The movie: W.

g under p

Yes is anyone here planning to see this movie?: W.

Here's a trailer to the movie W. and think I might see this one or have my boss take me.

His Presidency has not been one of the best, here in DC they're contemplating government buildings to be named after him. His presidency has been more like this W. trailer and libraries will be named after him and many more things.

Anybody interested in this movie?

Peace

unsung

Not really. Oliver Stone is a nut job. I don't need to see his movie to know Bush is not on my favorites list.

sponger

Yeah, after Ollie Stone did that work of fiction JFK, it's going to take a lot for him to win back my trust.

gimmesometruth27

i have lived through the trainwreck that is the bush presidency. the last thing i need is to see some movie that even remotely reminds me of the horror of the last 8 years. why this movie was made and being released before the election is beyond me. its like watchig a movie on the stock market turmoil when it is not even close to being over.

DriftingByTheStorm

sponger wrote:

Yeah, after Ollie Stone did that work of fiction JFK, it's going to take a lot for him to win back my trust.

I actually think JFK happens to be a fairly accurate movie.
The only part Jim Garrison never really got on to was the specifics of David Atlee Phillips and his clan (which E Howard Hunt attests to).
Besides that what the movie is based on (Jim Garrison's investigation) is nearly all amazingly factual. If you do the research, you'll find the level of detail paid to names, places, and connections is marvelous. Even down to the bit about David Ferrie being involved with rats and cancer research, and Oswald making a trip down to the voting line in a small town with Guy Banister for no apparent reason (reason finally given by Judyth Vary Baker -- they were trying to vote without being registered in the district in order to prove that the state was corrupt and blocking black voters ... because oswald actually had a heart, was a true patriot, and had some time on his hands, apparently).

But anyhow,
that being said, i think that Oliver Stone has given up on exposing real truth, essentialy bought off.
Not really, but i think he reckognized the slam job he got with JFK ... the mainstream media TORE HIM APART and ripped the movie to shreds (because it is TRUE! folks! you can't have people believing the TRUTH!) ... i mean, from wiki, what does this tell you:

wiki on JFK the movie wrote:

Stone's film became embroiled in controversy even before it was finished filming when Washington Post national security correspondent George Lardner showed up on the set and wrote a scathing article attacking the film based on the first draft of the screenplay.

the slander starts with an article written by a "national security correspondent", who may as well be a CIA project mockingbird spook. Seriously.

anyhow, he has acknowledged in interview that they attacked him for that movie, and i think he intends to just make money on less profounds subjects.

so instead, he decided to make a movie that would make some money:
namely -- portraying bush as a idiot lunatic. (partialy true, anyhow, i reckon)


oh well.

And FYI, it's pretty hard to deny some of the truths in JFK when you even have people like one of Lyndon Johnsons tightest (and most corrupt) palls, BIlly Sol Estes ADMITTING IN A LIST that Kennedy was one of 8 people Johnson had killed!

Come on folks.
Some people really are just evil fucks.

:(

FBI Now Admits Evidence Used to Connect Oswald to Kennedy Assasination Was Bogus
and you know who had OODLES of those bullets?
THE CIA.
The gun oswald ordered from some magazine was one and the same with a gun the CIA had secretly purchased thousands of, for $2 a piece ... along with boxes and boxes of decade old ammunition.

and then there is this:
single bullet theory:

theory? wrote:

In its conclusion, the Warren Commission found "persuasive evidence from the experts" that a single bullet caused the President's neck wound and all the wounds in Governor Connally. It acknowledged that there was a "difference of opinion" among members of the Commission "as to this probability", but stated that the theory was not essential to its conclusions

Not essential to its conclusions?
That is like saying there was some difference of opinion as to whether one or two planes hit the twin towers, but it was not essential to the conclusion. The whole case depends on the single bullet!

more single bullshit wrote:

If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone.

again, this bullet!
more on SBT

Kennedy's back wound
Ficitional drawing of neck wound

and President Gerald Ford's ADMISSION that he had the drawing altered to fit the theory:

liars and crooks wrote:

Many years after the Warren Commission report, Representative Gerald Ford stated he changed a draft of the Warren Report to indicate the bullet entered the "base of the back of [Kennedy's] neck", rather than "his back at a point slightly above the shoulder" but said he did not do it as part of a conspiracy

Ford's damning report, second page,
article on Ford's Fiction.

So, um. yeah.

Good night moon.