The only outrage here is that you have to sign up to play the game. Why go through all this viral advertising and then refuse to let me play? 
[shrug] Nevertheless, some RW Americans are paranoid about the idea of a North American Union – like, conspiracy-theory paranoid. (Canadians and Mexicans are not, AFAIK.) I think what scares them more than anything else is the prospect of permanently open borders with Mexico. (Not with Canada – if the illegal-immigration pressure were coming from Canada, the Minutemen would not exist.)
I’ve seen several shows and movies centered around the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. None, as I recall, thought it was a good idea. So, unless some evidence can be offered that the film advocated such assassination, or held such an action to be laudable, I don’t quite see the point, nor do I see how any ground, moral or otherwise, has been surrendered.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, guys. It’s astonishing how you can come up with justification for everything.
Did you even see the movie? In it, Bush’s assassination was the circumstance which drove the theme of the movie (media hysteria, jingoism, perceived racial profiling, etc.). It wasn’t anything close to a call to assissinate Bush. In fact, it was extremely reverential toward Bush.
Is this video game reverential toward “Obama and the renegade Cong?” No? Then it’s a false equivalency no matter how much you want to whine about it.
Ah the old, “Here’s my take on a movie I haven’t seen” bit. Always valuable.
In that movie, FYI, the assassination of the president is never posited as a good thing. In fact there’s very little motivation presented at all. Which was the film’s greatest failing, IMO: it begins with a pretty straightforward assassination (it could’ve been any head of state; I suspect they used Bush just to generate publicity), and proceeds as a fairly straightforward whodunit. The bulk of the film is pretty standard detect-and-arrest stuff.
It’s not actually a political film at all.
It’s greatest value? It serves as a pretty clear red flag, in discussions like this. It means “I got nothin.”
What? The last couple of minutes detail who did it and the exact reason why they did it. There is actually extremely straightforward reasoning behind the assassination, if a bit cheesy.
That sort of slur used to be beneath you. What happened?
His side lost the election.
Haven’t seen the game, but I’m guessing (Democratic) Cong(ressmembers).
That’s REALLY not fair, given Airman’s history here. He’s never been a wingnut. I really wish that ALL conservatives were more like Airman is and danceswithcats was.
I voted for Obama. You never learn, do you?
In the same way that you disdain people who rationalize things the Republicans do, I disdain things that people of all political affiliations do. I have no allegiances but my own, and I make no secret of them. I am also able to admit when I’ve made mistakes and I am not shy about rebuking people that I “agree with”, even if it damages my standing with regard to the topic at hand.
In the meantime, you guys are seemingly incapable of doing the same. It’s an endless series of rationalizations. And it irritates the hell out of me.
Cing Cong is a large moncey from an island with a volkano. Does that answer your question?
Your post suggests that the movie depicts the possible assassination of GeeDubya in an approving light. You offer no evidence to support that claim. You, yourself, haven’t seen it. Others who have tell you you are mistaken, but you do not respond. You simply insist that we must be biased agaiinst your opinion, because we don’t agree with someone who admits they don’t know much about it.
And I’m the one who has to “rationalize”?
Am I the only one envisioning a “Last Starfighter” scenario?
The radical right has an army in waiting, but they lack the commander with the skills to defeat the one world order/unionist/Bilderberg/Lolcats forces. So they put out this game, where only you can defend the frontier against Xur and the Obama armada.
Why am I always the only one…
The “reasoning” was a McGuffin, and is included just as a hollow justification for making a cheesy, cliche thriller. And is the first thing to fade from one’s memory of the movie. But of course, a movie that takes as the kickoff of a chase-catch-cage movie the assassination of a president, obviously the assassin in the movie will have his reasons. The character’s reasons are clearly not the movie’s reasons, however.
Huh? The reasons of the assassin and how that relates to our pre-conceived notions of who would want to assassinate Bush (but again, it could have been any President in a post-9/11 world) is pretty much the whole point of the movie.
Wow, I disagree totally. That movie sucked precisely because it didn’t have the courage to make any such point. It was a straightforward procedural; the plot could have been grafted onto almost any other setting, any other time, and still remained 90% intact. The MOVIE wasn’t about Bush; only the McGuffin of the character’s motivation was about Bush. But if the movie had been made about Carter or Reagan or Morgan Freeman being assassinated, the change could’ve been made with the alteration of very, very few words in the script.
No disagreement from me here (and I also agree the movie was less than stellar).
But the motivation of the assassin was pretty important because it allowed the makers to play gotcha (another part I was annoyed by):
Gotcha! The killer is actually an American. Not the filthy dirty Muslim you thought it was for most of the movie. What do you think about that?
Gotcha’s like that are quite lame.