BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: FearBoysWithBugs on February 15, 2016, 03:25:51 PM
He didn't say there was a pillow over his nose and mouth.

Are you really going there?  Bed pillows are not small unless you go to some cheap motel.  If a pillow is over the head that includes the nose and mouth. He did not say that the pillow covered the top of the head.

Quote from: onan on February 15, 2016, 03:21:05 PM
Oh, ffs, it had to be Obama.

Nah, nothing to do with Obama.  What if you had found your 79 year old father dead with a pillow over his head?  Wouldn't you want an autopsy?

Quote from: Roswells, Art on February 15, 2016, 03:09:52 PM
Hitmen are so sloppy these days.

Good one!!    I needed a laugh.  Thank you.

Well, the point is Poindexter, who discovered Scalia dead, said that there was a pillow over his head.  Is this true or not?  If true, an autopsy should have been made.

Quote from: Rix Gins on February 15, 2016, 04:47:10 AM
Great review 21'st, and this one made me laugh.  Any cheesy creature flick that works in a number is ok by my book.  Thanks, and keep up the good work.

LOL.  Thanks.  These sort of movies are fun to review.  I also started to watch How To Make a Monster which is on the same dvd but I had to stop it because it was too late.  From what I saw, that one is a much better film but the review will have to wait until I finish it.


Oh,  I wanted to add one more thing about Blood of Dracula.  When the girl turns into a vampire, she looks like Eddie Munster.  Uggh.  They would have been better off just sticking some fake fangs on her and make her a bit seductive but nope.  Total schlock.

Back to Scalia,  would an autopsy at this point find the cause of the death or has the enbalming made this impossible?  I'd hate to see a conspiracy theory come out of this. It is probably too late to prevent one  from gaining a foothold now.I hate conspiracy theories because while a small percentage may be true, most of them are bunk.   

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 15, 2016, 04:19:24 AM
Interesting you complained that I posted an article from a biased website but everything you wrote here is a compendium of idiotic evidence-free Rethuglic talking points.

I agree further conversation with you would be pointless and I also don't give a damn what you 'think' assuming you even can think which is highly debatable.

If you're interested however, and you want to show that you aren't doing what you said I did, please provide supporting evidence from non biased websites of the following:

1.Obama has 'pissed on' the Constitution.
2.Obama refuses to 'enforce the laws of the land'
3.Obama has made sure that racism is alive and well in America.

1. I don't need to provide sources because it is all a matter of fact.  He disregards the separations of powers written in the Constitution using executive orders as de facto legislation to  circumvent Congress and give amnesty to illegals.  That is just one example of how he has pissed on the Constitution.

2.  If Obama enforced the immigration laws that are on the books, there would not be an illegal immigrant problem.  I would add that Bush was just as guilty in this regard.

3.  Let me count the ways.  Let's see the Trayvon Martin shooting, the Ferguson matter, Baltimore.  Obama stirred up the kettle and blamed the police first when the people that died were basically thugs and had been the aggressors. Baltimore was a bit different as the guy that died was in a police van.  What was funny about that is that there were hollers of racism when some of the cops in the van were in fact black.
       Obama has shackled the police and created an environment where police are fearful of doing their jobs in black neighborhoods. Now if they try to enforce laws and arrest drug dealers and threatening individuals, they will get the R word thrown at them and probably get fired.  There is openly a lot more hostility between the races now and this didn't exist 10 years ago.  Were things perfect before that?  Hell no but there was no new incident every month and generally everyone was getting along fine before he was President.


This is all common knowledge.

Quote from: onan on February 15, 2016, 11:38:46 AM
I thought that at first. Now I think Ruth did it. She sexed him to death.

Ugggh.  Now I'm going to have nightmares.

Blood of Dracula - 1958 -  Ummmm.  Where do I start with this cheezy flick?  The scientific premise for this movie spouted by the ersatz feminist mad scientist, Louise Lewis, is some gobbledygook about unleashing the human monster within to counter the madness of nuclear science that men are responsible for.  So to do this,  Lewis brandishes an amulet from the Carpathian Mountains and hypnotizes a girl at a girl's school so she becomes a vampire under Lewis's command.  She then kills random teenagers and immediately forgets what happens but is somehow haunted by her actions.  There is no Dracula.  This should have been called I Was a Teenage Vampire.  There is no suspense. The makeup is godawful.  The first half is as slow as molasses.  There is a bitchy hot stepmom who I think was the best actress on the picture but she's exited from the story 5 minutes into the film.


There are lesbian subtexts to a relationship between Lewis and another girl who is her assistant but its not the stuff of male fantasies because Lewis ain't exactly MILF material or GILF material for that matter.  The best part of the film may be when this guy that sneaks into a girls dorm starts singing some crazy rock 'n' roll song Called "Puppy Love"  (No,Noory not the Paul Anka tune, this tune swung).  Dig that crazy flute solo.   There's some crazy choreography during that scene.

Here's the catch,  the police are flummoxed by the murders. No one has any idea who is doing the killings save for an asst. coroner who is nearly fired for even mentioning his theory.   The climax at the end is so shoddily shot, with the viewer unaware about what actually happened until the camera pans out.  The girls from the school break in and find the feminist professor dead and the teenage vampire with a mini-stake through her heart.  No one is aware that the girl was a vampire as she looked normal but nonetheless the people in the room jump to the conclusion that the chaos on campus is at end.


They should have made the hot step-mom the vampire.  For excellence in the craft of making movies, I give this a .5 star but because it was pretty goofy and entertaining in an odd way, I'll give it 2 stars out of 5.  You'd be better off watching I Was a Teenage Werewolf or Frankenstein or better yet the filmmaker's infinitely better production of Horrors In The Black Museum. Crazy, Man, Crazy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6IMsInr340

Quote from: AvDaBr on February 15, 2016, 12:58:44 AM
I suppose my retort to '136 or 142' would be to ask him why Ruth Ginsburg, a Justice I am confident he adores, held Scalia in such high esteem.

That is what I tried to point out but he just ignored it.  For God's sake , they took many vacations together.   They were great friends.  If anything  that shows what a tolerant man Scalia was and that he valued friendship over politics.

Like I said in another thread, turnabout is fair play.

From 2007


Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks


New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees â€" Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito â€" has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146#ixzz40DZpLB5c

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 15, 2016, 12:02:59 AM
Don't we have enough laws?  I think we have more than we need now.

I believe Democrats do a better job of sticking together behind their leadership, and using the media to sway public eye opinion. I also believe that some Republicans that campaign as conservatives, are in fact RINOs.  The GOP seems to embrace RINOs thinking they will capture some of the democratic base. Which always fails.

Exactly.  What's the point of having two parties that are practically the same?  Both want bloated government only the Democrats want to expand it more quickly.

Quote from: Value Of Pi on February 14, 2016, 11:51:10 PM
So you think Republicans are just lousy negotiators or spineless and therefore can't get an acceptable outcome? Or is it that anything less than total victory is unacceptable to most and the less stubborn ones just end up voting with the Democrats?

Any way you explain it, their job is to makes laws. Are they not capable of making that happen in a two party system?

I think Republican leadership has been very weak for many years.  Yes, I would be tough but that is because the Democrats play tough.  Turnabout is fair play.  I'd prefer to have gridlock on an issue I strongly believe in than compromise on it.  I know that makes me a hard-liner but history has made me a hard-liner. This country is in decline if we do not do something to reverse course.  Our situation is not much different than what led to the Fall of Rome and we fail to learn the lessons from Rome.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 07:06:18 AM
I'm sorry I insulted your hero.  If I crossed over the line, what about you wishing Obama dead?

I'm not going to try to engage you any further after this post but Obama has caused tremendous harm to befall on our country and while I would NEVER condone his murder - that way lies martyrdom and chaos-  yes I do wish sometimes that he was no longer with us.  However in 11 months it won't matter.  He can enjoy his retirement out in Oahu for all I care.

He has pissed on the Constitution and refuses to enforce the laws of the land.  He should have been impeached and convicted but Republicans are too afraid of the R word and they are probably right in this instance. Obama has made sure that racism is alive and well in the USA after 40 years of progress.  I despise what he has done to this country.  I would reverse almost EVERYTHING he has done as President.  I say almost because maybe he did one or two things that were ok but I can't think of them now.

Further conversation with you would be pointless and frankly I don't give a damn what you think.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.

This is unbelievable that an autopsy wasn't performed.  They better try to do one now.  I wonder if 136 or 142 was seen lurking on the property?

Quote from: Segundus on February 14, 2016, 08:58:07 PM
He kept interrupting the story with questions, spoiling the story line.  I was wondering if he was on some sort of drug that screwed with his attention. 

I think he has a gift for hyping a story, but at least last night, he lacked substance.  I'm wondering how the story ended, but not enough to buy the book.  The book, also, is not a true story, but BASED on a true story and the author is a novelist.  The thought entered my head that there may have been parts of the story in the book that the guests (to whom the event happened) would have relayed differently.  Maybe the decision to only tell the first part of their story was deliberate to avoid an argument between the author and the guests.

I have the book.  The events that happened in the book happened but the conversation and thoughts and the small incidental stuff were fictionalized.  They got as close to the true story as they possibly could.  I didn't listen to Church.  I heard Felber on with Schraeder a few months ago.

The hot couple of 1916.   Wallace Beery and his wife, Gloria Swanson, who was 17.  Both just starting out.  The union would only last until 1919.

The Three Musketeersk was a big hit in February, 1916 with Orrin Johnson and Louise Glaum - a popular actress in those days working for Thomas Ince among others.  She played Milady de Winter to Johnson's D'Artagnan.




Louise Glaum

Quote from: albrecht on February 14, 2016, 03:44:24 PM
Actually I think in many cases, not all,  the "I'm spiritual" deal is more of just a cop-out for not settling on a certain belief, "getting out" of any discipline, education, or rituals, and trying to be 'hip' in the belief in the politically-correct, culture-relativist way. It many cases the "I'm spiritual" is the George Norry of religion which is why he always expressing this type of thought.

Brilliant insight. I couldn't agree more.

Quote from: Value Of Pi on February 14, 2016, 03:26:23 AM
Cruz is adamant about "More compromises with the Democrats," even though it's the only way legislation gets passed and signed into law. I understand the negative connotation of the word and why it's often viewed by one side or the other as surrender, but what exactly is the alternative to some kind of deal between opposing factions? Trying to shut down the government doesn't work, particularly when you're POTUS. So what's left? Some form of coercion or mass conversion?

The thing is Republicans always lose ground on compromises and Democrats always gain ground.  That plane will not fly anymore. 

Quote from: VtaGeezer on February 14, 2016, 12:13:36 PM
Ayatollah Cruz is a brilliant Dominionist fanatic whose delusional aim is to manipulate the system to bring about the collapse of the US government and Constitution so it will (in his screwball world view) be replaced it with a warped Christianish theocracy.  This "man of God" has the ethics of a scorpion. He is thoroughly convinced he's the anointed one, the "small m" messiah.  He's only 44 so whether now or later, he's going to be a nightmare for America unless the fools in TX wise up and dump him.

Wow, you really are fuckin' nuts.

Quote from: Jackstar on February 13, 2016, 11:52:40 PM
Gonzales v. UDV, 2006

Do you understand why I said the 20th century?  I know times have changed.  I was taking that into account.

Thoughts on the Republican debate tonight.

I think Trump imploded tonight.  This was his worst debate.  We will see how it affects the polls.  They have been forgiving up until now. He was rude and interrupting other debaters at random.  He did not bow his head during the moment of silence for Scalia. His Planned Parenthood support isn't going to go over well in South Carolina.  His attack on GWB  regarding 9/11 was uncalled for.  Clinton's policies led to an environment that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.  Bush had only been in office less than 9 months.  I'm sure a lot of people are saying, its about time someone told the truth on the Republican side about Iraq.  Well, whether you like it or not, many Republicans still believe that there were WMD in Iraq.  Saddam had more than plenty of time to get most of them out of the country before the war.  I'm not making a personal statement on that regard.  It's just a fact that many Republicans still  believe that WMD were in Iraq.  Trump's continued support for eminent domain for self-aggrandizement is going to cost him.   Trump also lied when he said Cruz put John Roberts on the Supreme Court.  Cruz was solicitor general of Texas when Roberts was nominated. I never knew a solicitor general from Texas had such power. One thing Trump did not do tonight is broaden his support with traditional grassroots Republicans. As a matter of fact, he lost support with those folks.

Bush was feisty tonight and appropriately defended his brother.  However, I don't see his numbers going up much.  People are tired of the Bush family.  Sorry Jeb.
 
Carson was a nonentity even though he had more opportunities to speak at this debate.  He's finished.

Rubio did well but that Gang of 8 bill still hangs over him and Cruz gave a sharp reply in Spanish when Rubio said that Cruz didn't speak Spanish.

I think I have to give the edge to Cruz with this debate.  He was solid with no discernable flubs and defended his record.  He also was very, very concerned about the direction of this country with Scalia's death.  He had a strong closing statement that spoke to that.
     
As for Kasich, he was way too much of a politician inserting "the Lord" repeatedly into his closing statement.  That was so obviously an appeal to the SC evangelicals.   There was a lot of talking about uniting the country now but I think Republican conservatives are a bit sick and tired of what that would entail.  More compromises with the Democrats.  Sorry, John.  You are toast.

So what in the end do I think will happen in the primary?  It's still a little early to say but Trump damaged himself.  To what extent, I don't know.  I think he could lose up to 10 points in the polls which would still give him a lead. I'm being conservative on that.  I'll have a better idea on Monday or Tuesday. I'm not sure if Rubio will gain any traction after this debate.  I suspect an increase of a few points but I think Cruz will gain the most from this debate.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 10:40:58 PM
In addition to previous articles that I've posted that showed (or opined) that Scalia's interpretation of the U.S Constitution ended up in his later years at least as being whatever was consistent with his ideology.......blah, blah, blah

    Of course, the Founders had no idea that corporations would be doling out health care for their employees.  I'm sure they would have preferred to have health care left up to the individual.   

   I am also sure that the Founders would have agreed that what corporations provide for their employees was up to the corporations not government so long as it was not injurious to the employees.  This also applies to corporate laws.  Employees are free to choose where they work. If they don't care for the corporations benefits and bylaws, they can work somewhere else.

   As for the peyote case, up until the last few years it was generally agreed that drugs were bad for people and should thus be regulated regardless of religion.  How many times in the 20th Century was pot use upheld for religious reasons?  Or any other drug for that matter? Forgive me if I'm ignorant on that matter but on a federal level, I don't recall it ever being brought up before that ruling. I'm not necessarily saying that it is right but I do see the justification from a 20th century POV. That issue should be left to the states as should gay marriage, abortion and many other issues.

Was Scalia perfect?  Hell no.  Are any of us?  No. However, he did a hell of a great job and did the best he could.

For further posts, please refrain from posting articles from biased sources.

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 13, 2016, 11:10:16 PM
+1

Hey, GS.  Its been a while since I've seen 136 lurking in the politics thread and he crossed way over the line with his spinning and hate.  I know nobody else is here but I had to say something.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 07:54:55 PM
Is there seriously a debate that black people are slower learners as Scalia claimed?

Or that homosexuals make inferior parents?

Or that the voting rights act perpeptuated 'racial entitlement' in favor of black people?  (Another opinion of his that over rode the elected legislature.)

I think it's you who are too enamored by his writings to judge him objectively for the 'man' he was :a hate filled and vile POS

That's funny.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't think he was a piece of shit and you are the one that is hate-filled, Canuck.  I never thought I'd be praising Ginsburg but she is a 1000 times better than you.  Stick to Trudeau and Canadian politics.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 06:48:11 PM
Well, I'll combine the two. You are a moron and I hope you die in the next few minutes.  The world can use less morons like you and Scalia.

You are not winning any converts with statements like this.

Quote from: Showroom Dummy on February 13, 2016, 06:06:56 PM
things can be held over to the next presidency since republicans hold the majority  and will not want obama being allowed to nominate anyone -one problem as you know is the court is usually split 4-4 with the ninth vote being very important -with the court voting for a year possibly with 8 justices this in itself is unprecedented which than leads to a another debate of the  balance of the court

This is a good point.  However, the edge still goes to the left with Roberts and Kennedy on the bench.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 06:18:22 PM
This is the best news I've heard in a while. RIH POS Scalia.

Feel the hate. Only a liberal would hate someone like that with every fiber of their soul.

RIP The honorable Antonin Scalia.

Trump is really having a lot of Trumper tantrums tonight.   He's a whiner and speaks when not addressed. He better get his meds straightened out.