If Chaplin were alive today....

<< "Nuanced?" Like A KING IN NEW YORK? >>

We all know that Chaplin was quite capable of superb satire. Again - I prefaced
the "If" with Chaplin at the height of his powers.


<<Since Chaplin tended to be sympathetic
to totalitarian regimes, he definitely
would have opposed Bush's efforts
to defeat the Taliban and Saddam. >>

I'll tell ya....I come from a long line of Republicans - on both sides of my
family. I'm still registered as one (although I've considered myself basically
a libertarian for well over a decade) - but what GWB has revealed himself to be
these past four years - and now his continued rule - is enough to make me
seriously consider becoming a full-fledged leftie. The people that voted for
him fully deserve whatever fallout is yet to come.

By the way - my Grandfather (still a full blown right-winger by the way) has
now mentioned to me several times how much Bin-Laden (in his latest appearance)
reminds him of Leo White.



"....a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts
is not a person you want as your commander in chief." - George W. Bush, finally
speaking the truth - October 2004
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

Burbank74 wrote:

>but what GWB has revealed himself to
>be these past four years

To me, he has revealed himself to
be a great President.


>- and now his continued rule

This is a democratic republic. The
President of the US does not "rule."


>- is enough to make me seriously
>consider becoming a full-fledged leftie.

OK, but keep your hands out of
my pockets.


>The people that voted for him fully
>deserve whatever fallout is yet to come.

I am very pleased he was decisively re-elected. That's what I hoped
for,

I worked at the polls for W and I
am looking forward to the further implementation of his agenda, both at
home and abroad.

With a larger majority in the Senate
and House, and the end of
the obstructionism of Tom Daschle,
it will be much easier to enact
the Bush agenda.

And I look forward to seeing Antonin
Scalia appointed as Chief Justice,
as Bush reshapes the Supreme
Court,









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

burbank74.TakeThisOut@aol.com (Burbank74) writes:

> I'll tell ya....I come from a long line
> of Republicans - on both sides of my
> family. I'm still registered as one
> (although I've considered myself
> basically a libertarian for well over a
> decade) - but what GWB has revealed
> himself to be these past four years -
> and now his continued rule - is enough
> to make me seriously consider
> becoming a full-fledged leftie.

As Victor Laszlo says in "Casblanca":

"Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win."

> The people that voted for him fully
> deserve whatever fallout is yet to come.

I agree. And if history is any guide, it's going to be very, very ugly.


Tom Moran

"Look in his eyes/It's all lies."
-- Eminem (on George W. Bush)
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

G-HELPS.RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote in message news:<2044-418947D3-52.RemoveThis@storefull-3313.bay.webtv.net>...
> Burbank74 wrote:
>
> >and in his prime and making films....he
> >undoubtedly would have been fired up
> >and have joined the effort to defeat
> >George W. Bush. It would be very
> >interesting to see what sort of clever nuanced,
>
> "Nuanced?" Like A KING IN NEW YORK?

Wow. George S, I hope you got an A in Karl Rove's Propaganda 101 class
on the use of selective, out of context quotations.


> > multi-layered social satire Chaplin
> >would fashion to poke fun at him while
> >revealing the grave danger our world
> >now faces with another four years of this
> >arrogant buffoon in charge.
>
> Since Chaplin tended to be sympathetic
> to totalitarian regimes, he definitely
> would have opposed Bush's efforts
> to defeat the Taliban and Saddam.
>

And rash, inaccurate, exaggerated, inappropriate extrapolation, too.
Did you get extra credit?
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:

>>Burbank74 wrote:

>>>and in his prime and making films....he
>>>undoubtedly would have been fired up
>>>and have joined the effort to defeat
>>>George W. Bush. It would be very
>>>interesting to see what sort of clever
>>>nuanced,

>>"Nuanced?" Like A KING IN NEW YORK?


>Wow. George S, I hope you got an A in
>Karl Rove's Propaganda 101 class on the
>use of selective, out of context
>quotations.

Rave on!. Four more years of Karl
Rove----and I am looking forward to
all the pain that's going to cause loony
leftists like you.


>>>  multi-layered social satire Chaplin
>>>would fashion to poke fun at him while
>>>revealing the grave danger our world
>>>now faces with another four years of
>>>this arrogant buffoon in charge.

>>Since Chaplin tended to be sympathetic
>>to totalitarian regimes, he definitely
>>would have opposed Bush's efforts
>>to defeat the Taliban and Saddam.


>And rash, inaccurate, exaggerated,
>inappropriate extrapolation, too. Did you
>get extra credit?

Chaplin had no problem with Stalinism
and Castroism, so I think it's an
accurate extrapolation.

Now, comparing George Bush to
Hitler, which Moran and Bruce
did...that's a "rash, exaggerated,
inappropriate extrapolation" if ever
I read one.









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

In article <23675-418A1BAD-157.TakeThisOut@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net>, George
Shelps <G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@webtv.net> wrote:

> Burbank74 wrote:
>
> >but what GWB has revealed himself to
> >be these past four years

> To me, he has revealed himself to
> be a great President.

I think so, too.

> >- and now his continued rule
>
> This is a democratic republic. The
> President of the US does not "rule."

To the left, "rule" = "win without sharing half the power with us,
because that's the fair thing to do!" - incredibly childish, but then,
so is virtually everything else they pretend to think.

> >- is enough to make me seriously
> >consider becoming a full-fledged leftie.
>
> OK, but keep your hands out of
> my pockets.

> >The people that voted for him fully
> >deserve whatever fallout is yet to come.

Hmm. We're in danger. We protect ourselves. Let's say we get hit
(again) ... well, it's our fault because we protected ourselves...
hmm... no, sorry. Can't think like that. I try, but it makes my brain
hurt, and I have to stop.

> I am very pleased he was decisively re-elected. That's what I hoped
> for,
>
> I worked at the polls for W and I
> am looking forward to the further implementation of his agenda, both at
> home and abroad.

Hot damn, yeah!

> With a larger majority in the Senate
> and House, and the end of
> the obstructionism of Tom Daschle,
> it will be much easier to enact
> the Bush agenda.

Yes. And from his comments today, he looks like he's going to do just
that. Certainly he has a mandate, now.

> And I look forward to seeing Antonin
> Scalia appointed as Chief Justice,
> as Bush reshapes the Supreme
> Court,

I look forward to watching the left have hissy fits, no matter WHO he
nominates. Should be fun :-).

And - getting back to Charlie for a moment, I'm not at all sure Charlie
would be against the war on terror. Granted, the guy was a disgusting
Communist sympathizer, but surely he wouldn't have seen the
emancipation of millions of people from murderous and repressive
regimes to be a BAD thing (well, then again, today's left does... so
who knows...).

D.
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

Doug Sulpy wrote:

Doug, thank you for all your friendly
and supportive comments, but I will
respond just to the one on Charlie:


>And - getting back to Charlie for a
>moment, I'm not at all sure Charlie
>would be against the war on terror.
>Granted, the guy was a disgusting
>Communist sympathizer, but surely he
>wouldn't have seen the emancipation of
>millions of people from murderous and
>repressive regimes to be a BAD thing

As you state, he certainly wasn't too
concerned about the oppression in
Communist nations. He didn't think
there was anything wrong with the Soviet takeover of Czechoslovakia, for
example.
And he enjoyed watching Castro give the US the bird.

But he did care about oppression by
fascists and Saddam was definitely
a modern day Hitler. Indeed, his
Ba'athist Party touted a brand of ethnic
socialism very similar to Nazism....which
is short for "National Socialism."

CC also was not sympathetic to any
species of dogmatic religion.

So perhaps he might have disapproved
of those regimes----except for the fact
that they were also anti-American, which
in his later years might have appealed
to him.


>(well, then again, today's left does... so
>who knows...).

Yes, because of shared anti-Americanism

So maybe CC would have sided with
totalitarianism here, too.









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

G-HELPS.DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:


> Now, comparing George Bush to
> Hitler, which Moran and Bruce
> did...that's a "rash, exaggerated,
> inappropriate extrapolation" if ever
> I read one.


Flaming liberals just can't understand the difference between
conquering a nation to conquer it, and conquering a nation to set it
free!




--Shush--
Newborn Conservative
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

shushfilmseznospam DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:


>>Now, comparing George Bush to
>>Hitler, which Moran and Bruce
>>did...that's a "rash, exaggerated,
>>inappropriate extrapolation" if ever
>>I read one.

>      Flaming liberals just can't
>understand the difference between
>conquering a nation to conquer it, and
>conquering a nation to set it free!

>--Shush--

>Newborn Conservative

Not sure if you're goofing on me, Shush,
but the US did not "conquer" Iraq. We
are attempting to set up a democratic
republic ASAP, neutralize the Saddam
die-hards and foreign fighters, and get
our soldiers the H out of there!

A stable, moderate Islamic state
as we hope Iraq becomes, will drain
the swamp of terrorism in the Arab
world and show the average citizen
there that the US is not "the great
Satan" as their leaders have taught
them.

In the end, the War on Terror must
be won in the Arab Street, not just
by killing terrorists.











__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

>From: G-HELPS.RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)

>I am very pleased he was decisively re-elected.

Decisively?! As the Wall Street Journal points out, Bush's victory was "the
narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."

Richard Carnahan
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

rfcsac627n.RemoveThis@aol.com (RFCSAC627N)
wrote:

>>I am very pleased he was decisively
>>re-elected.

>    Decisively?! As the Wall Street
>Journal points out, Bush's victory was
>"the narrowest win for a sitting president
>since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."

The fact that it was the narrowest win
for a sitting President since Wilson doesn't mean it wasn't decisive,
considering that Clinton never got a majority of the vote and W lost the
popular vote in 2000.









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

>From: G-HELPS DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps)

>rfcsac627n@aol.com (RFCSAC627N)
>wrote:
>
>>>I am very pleased he was decisively
>>>re-elected.
>
>>=A0=A0=A0=A0Decisively?! As the Wall Street
>>Journal points out, Bush's victory was
>>"the narrowest win for a sitting president
>>since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."
>
>The fact that it was the narrowest win
>for a sitting President since Wilson doesn't mean it wasn't decisive,
>considering that Clinton never got a majority of the vote and W lost the
>popular vote in 2000.
>

Clinton, in a three-way race, collected 49.2% of the vote in 1996. That was
almost 9% higher than what Bob Dole received. That's pretty decisive.
Bush of course wasn't running for reelection in 2000, although he behaved as
though he'd won a mandate.

Richrd Carnahan
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>>Clinton never got a majority of the vote
>>and W lost the popular vote in 2000.

>    Clinton, in a three-way race, collected
>49.2% of the vote in 1996. That was
>almost 9% higher than what Bob Dole
>received. That's pretty decisive.

It still was less than a majority, which
Bush achieved on Tuesday and it
was nowhere near his vote total or
the breadth and scope of his victory.


>    Bush of course wasn't running for
>reelection in 2000, although he behaved
>as though he'd won a mandate.

He was the President, with a constitutional mandate to exercise
his powers---as all Presidents have
done.

If he was able to overcome the narrowness of his victory, and get
key legislation passed, well, that was proof of his political smarts.

I find the idea that a narrowly-elected
President must act like a Prime
Minister with a divided parliament
to be a very strange reading indeed of the
intent of the Founders.









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today....