YEAH Stallone you wimp! Ha, choke on that!
Well, actually "doctor" it seems Rambo is more concerned with sorting out some bad guys in Burma this time around. You know, that place where a REAL and vicious Socialist military dictatorship has been oppressing and killing innocent people on and off for nigh on 60 years now.
Stallone replies:
"The phrase ‘politically correct’ is basically a euphemism for bold face lying because unfortunately, lies keep society functioning. The day we have our politicians actually tell us the real truth, we’d have anarchy in the streets. So we’re told what they think will pacify the masses not inflame them. "
Source: http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2008/170108Stallone.htm
Note: http://www.infowars.ne...
Stumble It!
-Max Planck<br />
<br />
<br />
Yo Sly!<br />
<br />
This is Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr from Los Angeles<br />
<br />
I love Rambo like God loves Jesus and I am proud to say I saw RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II twelve times in the theater and even turned down high school sex to see it on opening night. (And to this day no sex has equalled that experience).<br />
<br />
My question is this: 7- In the eighties, John Rambo took on villains who were the real villains of the day: ruthless, invading Russian commie bastards hellbent on global communism. So I always assumed that if Rambo returned he'd be taking on the real villain of this day: extreme, radical Islamist bastards hellbent on worldwide jihad. It seems like all of today's movies have pussed out on making Islamofacists the bad guys even though they are clearly the bad guys in the real world right now. Why is Rambo pussing out on this mission? Has he become politically correct?<br />
<br />
Just curious. I still love ya.<br />
<br />
xoxox,<br />
Dr. H<br />
<br />
7. The phrase ‘politically correct’ is basically a euphemism for bold face lying because unfortunately, lies keep society functioning. The day we have our politicians actually tell us the real truth, we’d have anarchy in the streets. So we’re told what they think will pacify the masses not inflame them. So getting back to your question..I thought the idea of Rambo dealing with Al-Qaeda, etc. would be an insult to our American forces that are actually dying trying to rid the world of this cancer. To have at the end of a 90 minute movie the character of Rambo seizing Osama bin Laden in a choke hold then dragging him into the Oval Office then tossing him in the President’s lap declaring “The world is now safe, Chief” would be a bit insulting. We’ve seen today every film that deals with the Middle Eastern situation has failed because it is a subject people find incredibly painful to sit through while it is ongoing. Maybe ten years in the future a good film will be produced on the subject. Right now I believe revealing a situation like the ongoing genocide in Burma provides a compelling story simply because it is true and is the longest running civil war in the world – 60 years against a small group of Christian peasants called The Karen. Also, I wanted to keep Rambo in the Far Eastern jungles, where cinematically it would reflect his days in Vietnam. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35279">http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35279</a><br />
<br />
He's not really saying anything that diverges from the mainstream narrative...<br />
Of course not - he's not stupid - has to get his new movie financed.