I PROMISE...

[Guest Paul Wizikowski]

And before this thread gets to cold...

 

I promise to do my job and do it better every time. My opinions are mine and will stay with me unless the situation warrents them. As a conservative republican I'm sure others who label themselves differently may think they have me all summed up but when it comes to work, I have nothing but focus and passion for the job at hand. I respect the job and the position from call till wrap even if that includes seeing the sun come up a second time. So to anyone who would not use me because of my personal beliefs all I can say is, how unfortunate...for both of us.

[Guest]

And before this thread gets to cold...

 

As a conservative republican

 

Ok well you may have gone too far there, admitting that you're a Republican on a film industry related site.

 

I mean people may actually think that you voted for George Bush, I know that's crazy.

 

You didn't did you?

[Guest Paul Wizikowski]

that's crazy.

 

Needless to say, I am not exactly like you and don't think as you do.

 

However, I fail to see how that makes me any less professional and any less eligible for a job. Surely there is enough common ground for us to be able to work together.

[Guest]

Needless to say, I am not exactly like you and don't think as you do.

 

However, I fail to see how that makes me any less professional and any less eligible for a job. Surely there is enough common ground for us to be able to work together.

 

Between you and I alone, there would be a lot of common ground. I'm a conservative as well. It's just that in Canada conservative has quite a different meaning that what it does in the USA.

 

I know on my upcoming shoot I have people of all stripes on the cast and crew.

 

I won't start mocking the liberals and socialists on set until the rap party, then it will be too late for them to quit :D

[James Steven Beverly]

I'm not-anti conservative or anti-liberal, I'm anti-idiot I'm against anyone who follows dogma at the expense of common sence. I don't believe in gun control. I do believe in stem cell research. I believe that morality has less to do with sex and more to do with ethics. I do believe that America is a Regan put it The city on the hill but just not the way he meant it, I believe that with that position come a great resposibilty to lead the world by example and not by force. I believe that burning the American flag is a despicable act but anyone who advocates an ammedment to criminalize the burning of the flag hasn't got the vaguist idea of what that flag stands for. I personally have great respect for men of honor and think the problem today is there are far to few on them in government. The stanch conservatives want to bring back the American way, family values and spead democracy throughout the world no matter how many laws they have to break in order to do it. Ultra liberals want to regulate everythimg to the point that there is no freedom. I might not hire someone because I don't like them but I don't think politics would ever enter into that decision. I like to work with people who are positive, talented, intellegent and easy to get along with. I'm sure I;m the only one in the world who does :D

[Bill DiPietra]

Ok well you may have gone too far there, admitting that you're a Republican on a film industry related site.

 

I mean people may actually think that you voted for George Bush, I know that's crazy.

 

You didn't did you?

 

And now a rhetorical question...

 

Why do these threads so often de-evolve into 5-plus pages of political nonsense...?

Edited August 26, 2006 by Bill DiPietra

[David Mullen ASC]

Ultra liberals want to regulate everythimg to the point that there is no freedom.

 

I'm glad you're an independent thinker.. but that last bit (above) is not particularly accurate view considering that convervatives are more likely to want to regulate things like deceny on the airwaves or a woman's access to an abortion, the recent "morning-after" pill, or make flag burning illegal, etc. And Bush's "No Child Left Behind program is a fairly large expansion of federal control over the typically state and local-run institutions of education.

 

I'm not saying that it is not a tendency of liberals to see the use of government to regulate, just conservatives often fall into the same sorts of legislative behavior, but just in favor of their own causes. And for all their talk about the evils of big government, it doesn't get any smaller when they are in charge.

 

Also, in the big picture, captalism often thrives under a certain amount of governmental regulation; as one economist put it, the market is like the Super Bowl game -- with that much at stake, there is always someone who will cheat to win, hence why you have referees at a game. You need laws to ensure a free market where competition can thrive, people feel confident about the safety of products they buy, businesses can safely transport and sell their products, deal with each other using legal contracts that will be enforced, corruption will be prosecuted, etc. It's not some sort of either/or situation: either you get a free market and a free society or you get government control. Even in the Middle Ages, captalism thrived when city-states were the strongest to ensure safe roads and a certain amount of public works & welfare existed (like hospitals, sanitation), etc. It's always been a partnership, between the market and the government.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Both sides can get so looney that they actually meet each other on the dark side of the moon...

 

Radicalism sucks, no matter your politics. :)

[Guest]

And now a rhetorical question...

 

Why do these threads so often de-evolve into 5-plus pages of political nonsense...?

 

 

Because film "techie-stuff" is ultimately a very boring subject. Useful yes, but boring.

 

Miss Manners says never discuss religion and politics, but those are the two best things to talk about.

[Dan Goulder]

Why do these threads so often de-evolve into 5-plus pages of political nonsense...?

Do you refer to all political talk on or off this forum as nonsense, or do you just find it nonsensical because this is a cinematography forum?

[Robert Hughes]

it is my personal agenda to make sure the wrong people do not get any advancement in society.

And I think all generalists should be shot. :)

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Both sides can get so looney that they actually meet each other on the dark side of the moon...

 

---Don't disparage the dark side of the moon.

 

Besides it's a former -SSR of sorts. Most of the features were named by the Soviets.

[Bill DiPietra]

Do you refer to all political talk on or off this forum as nonsense, or do you just find it nonsensical because this is a cinematography forum?

 

Becasue this is a cinematography forum.

 

I come on here to hear people's views on film and filmmaking, which is why I rarely even read these kinds of threads, much less reply to them. I am well aware that discussions such as these will take place, no matter the forum. But once they turn political, they should at least be moved to the "Off-Topic" section.

[Guest]

Becasue this is a cinematography forum.

 

But once they turn political, they should at least be moved to the "Off-Topic" section.

 

Then 90% of the threads will be in the off topic forum.

[Brad Grimmett]

---Don't disparage the dark side of the moon.

Heck no, it's a great album!

[Stuart McCammon]

This thread needs a political enema ;)

[James Steven Beverly]

I'm glad you're an independent thinker.. but that last bit (above) is not particularly accurate view considering that convervatives are more likely to want to regulate things like deceny on the airwaves or a woman's access to an abortion, the recent "morning-after" pill, or make flag burning illegal, etc. And Bush's "No Child Left Behind program is a fairly large expansion of federal control over the typically state and local-run institutions of education.

 

I'm not saying that it is not a tendency of liberals to see the use of government to regulate, just conservatives often fall into the same sorts of legislative behavior, but just in favor of their own causes. And for all their talk about the evils of big government, it doesn't get any smaller when they are in charge.

 

Also, in the big picture, captalism often thrives under a certain amount of governmental regulation; as one economist put it, the market is like the Super Bowl game -- with that much at stake, there is always someone who will cheat to win, hence why you have referees at a game. You need laws to ensure a free market where competition can thrive, people feel confident about the safety of products they buy, businesses can safely transport and sell their products, deal with each other using legal contracts that will be enforced, corruption will be prosecuted, etc. It's not some sort of either/or situation: either you get a free market and a free society or you get government control. Even in the Middle Ages, captalism thrived when city-states were the strongest to ensure safe roads and a certain amount of public works & welfare existed (like hospitals, sanitation), etc. It's always been a partnership, between the market and the government.

 

I was actually refering more on a personal freedom level. Helmet laws, gun control, exssesive anti-smoking restrictions, IE saving saving our selves from our selves and the general intollerence for anything "politically incorrect". There are some left wing factions that would eleminate hunting all together because of some misguided believe in a twisted version of animal rights even though well managed hunting laws actually help keep overpopulation of certain game animals in check and help insure their continuing survival and if your dumb enough to still smoke or ride a bike without a helmet after all the information that's been put out there, then I say go ahead, let's put Darwin's theory of natural selection to the test and thin out the herd. I could see a point In the future that anything dangerous becomes illegal, skydiving, car racing, mountain climbing. I just don't like anyone telling me what I can or can not do. B)

Edited August 27, 2006 by James Steven Beverly

[Guest]

let's put Darwin's theory of natural selection to the test and thin out the herd. I could see a point In the future that anything dangerous becomes illegal, skydiving, car racing, mountain climbing. I just don't like anyone telling me what I can or can not do. B)

 

Oh I agree completely! All hunters should be sent into the woods and allowed to hunt each other. I mean what's more exciting than hunting an animal that can shoot back?

 

As for, "I just don't like anyone telling me what I can or can not do", you're right you should be allowed to drive your car at 150 MPH on the highway, speed limits be damned. Who do those politicians think they are? Public safety....BAH!

[James Steven Beverly]

I drive a '94, 6 cylinder Ford Explorer, the only way I could get it up to 150MPH is to take off the doors, take out the interior and strap rocket boosters to the damn roof. But in reference to your answer please refer my previous post-IE "common sence" although a 100MPH speed limit would be nice.

 

They already have something like what you suggested, It's called "war" but if you were gonna have hunters hunt each other, give um a couple of cases of beer first then televise it. I know ESPN would probably run it and I'm sure you would like it better if game animals starve to death because they are over populated and there isn't enough food to go around. I think my way is far less cruel buuuuut hey, that's just me. B)

Edited August 27, 2006 by James Steven Beverly

[Guest]

I'm sure you would like it better if game animals starve to death because they are over populated and there isn't enough food to go around. I think my way is far less cruel buuuuut hey, that's just me. B)

 

Oh my gosh, how did those animals even get along before we humans appeared on the scene?

[James Steven Beverly]

They had natural preditors that ripped them apart for food or often times they DID starve from over population. Because most preditors prefer the easy kill of a domesticated animal they would often times attack livestock, especially in winter when food was scarce. Farmers and ranches, as you might figure, didn't care for this behaviour and put out bounties on these animals so they were hunted down and slauttered by the thousands in the 19th and early 20th century, greatly diminishing their numbers and leading to an eccess of pray animals.

 

Re-intorduction of preditors into the eco system has been used in remote areas on the countryto help control wildlife populations but because the same problems exist now that existed then when humans and animals like wolves, coyote, foxes, bears, ect live in close proximity to one another, the objections of farmers and ranchers and the irrational fear and stigma such animals envoke, this re-intoduction has been somewhat slow, therefore in order to deal with the problem, hunting has become a vital force in curbing over population of game animals, thereby keeping to forest and grasslands from being de-foiliated by hunger herbivious and leading to much heathier eco systems.

 

This is my whole point about dogma taking over when common sense should prevail. Liberals want all the little animals to just go along on there merry way without taking into consideration the needs of humanity as well or the reality of the situation that they happen to be in at the moment. It's just as bad as when conservatives try to end teen pregnacy and the spred of STDs by NOT talking about birth control and sex education and distrbuting free condoms but instead tell teens to abstain, just DON"T do it, which always works SOOOOO well with teens. Like I said, I'm anti-idiots. B)

Edited August 27, 2006 by James Steven Beverly

[Hal Smith]

Oh my gosh, how did those animals even get along before we humans appeared on the scene?

Before we showed up they ate plants and/or one another in an ecological system that had evolved over millions of years. 40,000 years or so ago we showed up and started screwing up every ecological niche we could.

 

So now, for instance, we have deer living in forests adjacent to populated areas with lots of extra goodies to graze. My garden has been feeding a doe and two fauns this summer. Daddy Buck even showed up at one point to enjoy my onions. The kids seem to prefer peppers and mom's pretty much happy with anything I grow. I've got "Bambi" in my backyard - but don't tell me it's nature's way. Nature would have them in the forest eating what they could find. But I'm an old softie, I kind of like running Pappa Smith's Deer Deli. Walt would have been proud of me.

[James Steven Beverly]

I'm not suggesting anyone go out and shoot your deer, but there are problems that arise when people and wild animals mix and we're gonna have to deal with that. We're not going away and no one want's the deer to go away either. We did show up 40k years ago and we suceeded, prospered and florished. We can't be faulted for that nor should we be. Man is the only animal capible of understanding the cosequinces of his actions in the long term and that is what gives me hope. We don't screw up EVERYTHING, at least not intentionally. If you look at human beings in historical perspective, life before the industrial revolution was bitterly hard, cruel and short. All we were trying to do is what any animal would do, to survive and make life easier for ourselves and our children. Our brains enabled us to succeed and continue to succeed, but in order to keep on suceeding in the future we have to solve the problems our success create and we have to deal with the REALITY of our situation. For example, I LOVE cars but in order for the world to survive with us in it, we'll have to find another way of powering them, that's the reality of the situation, cars as we know them may have to be left in history. That's why I have a problem with blind obedence to dogma. The world if far too complicated to live one's life by sound bites. B)

[Guest]

They had natural preditors that ripped them apart for food or often times they DID starve from over population.

 

I'm so glad we've improved on nature's plan, or God's plan if you're a Bible believing person.

 

Question: Wouldn't it be more efficient & humane to round up wild animals and then machine gun them to death?

 

Thus sparing them the fate of living in the wild. The rest can be put into zoos where they can really be happy.

[James Steven Beverly]

I'm so glad we've improved on nature's plan, or God's plan if you're a Bible believing person.

 

Question: Wouldn't it be more efficient & humane to round up wild animals and then machine gun them to death?

 

Thus sparing them the fate of living in the wild. The rest can be put into zoos where they can really be happy.

 

Who said nature had a plan? You seem insenced that we have to deal with that. Reality is what it is. You seen to have some delusional view that nature would get along just fine if we let it alone, It won't. Mankind's impact on the earth is far too powerful an inflluence on nature for that to happen and ignoring the fact that wildlife must be conserve and managed in the modern world isn't going to chance that. You seem to think that nature is somehow benige and in complete harmony. It isn't. Nature is savage, cruel and unforgiving. At least 4 times in the history of the world, long before man appeared, life on Earth was nearly wiped out completely by nature. In the most extreme case 90% of all spiecies on Earth went extinct. So don't believe for a minute nature is harmonious. Nature is chaotic and random. All of nature on this Earth will eventually be destroyed when the sun expands to it's red giant stage and so far, as far as we know, Man is the only creature capible of saving the spark that is life from being extiguished forever, so don't be so quick to dimiss your oun spicies. We are pretty amazing creatures. B)