film and think that a $310 million movie is bad. The studios want bad movies that made $310 million (for the record, no bad film has ever been made that grossed $300 million -- it would almost be impossible barring very unusual taste from a particular moviegoer, like a huge bias against Titanic, or a hatred of a kids film like Harry Potter).

[Oriadin]

Ive never liked the awards and I'll never pay to much attention to it. Not worth it.

[ReaperFett]

Remember, they have to include things like EP2, to get publicity.

[CMJ]

I predict 'Crossroads' to sweep.

[Figrin D'an]

Very true, Reaper. There is usually, at the very least, 1 major blockbuster film that gets a lot of Razzie nominations. Just from reading the list of nominations, you can see that it's been turned into a running gag.

There have been films nominated for Razzies before that I enjoyed, and some that I deplored that they neglected to mention. Nothing new this year.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know the Razzies are joke and nobody cares about them, I would just ignore them, they rarely pick the worst movies and I think that is because nobody sees the worst movies they usually end up on cable.

[Sejah Haversh]

Hmm, I thought that Mr. Deeds was great. It was fun, innocent, and dang it, a feel-good comedy with real heart. It doesn't belong on that list, considering it was far better than the original.

And, that list was poorly constructed. I could come up with a better list than that if I had the money and time to go see more than a movie a month in theatres.

[ReaperFett]

Sejah, it is law that no reviewers or critics can like fun films these days :)

[Oriadin]

How true that seems...

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL Reaper, well I think these Razzie guys aren't even going by the movies just going trying to get attention to themselves that is why is a joke the Razzie one day won't even exist because of that reason.

[Marcus Telcontar]

one razzie is right - natalie portman and hayden christensen as worst couple. agreed with that!

[ReaperFett]

In an entire YEAR of films? To quoth Mace, "I don't think so" :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I have seen a lot worse believe me, that movie Crossroads I am sure had a horrible couple.

[ReaperFett]

I'd put Spiderman there simply due to Maguires Gawky looks, but that's me not liking Maguires Gawky perfomance :)

[JonathanLB]

I like the awkward romance between Natalie and Hayden, but it is supposed to be awkward so you can't really appreciate it if you don't expect/realize that.

"Hmm, I thought that Mr. Deeds was great. It was fun, innocent, and dang it, a feel-good comedy with real heart. It doesn't belong on that list, considering it was far better than the original."

Agreed, I bought Mr. Deeds. It was really funny, I laughed pretty hard. I gave it 3.5 stars (oh the blasphemy, and I'm a critic too! I am a traitor to my own group, err, not, haha).

The list is just stupid.

[Sanis Prent]

I didn't much like Portman's performance, but it wasn't agonizing. Aside from that, I love AotC.

Every Razzie should go to The Master of Disguise...the worst movie I have ever seen...ever.

[Admiral Lebron]

WHAT?!?! How can you hate poor little Pistacio??!?! How?!?! Eh... it had its moments.. like the end. Literally, after the credits him and a midget fight. Its great.

[Loki Ahmrah]

I'm suprised "Super Troopers" wasn't on that list. What an atrocity. Most definately the worst film I have ever seen. I refuse to watch "Master of Disguise", no words can describe how much I loathe the look of that movie.

[Jedi Master Carr]

What about Scooby Doo that was horrible I will never watch that film.

[Loki Ahmrah]

I watched that for the first time tonight. I loved it! :lol

[Sanis Prent]

Super Troopers, while mediocre and generally not that great, isn't terrible. It had quite a few funny moments :)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

SCOOBY DOO RULES!

Rule number one: You're not allowed to say you hate a movie unless you've actually seen it. You have to say "I think that I'll hate it if I ever see it."

[JonathanLB]

All of my friends love Super Troopers.

I personally think it is a total piece of crap and hardly funny at all.

The Master of Disguise was among the worst -- no stars to that.

Scooby Doo, ugg.

[ReaperFett]

I saw an interview with the guy btw. Aside from calling EP2 Attack of the Groans, he didn't really mention SW. SUppose if it is voting, you can ge the popular films get bashed.


He did hate Mr Deeds and Pinnochio though :)

[Helenias Evenstar]

I used to get a kick out of the Razzies, but this year, they've gone way too far, as far as I'm concerned. How can AOTC be mentioned in the same breath as putrid fare like The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Swept Away, Crossroads, and Pinnochio????

Easily, I could do the mentioning. I hated AOTC.

[ReaperFett]

And have you seen Pluto Nash/Swept Away/Crossroads/Pinocchio?

[JonathanLB]

Hated AOTC, I find that very hard to believe. It was a fantastic film visually, at the VERY least, but I loved the plot, too.

What are you commenting on a SW forum for anyway? No Star Wars fan hates AOTC. There are a few who were mildly disappointed, but no Star Wars fan "HATES" any of the movies, that's absurd. There's a huge gap between disappointment (as I was disappointed in Signs) and "hate" (like I hated The Sweetest Thing).

[Helenias Evenstar]

What are you commenting on a SW forum for anyway? No Star Wars fan hates AOTC.

What gives you the right to say if I can post here or not?

Here is a first for you then. I am a fan. I hate AOTC. I'm also quite comfortable saying it too and I am quite comfortable in my love for the original movies as well.

[Loki Ahmrah]

Originally posted by Helenias Evenstar
What gives you the right to say if I can post here or not?



Helenias, meet Jonathan. :lol

[Sanis Prent]

ROFL!!!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I saw 2 minutes of Scooby Doo (my nephew was watching it) and I would like those 2 minutes back, so I would never watch the rest of it, it just looked horrible to me. Still Pluto Nash is probably the worst movie of 2002, from the previews and reviews it looks it.

[Sene Unty]

I saw Scooby Doo TWICE, and I would like the 4 hours to be wiped from my memory forever....

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL, I feel for you man, that is why I would never, ever watch it.

[Sene Unty]

I had to both times..

The first because my little brother "had" to go see it and I was forced into taking him.

The second because I worked at a summer camp and it was one of the field trips.

It was agonizing....

[Sanis Prent]

I prefer the 5 minute scooby doo scene from Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back.

[Sene Unty]

:lol

Classic. I would have rather watched that one scene replayed for two hours then to watch the trainwreck that was the actual Scooby Doo movie.

[Matthew Neil]

TO change the subject for a brief moment...


Fugitive Director Nominated

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Fugitive filmmaker Roman Polanski is up for an Oscar, but don't expect to see him on the red carpet.

Nearly 25 years after fleeing Los Angeles for Paris to escape sentencing for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, Polanski received an Academy Award nomination Tuesday for directing the Holocaust survival story "The Pianist."

While the nomination suggests Hollywood is welcoming the 69-year-old filmmaker, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office said Polanski will be arrested if he enters the United States.

"He's a convicted felon and a fugitive, and that's not going to go away," District Attorney spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said. "You don't get a pass for longevity."

Polanski, the director of "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown," was charged with rape and five other felonies in 1977 after having intercourse with the girl at Jack Nicholson's home while the actor was away.

The other charges were dropped when Polanski pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, but the director fled the country in 1978 before being sentenced.

In the mid-1980s, he reportedly reached an out-of-court settlement with his victim, who has said she does not object to his return, in part because she hopes it would lessen public interest in her and the case.

Gibbons said it's up to Polanski and his representatives to work out an arrangement with the court, although she said there have been no recent negotiations.

Previously, she said, Polanski's lawyers have pushed for a sentence involving no long-term incarceration.

"He may want that, but I don't know how he would get it," Gibbons said.

Indeterminate sentencing laws at the time mean he could face between one year and 50 years, she said.

Polanski's representatives did not return calls for comment.

Although he once vowed to resolve the case, Polanski has said in recent years he's unwilling to jeopardize his life with his children and wife, French actress Emmanuelle Seigner.

"I can't think for myself alone anymore. Now I have to consider my family," he said in 1994.

Polanski has three previous Oscar nominations: for adapted screenplay for 1968's "Rosemary's Baby," for directing 1974's "Chinatown," and for directing 1979's "Tess," an adaptation of the Thomas Hardy novel "Tess of the d'Urbervilles," about a young peasant woman whose life collapses after she is seduced by a wealthy older man.

In addition to the Oscar bid, Polanski has a Directors Guild nomination for "The Pianist," based on the true story of a classical musician hiding from Nazis in the ruins of Poland during World War II.

The story echoes elements of Polanski's real life: He escaped from Krakow's Jewish ghetto as a child and lived off the charity of strangers until reuniting with his father years later. His mother died at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Polanski's life was marked by further horror in 1969, when his pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, and four guests were savagely murdered in his home by followers of Charles Manson. Polanski was away on business at the time



I still hope he wins. The film was brilliant.

[Sanis Prent]

Hmm...you'd think that they'd throw out convicted rapists in something like this. Not sure who to be more upset at...Hollywood or France.

[ReaperFett]

I dont think they should remove him. If he is the best director, it should be left there. Most likely he wont win now anyway.

[Admiral Lebron]

Super Troopers had some good moments. Scooby Doo... did not.

[Matthew Neil]

What he did was atrocious but that doesn't erase the fact that he directed an amazing movie. The award is for best director, not best-director-and-all-around-good-character :)

It's like my brother. He's a complete drug addict but he makes these fantastic paintings. You can't base the product on the content of the maker unless the horrid aspects (eg. rape of a minor) are constantly reflected in the work.

But that's just my opinion.

[Sanis Prent]

I see it as Law > privileges. You break the law, you lose privileges. This is why we don't let felons go about freely and do as they please. There's no reason to make a special case here.

[ReaperFett]

How can you declare a best something when you first remove people who, lets remember, havent even been proved guilty yet. People always run, doesnt mean they did it.

[Matthew Neil]

How can you declare a best something when you first remove people who, lets remember, havent even been proved guilty yet

He pleaded guilty :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well he was convicted of statutory rape, the girl did consent to the sex, and in France and other parts of Europe Statutory rape charges don't really exist, so that is why they won't allow extradition. As for the Oscars I think they can give him the award he just can't come here to accept it.

[ReaperFett]

He pleaded guilty
If TV has taught me anything, it's that Lawyers always tell innocent men to plead guilty, and they refuse ;)

[Jubei SaDherat Vader]

pleading guilty or no, he was convicted

privileges go *poof*

[ReaperFett]

But technically, the oscars are a VOTE. He doesnt vote. He gains from anothers descision. I dont see that as a personal privelage.

[Sanis Prent]

its beneficial, and not a guaranteed benefit. Hence, privilege.

[ReaperFett]

And someone lending him $10 is beneficial, but Im sure that wouldnt be frowned upon.

[Marcus Telcontar]

and what is your point? i fail to see it

[Jedi Master Carr]

First off where are the Oscars a privlege??? The Oscars are voted on people and it can go to anybody anywhere so if they want to nominate him they can doesn't matter what kind of person he is.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

It doesn't go to everybody. It is an accolade. Hence, privilege. Do I have to draw a picture, or play charades too?

[ReaperFett]

First off where are the Oscars a privlege??? The Oscars are voted on people and it can go to anybody anywhere so if they want to nominate him they can doesn't matter what kind of person he is.
Bingo.


It doesn't go to everybody. It is an accolade. Hence, privilege. Do I have to draw a picture, or play charades too?

Whatever floats your boat. Still wont agree with you :)

The Oscars are "These people vote on who is the best from the past year". Not "These people vote on who is the best from the past year, after we remove people who have personal problems."


and what is your point? i fail to see it

Here's a better question. What was the point of you even posting this? Why not actually attempt to get into the discussion?

[Matthew Neil]

Adrien Brody should win best actor for his performance in 'The Pianist" as well. Brilliant actor, but been snubbed most of his career.

[ReaperFett]

I want Cage to win more. Just the clip where he is talking about making a proper adaptation of a story about flowers cracked me up :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

So because he was convicted of something the Oscars shouldn't consider him?? It doesn't work that way the academy doesn't discount people who have done things in the past, this is not a election for President.

[Sanis Prent]

The Olympics did worse to Mohammed Ali.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well that is different than the entertainment industry, besides I think it was the American Olympic committee who kept him off, and so its a different situation, realize from one prespective Ali was doing wrong to his country so why should he represent it. Polanski situation is different, sure he did plead guilty but that doesn't matter with the Oscars, because its just a statue and about status in the entertainment industry which means nothing in the rest of the world.

[Sanis Prent]

Well that is different than the entertainment industry

Sports aren't in the entertainment industry? Whoa! Hold the presses!


besides I think it was the American Olympic committee who kept him off, and so its a different situation, realize from one prespective Ali was doing wrong to his country so why should he represent it.

Polanski is doing wrong here, why should he be represented?


Polanski situation is different, sure he did plead guilty but that doesn't matter with the Oscars, because its just a statue and about status in the entertainment industry which means nothing in the rest of the world.

And what is an olympic gold medal then? Just a different shape, really. Prestige in another form of entertainment. It has little value, like the oscar, apart from whatever you can pawn one off for.

So, exactly where are you making your point about these instances being different? They sound awfully similar to me.

[ReaperFett]

As an aside, this means Spielberg wanted him for Schindlers List AFTER the conviction, right?



Also btw, the woman he raped now says he should be allowed to enter the US without rest. That seems a little...odd to me.

[JonathanLB]

The Polanski discussion is interesting, but I totally disagree with some comments being made.

It IS about Best Director. It isn't titled anything else here. There are no restrictions besides the rules that govern when the movie was made, that the movie play in the United States, specifically in California, for at least seven consecutive days at a commercial theater, etc.

It is purely about the style of craft, the work that went into it, etc, as perceived by the Academy. Not anything to do with the character of the person.

I think statutory rape is just the most idiotic law around. No wait, there are too many other bad ones.

Rape needs to be very closely defined so that it cannot ever be exploited. It shouldn't be one person's word versus another. It should involve facts, like anything else. If Jane says that Joe raped her, but nobody else has any proof, nobody saw it, and there are no visible marks and no physical evidence, then for ALL intents and purposes, it never happened. Jane needs to be more careful with where she goes, who she sees, and maybe should learn self defense or carry a weapon. Otherwise, I have no other advice. It's not ok for courts to say, "Oh let's see, umm, well we really have zero evidence here at all, I mean Jane appears to be fine, there really is no evidence of a struggle, but Joe, he looks like kind of a rough dude, sure he has no criminal record besides 3 unpaid parking tickets, but he's a guy, she's a girl, she must be right and he should be put in jail to keep society safe." WRONG. You can't prove it, then it doesn't exist. Every crime conviction should be based on the facts, otherwise that's how you get all of these wrongful murder convictions (like about 15% of the people on the Illinois death row being innocent, so now it was cleared).

This whole, "Uh oh, wow well now we did some DNA testing and it seems that Bo here was innocent after all. I guess we really shouldn't have believed those two testimonies, considering that they were from two old ladies 200 feet away with 20/80 vision and it was pitch black out except for two store lights. IT SEEMED TO CONCRETE!!! How could we have been wrong?! Oh well better let Bo go." Ugg, what a great justice system we have.

It's a greater evil to punish wrongfully than to let a killer go free, there is no question about that to any moral person. "INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY."

As for the rape thing, it's poorly defined. I could rewrite the laws in 5 minutes and fix the problems, but these people are simply stupid and/or lazy.

Alright, here is what it should be:

It is unlawful for a 21 year old man/woman or older to have sex with a girl/guy less than 16 years old.

There. Problem solved. Excuse me that took 14 seconds, not 5 minutes.

Currently, if the age of consent is 18 as it is in Oregon (which is ridiculous, oh yeah I am sure a 17-year-old who is doing calculus doesn't know better, jesus christ), then if a guy who was 17 was dating a girl who was also 17, and they were "doing it," then the guy turned 18 and the girl was still 17, he would be engaged in an unlawful relationship. That really makes a lot of sense, I mean yeah, we absolutely need the government telling people what to do in matters like that. Great law, makes total sense, I mean you know what a huge difference a two week age difference makes, for instance! You never know what someone could learn in two weeks :rolleyes

I have talked to girls before (normally online) who said they had before been involved with guys who were 21 or 22 when they were just 16. Personally I think if I was 21 or 22 (got a year or two to go) and picked up on a 16-year-old, my self-esteem would go from a 2 out of 10 to a 0 out of 10. LOL, that would have to be the most embarrassing thing. However, I'd date a 22-year-old girl when I am 30 without thinking twice about it. In fact, there is little chance that if I was single at 30 I would honestly be looking for girls my age. No way. I'd be more interested in just-out-of-college chicks. My dad is ten years older than my mom, so it's not exactly uncommon.

I suspect the reason the girls like the older guys must come down to the stereotypes that people PRETEND are not true (but of course, most stereotypes are rooted in fact, even if they are not true in every case; sports car drivers DO drive faster, lol). Girls like guys with power, money, and fame. If a girl is 20, she is not going to find those things in guys her age, let's face it. But a guy who is 26 or 27 might very well have a high paying job, a nice car, and some status if he is, for instance, a high tech employee or an engineer or something like that. Now compared to the other guys who are 20, this guy is just in another league entirely.

We had this girl in our high school class, Claire, who went to LMU with me actually and she was dating some dude who was 28, while she was in high school, I kid you not. She told his parents she was 22, he told her parents he was 21 or something, LOL. Ultimately I don't care, it's their decision, she was plenty old enough to decide that for herself.

It's idiotic and naive to think that a 16-year-old girl doesn't know if she's going to be taken advantage of, but that a 27-year-old girl will know. That's really not true. Anyone can be taken unfair advantage of, that is just human nature. I have been used enough times because I am smart that I should know better, right? Wrong. I try to remain uncynical when possible and don't assume immediately that I am being used, I try to "assume the best" and that ends up producing the same results often times. That is just how people are, so the idea that only when you turn 18 would you know better is just silly.

But in any case, 13?! Come on Polanski... lol.

Also though, a person's entire body (every cell in it) changes every 7 years, so you are literally not the same person you were a decade ago. You are ENTIRELY different physically, even if you seem to look somewhat the same, even if you feel you are the same person (you are still Jonathan Bowen, or John Doe, or whatever). So something he did 25 years ago, I mean come on, there should be a time limit on something of this nature. Not murder, though, or terrorism, or something like that. But just doing it with a minor, well, he did something really stupid (if he did it as you all say he admitted), but he is likely a totally different person.

Hell three short years ago, maybe four years ago, I thought that old movies were less desirable than new ones. Now I am depressed and saddened by the fact that most people my age have such poor appreciation of these great classics (in my film screening tonight someone thought Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, which we saw, was the worst movie they have ever seen -- WHAT the hell is the matter with this person?! That movie is great! But I'm sure this is a person who thought Not Another Teen Movie was a modern masterpiece). Six months ago I might have supported war on Iraq. Now I just don't see the point really. I'm not really that against it anymore either, I just want it to be over with one way or another so we can move on and stop hearing about it and having it kill the economy.

People change a lot in 2 years, let alone 25. I still think Chinatown and The Pianist are really good movies (Chinatown is unquestionably one of the greatest film noirs of all time, though these two we saw tonight, Out of the Past and Touch of Evil, I thought were just incredible; especially the first, actually, which may have one of the 25 best scripts I have ever seen).

[CMJ]

The fact that the victim of the rape has really never held a grudge against Polanski I believe speaks volumes. I don't condone what he did, and he is still a fugitive of the law, but this is about the work. Not his personal life.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

You're also probably the type that thought Clinton's perjury wasn't a big deal, either :rolleyes

[Jedi Master Carr]

I actually didn't the whole thing shouldn't have come up, it was nonsense, Clinton wasn't the first president to be sleeping around in the White house, JFK did more of that than any other president in the last 50 years and it never came up for him. But that is all past, and Polanski is a different matter he was convicted, still as Reaper said there is no restrictions on the Oscars, it doesn't say that you can't be convicted of a crime, they theoritically could give an award to somebody in jail convicted of murder, so that is really my point. And I stand by that Ali was different, he was playing for his country, Polanski is doing anything for his country, its two different things.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

If you say so :rolleyes. Apologists are a dime a dozen.

And if the Clinton issue were over him "sleeping around", then that would be one thing. The "issue" is that he lied under sworn oath. They could've asked if he'd farted, much less committed adultery. But as commander in chief, if you put that right hand on the bible, and it goes on record, you'd better be damn sure you're truthful.

[CMJ]

I did NOT apologize for Clinton(I didn't vote for him in '96). On the other hand I felt the Republicans kind of backed him into a corner with the Lewinsky affair.

I felt both sides were in the wrong. It's probably one of the reasons I usually vote for Independent or 3rd party candidates now(and I always vote). It's my little form of protest.

[Sanis Prent]

Throwing away your vote? :p

[CMJ]

Don't give me that crap. :p

[Sanis Prent]

Hell, in my past voting career, I've voted for socialist and green candidates before. I know all about wadding up my ballot and lighting it on fire. Its the "hip" thing to do, I guess.

Fortunately, I'm getting my head screwed squarely on top of my shoulders in my old age. Most people are worried that professors at college will turn students into political radicals. It took coming to college for me to shed my domestic-left attitudes and lo and behold, I find myself thinking Republican more and more each day. Funny, that irony.

[CMJ]

I'm pretty dead center in the political spectrum. About half the issues I agree with the left, and the other half I'm about as far the right as you can get.

To say I'm usually frustrated by the 2 parties is an understatement.

[Sanis Prent]

I am constantly trying to figure out who I can't stand more....the far left, or the far right. I'd guess I hate the far right more, even though I consider myself a moderate right currently (strong conservative worldview, slightly left domestically) The Far Left at least have the bandwagon effect to blame for their proliferation. The Far Right...ugh...just seem to live under rocks or something. While I consider Far Leftists to be trendy sheep, I just completely scratch my head in confusion at Ultra-Conservatives, and wonder how on earth they can think the way they do. I am a frequent caller on a local conservative political talk show, if only to keep some of these idiots from hurting themselves.

[CMJ]

I'd say the Ultra Right-Wingers get my vote too. At least with major liberals you can say they have some heart(WAY too much) with all their social programs they think should be funded. Give power to the little man, down with the rich, all that Populist nonsense.

The whacko Right Wingers just scare me. I'm reminded of Hitler's rise to power when folks like Falwell speak..

Winston Churchill(one of the all time greats IMHO) said something akin to...

Show me a man under 25 who isn't a liberal and I'll show you a man with no heart. Sheow me a man over 40 who isn't a consevrative and I'll show you a man with no brain.

I don't totally agree with the statement, but man it's great stuff. :)

[Sanis Prent]

Yeah, I used to be a major MAJOR outspoken proponent of wealth management intervention (ie. salary caps). I considered that there are a great many excesses that to laymen seem vastly blown out of proportion, such as professional entertainer salaries, Bill Gates' salary, etc. Combine that with a pinch of basic economics and wealth management, and I figured that with a cap of 2 million a year (frugal wealth management and investing will allow a person to live their entire life off a lump sum of that amount) people would be able to still be well off, but not make ridiculous amounts of cash that could be better used elsewhere.

Yeah I thought that for a long time. Then I got my head out of the clouds, and figured that Famous Guy A makes all that fat cash because a certain number of people that I don't agree with value his/her work or talent at a grossly exaggerated amount. So once you realize that its your own damn fault for these people making what they make, it kinda deflates that socialist way of thinking. An ounce of self responsibility saves a pound of government headache :)