Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

clark · 2006-01-13 06:21:30

NewMars has known its share of racists and bigots. Just add one more asshole to the john... [sigh]

Very well, if you can't beat em, agree with em!

I agree with Riz4rocket. He is right. Mexicans ARE the problem. F-ing muts. F-ing culutral orphans selling their babies to us better than them WASPS. I'm mean, no, I don't wanna buy your f-ing 'chickle' you theiving little brown skinned bastard. Isn't it enough that we f-ing look the other way to let their sorry asses into our country for the privelage, the PRIVELAGE, of picking our god damned fruit. Little ungrateful sons of bitches that they are then expect to be recognized. F-ck that and the burro they rode in on.

We may have lost the Alamo, but those degenerates, cause we all know that they are nothing but whores, thieves, and drunks, lost the f-ing western united states. Lets just finish the f-ing job and annex the whole sorry lot of 'em. We don't even need to recognize them as citizens or anything after we do. Just make it some kind of protectorate and round them all up into camps. We can sell off their national resources for our own benefit and they will get the privelage of standing in line to wipe our regal asses with their new approved US visa's.

After all, we need to get to Mars, and we sure as hell won't get there as long as the f-ing Mexicans are f-ing about, just doing nothing but picking fruit and making babies. I mean come on, if we are not careful, those little brown skinned bastards will bleed us dry, cause as we all know, the amount of funding given to NASA is inversley proprotional to the number of illegal Mexican immigrants flowing into this country.

Is it any coincedence that as more illegals from Mexico flood this great shining beacon of liberty and freedom and opportunity that funding for NASA has decreased?! I think not. Riz4rocket has shown us the way!

Lead us to the promised land Riz4rocket! Show us the true path! F-ck Mexico and the Mexicans! On to Mars!

Palomar · 2006-01-13 07:16:08

What we're seeing from Mexico is ultimately just another economically driven mass migration.
Sure you say that HERE. Try and say it at work, to your hispanic-american supervisor.

*I've had Hispanic supervisors. In 8 years' time of working in offices in this area I had 4 Hispanic female bosses and 6 white female bosses (2 of whom were junior supervisors). All of the Hispanic supervisors were generally fair, gracious, humane and reasonable. Of the white bosses? Only 2 were good supervisors; the remainder were very unpleasant and I wouldn't care to work under them again. However, just being fair all the way around, in my home state (Midwest) most of my supervisors were white and they were generally nice, fair, etc. There's a regional difference here, however, and Hispanic supervisors have, in this region, proven more pleasant to work with.

NewMars has known its share of racists and bigots.

Got a chip on your shoulder?

I disagree. Most people who've posted here for any length of time are rather reasonable, inclusive and accepting of others.

--Cindy

P.S.: And RIZ4ROCKET, I think your point of focus is "off." There are plenty of societal issues in this nation, one of which is all the methamphetamine use/abuse in the (predominantly white) Midwest. Yes, the Midwest: Formerly comprised of "salt of the Earth" type of people who were America's "Heartland" (strong family ties, good work ethic, generally honest and generous), now self-destructing in their crack-cocaine labs. It's a scourge which is forcing the building of yet more prisons, is putting a strain on public healthcare, families are being torn apart, etc.

Then there's the AIDS epidemic.

Yes, we just might not get to Mars...considering how "happily" the human race seems intent on destroying itself.

Cobra Commander · 2006-01-13 08:22:38

What does Mexico have to with Mars? The short answer is next to nothing.

I have no problem with Mexicans, if someone wants to abandon the country they've known to become an American I'm glad to have 'em here.

But not not everyone that comes in wants to become an American. Immigrants and colonists aren't the same thing.

Further, not everyone crossing the border is a poor Mexican worker looking for a better life. Drug smugglers, violent criminals and all sorts of dangerous undesireables come in. We can't secure the border at present and however one may want to cloud the issue with allegations of racism, that's a real problem.

See, this is a complex issue with many facets. People that say "we should close the border and end all immigration" are ignorant extremists, just as people that decry every effort to control who comes in as bigotry are equally ignorant and extreme. Now we can debate all day about whether we're better off leaving it alone, working harder to assimilate illegals, learning Spanish ouselves, putting up a wall or annexing the whole country to save them the Northward journey but in the end there are real issues in play that can't be dismissed as racism.

In this case RIZ's comments indicate some degree of anti-Mexican prejudice. Clark's comments carry an ignorant bigotry all their own. Neither of you are making much sense.

clark · 2006-01-13 08:25:52

Got a chip on your shoulder?

Yeah, sure. That's it. It's all about race. I'm the overly sensitive. It couldn't actually be that the guy is a moron, could it? Noooooo, that might make sense. Can't have that, now can we? But continue to prattle on you silly little woman.

I disagree. Most people who've posted here for any length of time are rather reasonable, inclusive and accepting of others.

You disagree?! OH. MY. GOD. Why am I not surprised? Why in the hell am I being lectured about "reasonable, inclusive, and accepting" by a person who persistently tries to ban me, has god only knows how many users on the ignore list, and is the first to offer her opinion on -everything- and then get bent out of shape when others have a different point of view.

Palomar · 2006-01-13 08:44:51

What does Mexico have to with Mars? The short answer is next to nothing.
I have no problem with Mexicans, if someone wants to abandon the country they've known to become an American I'm glad to have 'em here.

*Yep.

In this case RIZ's comments indicate some degree of anti-Mexican prejudice. Clark's comments carry an ignorant bigotry all their own. Neither of you are making much sense.

That's for sure.

--Cindy

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-13 09:27:17

Boy, for all the time you folks spend posting on this forum...

I was intimidated a bit when pasted with the label "New Village Idiot" and was concerned that I had unknowingly stumbled into a hotbed of brilliant rocket scientists.

Obviously, not the case.

Again, for the slower students (like Clark), my second point (after the one where Bush used a moment of great stress and fear of the American People to persuade them to support the War in Iraq by adopting a pose that was remeniscent of John F. Kennedy and thereby divide possible Liberal Opposition to the War by offering a false promise to travel to Mars) was the (Internet) article I read where a (supposedly) pro-space advocate created unecessary and completely counterproductive linkage between the social obligation of "Social (Welfare) Programs" and the even greater obligation of peforming (what I can only think of describing as) "inspirational human activity".

Something more inspirational than the Detriot Pistons recent victory over the Spurs, and something more inspirational than the slack-jawed "spiritual" instpiration foisted upon us by the Catholic Church.

Some of us are not satisfied with the answer to the question of "What's it all about. I mean, what's it REALLY all about ?" being "It's about being a good person and avoiding Hell and going into Heaven."

For some of us it's about crossing the room without some disgruntled jackass trying to tell us the presice manner in which to make our crossing, and the maximum size of the increments we need to do it.

Some of us just want to that while we were alive and on the planet, Humanity moved "forward" toward a great and common goal.

Like Mars.

But if "pro-space" advocates are going to politically poison the possiblity of space exploration by creating a cultural expectation that we can only explore space AFTER we have fulfilled all of out OTHER "social" obligations such as "housing people, living in the street and shoeing children, with no shoes on their feet" well hell I say let's REALLY solve the problem instead of slapping economic band-aids on it until we all go to Suffering-Jesus Heaven.

SO, I identify a group of people that TRULY need what most idiots think of when they think of "Social Programs" (the Mexican-Americans) and I come up with the obvious solution to solve their problem PERMANENTYLY.

Invade Mexico. As simple as that.

You think that's racist ? Well Hell, you thought it was a good idea when George Bush did it. Iraq has oppressed brown people that arent' being taken care of by their government, and are causing international problems as a consequence ?

Well Hell, so does MEXICO, and they live RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

And if one of the "secondary benefits" of the invasion of Iraq is a decrease in the lieklyhood that large buildings of inferior construction and design (a natural consequence of Republican Deregulation) will be knocked down by hijacked airplanes (another natural consequence of Republican Deregulation) then think of the Secondary Benefits of being able to control BOTH SIDES of the Mexican American border.

And I'll say it again. Mexicans LOVE US, and would be much-more likely to welcome invading columns of M1 Abrams tanks as Liberators than would the Iraqis.

Also, like Iraq, Mexico has Oil. (Most Americans do not know this.)

And I really enjoyed the allegations of "racism" after I

1. Planted the seed by using the word (which proves my point about the consequences of the Social Spending - Space Exploration linkage), and

2. Already proved the point that one cannot be "racist" toward a people that are a mixture of (at least) 3 races. Bigoted, maybe. But then most retards (like clark) use the word bigoted (or racist) to mean "I don't like this person's beliefs about a certain people, and so not only do I not like this person, you shouldn't either."

(It's true; think about it. That's what it really means. Admit it.)

Hay I just want to get to Mars. And I'm willing to SAVE the Mexican people in order to do it. This is an acceptable strategy to accomplish the goal; my President said so. And he has spent the lives of over 2000 American Warriors in order to accomplish the goal of going to Mars. I just want to help, and do my part.

BWhite · 2006-01-13 09:31:28

Ya' gotta love the internet. 8)

clark · 2006-01-13 09:54:28

Well, it was bound to happen- what do you get when you mix BWhite and Cobra Commander togehter?

A liberal facist.

"We are empowering them for their own good!"

C.C., BWhite- greet your prodigy.

BWhite · 2006-01-13 11:28:07

Cobra White is an awesome name for toothpaste.

As RIZ4 now demonstrates, a while back NewMars did have this golden age, an age of spirited intelligent discussion. But clark is right. "It was bound to happen"

= = =

Remember, neo-cons began life as liberals not conservatives. Reading RIZ4 reveals the mechanism of their transformation.

Palomar · 2006-01-13 11:58:25

a while back NewMars did have this golden age, an age of spirited intelligent discussion. But clark is right. "It was bound to happen"

*Yep, he was right: Filling enough posts with ad homien attacks, cursing rampages and trollish tantrums (all those things everyone agreed NOT to do when originally registering at this forum...remember the little "I Agree" [etiquette] box we all had to check?) likely will kill off spirited intelligent discussion. Perhaps that was the desired result?

"It was bound to happen"

Yeah, I guess it was a sad sort of self-fulfilling prophecy/desire projected upon the forum.

--Cindy

reddragon · 2006-01-13 15:49:29

Invading Mexico, besides being wrong by almost any halfway decent moral code, would not get us farther towards space. It would put us back. Mexico certainly has a lot of problems, but I doubt we could solve them, at least not overnight. It would take decades during which our money would all be going south not up. It would create a culturally and economically divided nation. We would no longer have a common national language, and I doubt old Americans and newly annexed Mexicans would feel like members of the same country. There is no money saved in this scheme, and no Mars colony built.

Not that it's of much importance, but when I earlier refrenced Zeno's paradox I was actually thinking of another very similar one involving a soldier running incrementally from an arrow, and my only point was that infinite division isn't really infinite.

Grypd · 2006-01-13 16:47:14

My thoughts where that the averadge Mexican is portrayed as not trusting its superpowerful neighbour. I honestly thought they had real suspicion of the Yankees. They also want the American dream which sort of explains why so many risk there lives just to cross the border to get jobs. They want to be you.

Mexico like most central american countries have a lot of issues but at least they are trying to be democratic and progressive which is more than can be said for the likes of China or the USA's allies in the middle east. If anything it is the USA's dominance of the americas that is increasing this opinion look at Chile or Venezuela for the USA's problems not Mexico.

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-13 20:38:21

It bothers me a lot when I read people posting comments about how "bad" trolls are.

Has amyone (but me) every put any effort into deconstructing & thinking-through exactly WHY trolls are so "bad".

Every "serious" forum you go to (practically) you find prohibitions on trolling. Yet no one bothers to explain exactly why trolling is "bad".

*I* think trolling is "bad" for a couple of reasons. First, it excludes the stupid from sharing a common awareness by elevating the discourse to a transcendent level.

(You didn't really think "Dune" was about "Arakkis" and the "Bene Gesserit", did you ?)

Second, it provides opportunity to trap the "socially well-positioned" into exposing the true nature of their stupidity by baiting them into falling for the "troll". (Wouldn't want to do THAT in an endeavor that relies on society's "Best and Brightest". Better to find out who the idiots are by counting the number of dead astronauts they create.)

Finally, it the exclusive nature of the dialogue provides opportunity to mock the excluded, much in the same way that spanish-speakers make fun of those that do not speak espanol, while standing right in front of them.

People do not like to be made fun of, or to be excluded, or to feel as though they are being excluded and made fun of. And they do not like to feel like they are stupid either, which is why clark can say anything he likes, and everyone else has to follow the rules as best we can.

Except our President. He can lie, torture and wiretap all he likes, for the good of the country, the american people and in the name of Freedom. But it's wrong to assume that he is a role-model and do like he do. At the very least, THAT mistake might get you wire-tapped.

Or even tortured.

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-13 21:06:48

To Recap:

People do not like to be made fun of, or to be excluded, or to feel as though they are being excluded and made fun of. And they do not like to feel like they are stupid either, which is why clark can say anything he likes, and everyone else has to follow the rules as best we can.

clark goes around and calls people "doo-doo head". People that are too thin-skinned to be called "doo-doo head" (by another doo-doo head, who should know what one looks like) are obviously too fragile to learn anything , so they leave.

+1

going around calling people "doo-doo head" lowers the level of discourse so that nOObs that lack the ability to express anything other than "Oh YEAH ? Well you're a DOO-DOO HEAD TOO !!!" will feel comfortable immediately, which is the first step toward learning.

+2

John Creighton · 2006-01-13 21:57:24

But that is all beside the point since you completely miss the point of the whole premise of, “a journey begins with the first step.”

So, where does the first step begin? What real number is after zero?

”If a tree falls in the forest and only talking tree’s here it does it make a sound”, Peter Griffin

If at the end of time only the village idiot is left is he still the village idiot?

John Creighton · 2006-01-13 22:28:22

Anyone read the lamp paradox from the link the original poster provided? For my answer, I will appeal to quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle states that the product of the uncertainty in energy times the uncertainty in time is constant. Consequently, if you new exactly when the lamp switched from on to off you would not know the energy of the light in the lamp and hence the lamp would not really be on or off until you observe it.

However, if the laws of physics were such that the uncertainty principle didn’t aply then it is apparent how to construct sequences of events that have nothing to do with the future. But really cause and effect are just ideas that help make us comfortable about the world. Because we never have perfect knowledge about the present the linkage between how current events effect the future grows ever fainter with time. Thus the answer to the lamp question is really simple.

The answer is: the process by which the lamp changes states is not sufficiently well defined to determine the future state of the lamp, just like our observations about the weather today are not sufficient enough to determine if Tokyo will have rain march first at 10 AM in the year 2010.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-13 22:48:37

RIZ4ROCKET

But if "pro-space" advocates are going to politically poison the possibility of space exploration by creating a cultural expectation that we can only explore space AFTER we have fulfilled all of out OTHER "social" obligations such as "housing people, living in the street and shoeing children, with no shoes on their feet" well hell I say let's REALLY solve the problem instead of slapping economic band-aids on it until we all go to Suffering-Jesus Heaven.

This is where your whole thesis goes out the window. There isn't one pro-space person on this forum who would ever say "social programs take absolute precedence to manned space exploration." Even clark, one who isn't known for his space fanaticism, would say that societal programs can be addressed in parallel with manned exploration.

So you're really preaching to the wrong group.

But what's funny here is that you act like invading Mexico (or any nation for that matter) solves any space related problem whatsoever. I mean, as if it's some sort of realistic proposal.

We're spending upwards of half a trillion dollars in Iraq. Half a trillion dollars that would not go toward anything space related (all Iraq offers is oil, and last I checked, space ships didn't run very good off of petrol; then again, there are those Russian diesel-run space ships, but that's beside the point). An invasion of Mexico, which is completely impossible from a political standpoint (remember, this is really just hilarious stuff you're proposing here) would cost potentially more, given that Mexico has a much bigger population (about 4 times that of Iraq), and that it offers very little natural resources which we could eventually use to pay off the restructuring. Plus, that doesn't change the fact that once Mexico became a Latino Canada, that there would still be quite a few other Latin Americans who would immigrate into it (the 'problems' related to immigration do not disappear). See, a common axiom in this world is that the poorest people want to go to the richer countries. We ought to be happy that Mexico offers a buffer between us and the even poorer countries, like Guatemala, which I recently read is essentially, completely, run by drug lords.

So what you're really proposing is wasting more money, when the budgets we currently have are more than enough. The problem is that we're spending the money mindlessly, the ISS, and Space Shuttle, need to be completely ended tomorrow. What you would have is we invade Mexico (which again is just a ridiculous scenario), and somehow magically that would give us the funds to go to Mars. When one country takes its resources and spreads out to conquer more territory, it doesn't result in a net gain for that country, consider the European Union, where many countries who joined up with the poorer ones (see: the debacle between the EU and Turkey) wind up with the losing hand of the deal.

Of course, that is to assume anything you say is even serious, because I find it hard to believe any rationally thinking human being could possibly believe that invading countries helps the space program in any way. In the near term, that is. After all, you started this thread talking about going to Mars "NOW."

It bothers me a lot when I read people posting comments about how "bad" trolls are.

Hmm, I didn't notice the comment, but the mere fact that almost all of my moderators have responded to your thread with glib remarks makes me laugh a little. Most of my moderators themselves have trolled once and again (thus they can easily spot trolls).

Every "serious" forum you go to (practically) you find prohibitions on trolling. Yet no one bothers to explain exactly why trolling is "bad".

The rules here are what I say they are, trolls are generally handled by being ignored (if you were misbehaving too much I'm sure one of my moderators would handle you). Every once in awhile a troll will come along and get some serious responses, but generally the people here aren't stupid enough to fall for the real ones. The trolls that are so obviously trolls that no one can possibly take them seriously.

clark · 2006-01-17 06:50:39

Oh I don't know Josh, I'm pretty pro-space. However, I'm not a died-in-the-wool Mars-fanatic.

What *I* like about Mars though is that it provides a target. It is also an endless canvas on which to project all sorts of idle musings. It is magical!

Of course, as soon as a person sets foot on Mars, the magic will be gone. With every probe launched, with every telescope aimed, with every piece of data- Mars is whittled away.

Where are the canals flowing with emerald wine? Where are the dying kingdoms hiding beneath the surface? All the endless possibilities that is the siren call will vanish. That's what this is, a love for a Mars that never is.

So I look beyond the pale pull of light. I look at the glimmer of the day after.

After all, once you have arrived at your destination, what do you do then?

Space exploration should not be about any particular destination over another. It should not be about places, but about journies. That is space exploration. That is a space faring civilization.

The people that learn this lesson will inherit the stars.

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-17 14:19:54

Quote:
It bothers me a lot when I read people posting comments about how "bad" trolls are.

Hmm, I didn't notice the comment, but the mere fact that almost all of my moderators have responded to your thread with glib remarks makes me laugh a little. Most of my moderators themselves have trolled once and again (thus they can easily spot trolls).
Quote:
Every "serious" forum you go to (practically) you find prohibitions on trolling. Yet no one bothers to explain exactly why trolling is "bad".

The rules here are what I say they are, trolls are generally handled by being ignored (if you were misbehaving too much I'm sure one of my moderators would handle you). Every once in awhile a troll will come along and get some serious responses, but generally the people here aren't stupid enough to fall for the real ones. The trolls that are so obviously trolls that no one can possibly take them seriously.

Most Mods & Admins on most sites I have posted on would have either given me the boot or initiated some "disciplinary" measure by now. Which I have always believed said more about them than it did about me and what I had written. This forum stands in contrast to them, and it is for this reason that I post my observations here.

So my comments should be taken in a broader context. I meant to describe most people in general, rather than saying anything specific about anyone here. Regarding the subject of "trolling", that is.

It appears you folks are smarter than most (except for clark, of course), and I was theorizing that that may be the reason why the proposition of invading Mexico as a means of acquiring (preserving, really) the resources to make the trip to Mars wasn't dealt with by immediate thread closing or deletion.

"Trollling" as I understand it, is a completely subjective decision. My goal (on other forums) has been to push as far as I can within the subjective "radars" so as to ascertain their limit (and therby their awareness). During this "journey" (you listening, clark?), I have learned trolling is not "either/or", and there is much to be learned between the shades of grey.

Obviously the proposition "I think parents should be allowed to have sex with their minor children." is an obvious "troll" and should be dealt with for the good of the forum community. But then, what if your President were about making this notion a part of National Policy ?

It was the accusations of stupidity that caused me to attempt to stand in the shoes of the accuser and "walk a mile in their Dr. Scholl's" that brought me to the question of "What must they think of me, and why?".

Obviously, proposing the invasion of Mexico may seem extreme. But while you are dwelling upon the certainty of that conclusion and the ridiculous nature of it's proposal, please devote a few moments reflecting upon how reasonable the act actually was (and still is) when perpetrated upon the country of Iraq, with much the same justifications.

And not by some Liberal Facist, bomb-throwing and self-detonating Mars-Kook with a hard-on for space travel.

But your President of the Free World.

YOU KNOW, - the one that was elected by the same Republican Party that made a National Issue with a President that asked what the definition of the word "is" was, and how it related to Oval Office fellatio, but waives a "pass" at a President that ignores the definition of the word "torture" and how it relates to the Geneva Convention.

Not only is Big Brother watching; he also has a 12-volt car battery, and some jumper cables for your testicles.

Rxke · 2006-01-17 16:46:04

What *I* like about Mars though is that it provides a target. It is also an endless canvas on which to project all sorts of idle musings. It is magical!
Of course, as soon as a person sets foot on Mars, the magic will be gone. With every probe launched, with every telescope aimed, with every piece of data- Mars is whittled away.

Oh, I don't know. It's all in the myth-making.

Look at America. The whole world wants to be there, even a large percentage of the European population see it as the Magical Land. I still see a fair amount of people walking around with the American Stars 'n Stripes on their pull-overs, not to mention the countles baseballcaps, Uni T-shirs etc...

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-17 21:46:07

I wish that someone would make a movie about Terrorism. Not a REAL movie, like the one in which Nicholas Berg played a starring role (and didn't win an Oscar, despite the fact that it was the performance of a lifetime. :cry: ) but a fake, made-in-Hollywood mega-selling block-buster that get's illegally downloaded and distributed through-out the planet.

In THIS movie about Terrorism, it would tell the story about how REAL Terrorists would go about the business of actually terrorizing us inhabitants of the Great American Satan, instead of the cheap and lackluster special effects we were handed at the World Trade Center.

C'mon admit it. It was cheap. Flashy and dramatic, but so what. Did it inspire any REAL TERROR ?

It bothers me that they are called "terrorists", when all they really do is make us a little nervous. Maybe they should be called "nervousists", or "apprehensivists".

"Worriedists" ?

Admit it. I wasn't "terrified" and neither were you. And if we were worried, well we're not anymore. So now that we're safe lets start telling the truth about how effective these "terrorists" actually are at what they do.

An aside: Why do we have to lose Constitutional Protections in order to safeguard Freedom ? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

-And-

What happened to all these Republican Chickenhawks with "Those that will sacrifice freedom for security will lose both and deserve neither" on the bumberstickers on the backs of their Ford F-150's ?

Maybe they are trying to pry their penises from their own cold, dead hands.

But I digress. The movie.

Y'see the movie is about The Average American Idiot. Who could be played by anyone. clark even. But the thing about this Idiot is that he REALLY BELIEVES THINGS, stupid as he is.

He's the kind of guy that would blow-up abortion clinics and kill doctors if he bleieved that abortion is murder.

But he doesn't.

And he's the kind of guy that would climb-up out of his 2-man fighting hole and close-with and engage the enemy, if his country called upon him to do it.

But it doesn't.

All his country asks him to do is sit back and let the professionals do their job.

But, (here's the dramatic segue back into the past) 30 years ago our protagonist was given a LIBERAL education. Not a LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION as many retarded chickenhawks might suppose; but that is to say that he was Educated LIBERALLY, as in GENEROUSLY.

And he believes, like Rush Limbaugh, that Words Mean Things.

So in his twisted mind he decides that if he can't influence the Government to tell the truth about the lack of TERROR he isn't feeling, the least he can do is prove his point by demonstrating what our society might look like if someone really decided to TERRORIZE it.

So he writes a movie about it.

Now I can't decide if we do the movie from the (real) terrorists perspective, or from the Federal Agents that are chasing them. Maybe both, and we let the audience decide for themselves who the protagonists and antagonists are.

It's the HOW that I think would sell well.

HOW is buy adopting the notion that we are all connected by a certain number of degrees of separation. AND we are an open democracy. So it follows that it should not be difficult to "sell" the notion (within the context of the movie) that anyone close to power (say one degree away) might be an ideal "target". Not only for murder (it's what terrorists DO) but also to create terror.

And not the fake & plastic terror of watching People You Don't Know or Care About being loaded into EMS vehicles with missing limbs, but the REAL terror of wondering if maybe YOU might be a target because you are driving around with a "Joe Dumbass for State Representative" bumber sticker on your SUV.

I have a vision of this very special scene. Kind of done in the "Jurasic Park" sense; the one with the "Objects in Mirror are Closer than they Appear". This scene has a shot of a Soccer Mom with an SUV full of kiddos being blown-up as it leaves the school parking lot. The detonation of the bomb causes the flaming wreckage to land upside down and (while the limbs from the children that used to be inside fall down like rain) the SUV slowly turns on it's roof to reveal the (now dead) Soccer-Mom's bumpersticker:

"Imagine Whirled Peas"

Anyways, I have a lot more ideas and am looking for a screenwriter, if anyone knows one.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-18 06:20:58

I wish that someone would make a movie about Terrorism. Not a REAL movie, like the one in which Nicholas Berg played a starring role (and didn't win an Oscar, despite the fact that it was the performance of a lifetime. ) but a fake, made-in-Hollywood mega-selling block-buster that get's illegally downloaded and distributed through-out the planet.
In THIS movie about Terrorism, it would tell the story about how REAL Terrorists would go about the business of actually terrorizing us inhabitants of the Great American Satan, instead of the cheap and lackluster special effects we were handed at the World Trade Center.

Unfortunately we have this and it is in the form we call our daily news. Just turn on the TV for cnn or msnbc and watch the current events. Just recently a young woman that has been there for a while in Iraq covering the news has been captured in the bad section of Bagdad. Here plea for mercy and the freedom of Iraq women in prison just aired. Looking into the crystal ball of the not to far off, she most likely will be next seen in footage being beheaded. This is how they think they are able to get a voice to cause Americans to leave....

clark · 2006-01-18 07:02:32

A dim-wit and a half-wit match wits a whit with wit, you twit.

Bait me. I'm a self avowed idiot. Ask anyone. I take pride in my profound and deep stupidity. I am a moron. A retard. A mental midget. I am ignorant. I am short sighted. I am unwise. I am a child with severe learning disabilities. No, scratch that last one, I'm an adult with severe emotional damage and a tendency towards intellectual regression. I am educationally shallow. I am naive. I am always wrong because I use the internet as an informational resource. I am always mistaken because I use message boards as sources of enlightenment.

But, my friend, I am self aware.

Are you?

You put on a pretty show, sort of. I've seen better. Even in 'trolling' you are sub par. I mean, come on, this isn't philosophy 101 or a discourse on literature. What boundaries do you really think you are pushing here? What point do you think you are slyly making? It would be funny if it didn't seem that you were actually taking the drivel you spout as serious. But you do, and well, it is just sad.

A broken little man playing his broken little games to fill the empty broken places in his sad pathetic life. What is this? What kind of connection are you hoping for? You bait me, so you obviously want my attention. Here it is. My full unadulterated attention. Look at the big man now. Look at him interact with the self avowed idiot. Aren't you proud? Teach me. Please. Let my ignorance validate you and what you think. Let us all take part in the glorification of your opinion, your voice, which has gone unnoticed and unappreciated for far to long. You poor thing. Doesn't anyone realize just how special you are? Doesn't anyone care that beneath that dull and drab exterior is a blazing mind! No. Of course not.

Which is why you are baiting an idiot on a message board about Mars while you profess and confess your habit of testing your audiences in order to find those worthy to receive your guidance.

So teach us. Guide us. You are the missing piece within us all that we have yearned for.

I love you.

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-18 08:57:59

Looking into the crystal ball of the not to far off, she most likely will be next seen in footage being beheaded. This is how they think they are able to get a voice to cause Americans to leave....

Well this is how I would do it, if I were orchestrating the whole thing. Except I wouldn't waste time with grabbing up some unknown reporter in the "bad place in Bagdad"' I'd grab that annoying chubby Mexican chick Reporter that I watch ever night from right here in my hometown. She annoys the hell out of me. Kinda like clark, only smarter and with less Thorazine and Haldol.

In fact, there's a LONG LIST of Possible Terrorist Targets that I think would be MUCH BETTER than the ones they have acquired thus far. Both for Terror-Inspiring Potential AND Entertainment Value.

Like OJ Simpson, LOL.

Imagine: "We've just recieved word that Iraqi Insurgents have just kidnapped OJ Simpson. An Islamic Fundamentalist Group operating in the United States has been reported by Al-Jazeera for taking responsibility for the kidnapping."

Ha-Ha !

Gawd it would be fun to watch the Bush Administration try to sell the Terrifying Notion that threatening to cut-off OJ Simpson's head is a BAD THING.

D'ya think we could get them to do it LIVE and on TV? During PRIME TIME, maybe ?

No one cares about that chick in Bagdad. She's another "Person We Don't Know or Care About". We (like the Isrealis) ought to consider her "already dead". Cause we didn't know (or care) that she was alive before they got her. So lets stop sacrificing our security and constitutional protections in order to pretend to do something for people we don't know or even care about.

Instead, lets invade Mexico, pocket the profits from that endeavor and use them to fund a vacation trip to Mars.

reddragon · 2006-01-18 16:54:37

Instead, lets invade Mexico, pocket the profits from that endeavor and use them to fund a vacation trip to Mars.

A president who did that would probably need to go to Mars afterwards to escape with his life. The American people would remove him, by impeachment if possible and revolution if necessary, and if America actually invaded Mexico, the world would come to their defense and America, mighty as it is, would fail.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-01-13 06:21:30

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#27 2006-01-13 07:16:08

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#28 2006-01-13 08:22:38

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#29 2006-01-13 08:25:52

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#30 2006-01-13 08:44:51

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#31 2006-01-13 09:27:17

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#32 2006-01-13 09:31:28

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#33 2006-01-13 09:54:28

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#34 2006-01-13 11:28:07

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#35 2006-01-13 11:58:25

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#36 2006-01-13 15:49:29

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#37 2006-01-13 16:47:14

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#38 2006-01-13 20:38:21

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#39 2006-01-13 21:06:48

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#40 2006-01-13 21:57:24

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#41 2006-01-13 22:28:22

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#42 2006-01-13 22:48:37

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#43 2006-01-17 06:50:39

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#44 2006-01-17 14:19:54

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#45 2006-01-17 16:46:04

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#46 2006-01-17 21:46:07

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#47 2006-01-18 06:20:58

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#48 2006-01-18 07:02:32

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#49 2006-01-18 08:57:59

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

#50 2006-01-18 16:54:37

Re: Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ?

Board footer