great movie

but I can see why it's not going to make much money. As mentioned in the movie itself, with people working longer hours for less money, the last thing they want is upsetting news about the deterioration of their country. Vice will get some nominations and even win a few, but I'm sure some happy comfort food will be the big winner on Oscar night.

A real shame. It's very well done, regardless of your political leanings. Well acted, well written, well conceived.


Is this a joke? The mainstream dinosaur media used to slam the growing alternative media as "pessimism porn". University professors railed against it claiming it was turning people off of democracy.

People love upsetting news, love acknowledgement that America is no longer great or that there was no economic recovery. Sites like Infowars would constantly make dire predictions about the fate of the world. That site is now a juggernaut and unlike this movie it all happened during the height of the Bush administration when their angle was 9/11 as an inside job.

What people don't like is a bunch of wealthy Johnny-come-lately liberals trying to misdirect history and commiserate as if we don't see how gleefully Hollywood continues toppling Israel's enemies one after the next. We're sick of stifling political correctness. When are you going to admit basic facts such as how Obama invaded even more countries than Bush? Where have you been all this time?

This movie is total NPC and no amount of firmware update can save it from the scrap heap.


What are you talking about?

Few of us on the left ever believed 9/11 was an 'inside job'. However, we did recognise the Iraq invasion for the disgraceful abuse of power most Americans, including many who supported Trump, now acknowledge it to be.

The case for Saddam's connection to the terrorist network that attacked the Twin Towers was never credibly made. The people who organised the attack were in fact enemies of Saddam. And yet Dick and Dom chose to embroil the US and its allies in an unnecessary war that costs thousands of lives on all sides under the spurious basis that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and, just in case that moronic argument was seen for the pack of lies it was, that it possessed WMDs that several months of forensic UN weapons inspections had somehow been unable to locate.

As the film rightly recognises, Cheney and Bush didn't orchestrate 9/11, but they sure as hell made sure they were going to milk the tragedy and the understandable mood of sadness, anger and patriotism that followed it so that they could pursue their own imperialist regime change 'nation-building' agenda.

And yeah, Obama and his fellow neolibs are not much better, although, to his administration's credit, there is at least a semblance of a liberal interventionist and national security agenda to its foreign policy. It didn't just choose to invade whichever country would accrue the most profitable contracts for whichever companies its key staff were board members of.


The left believes anything authority says, especially our "intelligence community". Of course they never believed 9/11 could be an inside job. I never meant to imply any such thing, the opposite in fact. As quickly as they abandoned the WMDs in Iraq lie, they jumped onto the chemical weapons in Syria lie. Even now the worst the left can say about the Iraq war is that is was "mishandled" because Bush is Republican and therefore incompetent or something. Madeleine Albright said "500,000 Iraqi children wasn't enough".

Why focus on Cheney as some lucky parasite, instead of the ideological underpinnings and the people who did orchestrate all these events? The PNAC document, by the Jewish neoconservatives? Bill Clinton even told the WMD lie and called for regime change way back when. These countries weren't picked out of a hat. This was part of a long term plan. It's not okay to kill Muslims just because Dick Cheney's not the one making money from it.


You know, if you weren't such a transparently rabid anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist, you might not be such a bad guy.

But what you refer to as the 'left' is most certainly not the left. It is the centre-right neocon establishment represented by both main US parties for the last three decades or so, and it is men like Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders, both Jewish, among others, who have been rightly decrying the industrial-military complex that both the GOP and Democratic Party, or, as Chomsky puts it "corporate party #1 and corporate party #2", represent.

Suffice to say that even as a leftist who supports the civil rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, and increased public investment in education, tackling climate change and infrastructure ostensibly favoured by most Democrats and abhorred by most Republicans, I am no more okay when it is Clinton or Obama dropping bombs on Muslims than I am when it is Bush and Cheney.


War has always been the domain of the left. The idea that we should intervene in the affairs of others is the foundation of Progressivism, with both world wars as their crowning achievements (besides central banking). They used to talk openly about it, about how war was a great opportunity to centrally plan the economy, the "welfare warfare state". We don't fight wars to rape and pillage. We fight wars to "make the world safe for democracy/McDonnalds", "the war to end all wars". "Operation Iraqi Freedom". High minded humanitarian notions. The left seeks ever more centralized power, one world government. They ridicule the right as "isolationist".

Calling neoconservatism "center right" or "center anything" is absurd. What could be beyond maximum intervention? Left or right, their heritage is communism. Bill Kristol and the others were all card carrying communists, wealthy New York City types like Leon Trotsky/Lev Bronstein.

Noam Chompsky is in favor of the war against Syria. He's the war party. You could have at least said Murray Rothbard, or better yet stop apologizing for the holocaust. Ron Paul has been accused of antisemitism for opposing war more times than a survivor gives a lecture to a kindergarten. Ellie Wiesel is rabidly pro-war too.


You think US isolationism would have been the right response to Hitler, Thrillhouse?

And how does Stalin's Socialism in One Country doctrine square with your argument about Communism? How does the modern far-left's support for the Stop the War coalition and anti-globalist sympathies fit your beliefs?

By the way, Bernie Sanders has consistently condemned air-strikes in Syria.

None of this plays my own hand regarding these complex issues. All I will say however is that your posts display a disturbing anti-Semitic narrative that fails to acknowledge that Jews, like any other racial and ethnic group across the world, are composed of a wide cross-section of people with staunchly different political views and philosophies, and whatever elites do exist, and effectively 'control' the world, are not defined or unified by their ethno-racial heritages.


Your instincts betray you. Let me give you an example. We're talking about Bush and Iraq war, etc... and for some reason you find it necessary to start telling me about how much you love homosexuals. Yeah I get that you were using it to make a point, but look what you left out of that list of grievances: anything to do with class or wealth. Do you hate poor people? Are you poor-phobic? My spellchecker is. You made it a point to virtue signal about some very tiny (yet powerful) minorities and yet the unwashed masses are conspicuously left out entirely. Now I doubt you actually hate poor people, and I know it would be very easy for you to now say that you favor high taxes on rich people or something, but the point is you left that out, and you left it out in favor of the most mundane laundry list of the most corporate friendly agenda items imaginable. I'm sick to death of hearing about white privlidge, male privlidge, "cis"privlidge, while no liberal has the guts to admit he would trade places with black female billionaire Oprah in a nanosecond. You know all the correct views. I'm not sure you really believe them. It was just programmed into you and you're repeating them.

I don't have a strong opinion about who I'm talking to after 2 posts. But that's the sort of information I pick up on, probably because in my experience after having argued against war with many liberals for many years, all of them always say they're against war, but they never really are. In the end they're just practical people, not philosophic people, and they can always find the excuse they need to justify anything. So I pick up on a lot of dog whistles. I think if it came down to antisemitism versus war, you would choose war (as long as you're not the one fighting or paying).

All we have to do is tell you six million Jews are being gassed and you're ready (they claimed that in both WWI and WW2). Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos said babies were being thrown out of incubators, in order to start the first Iraq war. All wars are based on fake atrocity stories. If that's all it takes, you might go to war over many things, maybe even a crooked toenail would be enough. You're fundamentally on a different plane than me, thinking that a war can beat a concept like antisemitism (or dare I say terrorism as in the war against terror). In the circle of life where matter cannot be created or destroyed, there's a balance where attempting to stamp out racism or whatever just creates resentment and forces it underground where it festers. You have to be brave enough to take it head on and win hearts and minds. But I think the reason people don't do that is because they don't really believe in it. We know different things are different. You support or oppose war for the same reason you support or oppose free health care. Are you going to get more out than you put in? People get more than they bargain for thinking the answer is yes.

For your specific points, I don't know what argument I made about communism, but nationalist Stalin is hated almost as much as nationalist Hitler, whereas internationalist Trotsky is beloved, as the tragic "idealist". But it was Trotsky who said "war communism is just regular communism" and was openly far more brutal than any of the others could have even dreamed. He was Jewish supremacist and everything was about revenge. Criticism of Stalin is often backhanded praise of Trotsky. Notice the hammer and sickle remains far more acceptable than the swastika. The left's take on globalism is the usual muddle. They want world government to manage trade and make sure it's fair. That's what we have isn't it?

I stay away from talking about Bernie Sanders because I don't pay attention to him and don't know. I do know he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, probably the most warmongeringest candidate of all time. Bush endorsed her. That's a microcosm of social justice. Hillary's escalation of war would be preferable to Trump's de-escalation of war... because Trump is racist/naughty. Gee, good thing Bush and Obama always made sure to say how great Islam the religion of peace is before slaughtering them by the millions. So polite! Trump is the opposite and it takes a warped university professor mindset to let black people die in poverty while dictating "people of color" as the replacement terminology for "colored people".

Jews are a group. Groups exist every bit as much as individuals exist, and with their own dynamics. Groups have group strategies, and Jews are particularly ethnocentric. Is it coincidence that Japan is 99% Japanese or that the Democratic Republic of Congo is a s***hole? The corporate globohomogayplex devalues humanity by insisting we're all interchangeable, as cheap disposable labor and consumers. George Bush actually promoted our presence in the Middle East as being for the good of Israel, not America.


You are a complete lunatic. You have someone who's trying to build a bridge and halfway agree with you, and your only concern is to blab bizarre right wing blamelessness when their hands are bloodier than anyone's. Twist away, my friend ! I'm sure you have a small amount of acolytes who who will cheer you on just like you and yours cheer every venal and evil Pube that rises to the top of the scum that's the Wrong Wing.


Thank you snepts for recognising that despite my differences with Thrillhouse, I have endeavoured to build bridges with them and focus on the few commonalities and points of agreement we share.

Sadly, I do think some of the issues Thrillhouse highlights, including class, poverty, and neoconservative warmongering masquerading as so-called 'liberal intervention', are 100% valid. Unfortunately, I am very sceptical to how much Thrillhouse actually cares about these issues. It seems to me that Thrillhouse is more interested in highlighting them in an attempt simply to expose hypocrisy within some sections of the political left (not that I remotely consider the US Democratic Party to be particularly left-wing), as a means of splitting the progressive vote and giving more power to a far-right demagogue like Trump, whose economic policies are even further to the right than the Democratic Party (which is sadly saying something), with an added sprinkling of xenophobia, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and global warming denial. And although Trump, amazingly and thankfully, hasn't started any wars yet (the one and only thing I can give him any credit for), he is still ramping up the use of drone attacks, and thus bombing Muslims, which Thrillhouse claims to be against, to an even greater degree than his predecessor.


A) it IS pessimism porn. All they want is attention and there’s nothing to lose. Fox News has lied non stop for decades. Still going isn’t it?

B) HUGE difference between upsetting news (ala local news) and what this movie shows. This movie suggests the American political system is hopelessly broken and unfortunately there’s nothing we can do until red stated wake the Fck up. Btw it sounds like you haven’t seen Vice yet. If that’s the case maybe move on.


"It's rigged". Where have we heard that before? I get the feeling your only interest in this movie is partisan and it's not working out.


Believe me, it is working out. That's why these movies get made, and "Mission Accomplished" cartoon nonsense doesn't.


Is the movie making money or isn't it? Make up your mind and grow up. It's the OP doing preemptive damage control, not me. You just wanted to pick a fight.

Mission Accomplished movies are pumped out constantly. Look at Spielberg. Look up something called "A Timeless Call". That's the movie he made for the Democratic National Convention to glorify Democrat initiated wars. Why doesn't society condemn him?


"toppling Israel's enemies one after the next,".....

I'd be interested to hear you name a few of their enemies that our country has "toppled."

"Obama invaded even more countries than Bush,".....

You mean, the United States CONTINUES to "invade" more and more countries NO MATTER who the President is.


No I don't mean that. I mean Obama invaded more countries than Bush and so is more
beloved than Bush. Trump is hated. He won't kill Syria.


Except you're lying as usual. Obama didn't "invade" more countries than Bush. Or maybe you're just too stupid to know it's not possible to 'invade' a country that his predecessor had already invaded and was occupying by the time he took office. Invading Iraq is 100% on Bush. Same goes with Afghanistan.

FYI: Airstrikes aren't "invasions".


It's a good movie.


Who the hell are you anyway? Just one disinformation pseudo-fact spinning bot who only want Pubes to run things so as to widen all the gaps between the Have and the Have-Nots? Keep it up, we need Krazies like you to tether us to Reality. Rave On John Dummy.