You Only Love Guys

Let's help make Bab's dream come true. Ideas are now being accepted.

The title will be YOU ONLY LOVE GUYS.

I think M and Moneypenny should be a married, interracial, intergenerational lesbian couple, and that Moneypenny should be in a wheelchair and possibly mentally disabled.

James Bond may be ordered to under go a vasectomy or some procedure that not allow him to achieve an erection during the coruse of his mission because he'll be undercover and dressed as a woman.

Nuthin?

- Bond uncovers a CIA/Mossad plot to launch a false flag attack to spread Islamophobia.

- Bond battles carbon emissions.

- Bond sues Andrew Bolt.

- Bond marries Felix Leiter.

-Bond fights with Palestinians against Israel.

-Bond comes out and battles for gay rights. Ends in a sword fight with Lance Bass

-Bond spends two hours playing Activision's Modern Warfare 3 on the Sony Playstation 3 connected to a 50" 3D Sony BRAVIA 240hz LED LCD TV and a Sony 7.2 Surround Sound System.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Nuthin?

Well, slap me around and call me Susan, but I'm a little confused about what the thread is supposed to be about.

Incidentally, the parody picture of Babs Broccoli imposed on Angelina Jolie's body actually makes Ms.Broccoli look kind of fugly, and she's an otherwise attractive woman. Too bad about her views on James Bond, though.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

James Bond may be ordered to under go a vasectomy or some procedure that not allow him to achieve an erection during the coruse of his mission because he'll be undercover and dressed as a woman.

But I think just leaving it at Bond getting a vasectomy would be enough. It's the only responsible thing to do when one has that much sex.

My idea: James Bond gets a chip planted in his penis so M can monitor his erectile activity while he's on a mission.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

My idea: James Bond gets a chip planted in his penis so M can monitor his erectile activity while he's on a mission.

That might get him going again. Give the chip a workout at least. We know how Bond loves to exercise his cellphone chip. Chips give Bond a woodie, even if Olga didn't.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

My idea: James Bond gets a chip planted in his penis so M can monitor his erectile activity while he's on a mission.

And every time Bond's erectile activity "heightens," M can immediately lower it by connecting to the chip through her iPad. Sex is, after all, verboten in Greengrassian cinema.

PINK FLEMING-OS
------------------O
----------------7

CJB wrote:

- Bond sues Andrew Bolt.

I fail to see the problem with this. "The Bolt Report" is little more than "The Labor-Bashing Half-Hour". I don't have any particular political persuasion, but Bolt is the most biased and up-himself journalist I've ever seen.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

CJB wrote:

- Bond sues Andrew Bolt.

I fail to see the problem with this. "The Bolt Report" is little more than "The Labor-Bashing Half-Hour". I don't have any particular political persuasion, but Bolt is the most biased and up-himself journalist I've ever seen.

Isn't bias and big-headiness part of that brand of journalism anyway? I mean, you don't watch Bill O'Reilly or Keith Obermann for impartial opinions.

Yes, but Bolt likes to portray himself as the pinnacle of journalistic integrity.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Yes, but Bolt likes to portray himself as the pinnacle of journalistic integrity.

If he's bashing labour for a half hour straight, for integrity. Sounds like a great show!:geek:

There's a difference between reporting news and reporting an opinion. I would not object to Bolt if he could be professional - but he's not. He's obviously a mouthpiece for Abbott. He takes issue with every little thing Labor does, but ignores and glosses over Liberal's shortcomings (like a complete lack of an environmental policy). I mean, this is the man who made racist comments and then attacked the people who he offended by claiming that his right to free speech was more impotant than their right not to be discriminated against.

But 99 percent of the time those claiming rascism are professional complainers, who go running to human rights tribunals or some other unaccountable bureaucratic body, at the slightest hint of offence. News flash! In a democray we do have the right to offend each other. Hurt feelings is not cause for legal action, unless one can truly drum up a real defamation suit, that one is prepared to back up with actual court action and the attendant risk of paying the financial price if the suit is thrown out.

These people play the race card 7 days a week and twice on Tuesdays. When they are not screaming racism, its homophobia, sexism or gasp, climate-deniers. There's no pleasing them. These people have no interest in free-speech. They are about enforcing correct speech. Makes them feel morally superior I guess.

And another hallmark of the noisy left, is if they can't counter with rational arguments, then they always resort to complaining about how it was said. Shoot the messenger. But I guess that's understandable. To quote David Mamet, "The struggle of the left to rationalize its positions is an intolerable Sisyphean burden. I speak as a reformed Liberal."

Bolt is obviously a poltical commentator and he's got a pov and the left wants to shut him down. Typical. To the left, correct-speech always trumps free-speech.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

There's a difference between reporting news and reporting an opinion.

He's not a news reporter. He's an opinion columnist hence, and this is a shocker, he is paid to present his own opinions.

Quote :

He's obviously a mouthpiece for Abbott. He takes issue with every little thing Labor does, but ignores and glosses over Liberal's shortcomings (like a complete lack of an environmental policy).

Maybe that's because Labor is in government and, y'know, actually in the position of implementing national policy.

The Coalition does have environmental policies. To suggest otherwise is a lie. In fact, Bolt has criticised Abbott's Direct Action environmental policy for being costly and unnecessary. But I guess that's a figment of my imagination as Bolt is a paid shill for the Liberal Party.

Quote :

I mean, this is the man who made racist comments and then attacked the people who he offended by claiming that his right to free speech was more impotant than their right not to be discriminated against.

And he'd be dead right. Free speech is more important than a "right" to not be offended.

No, he was genuinely offensive. He claimed that it was fashionable for fair-skinned people of a mixed cultural background to claim aboriginal ancestry to further their social and political standing. Anybody who has even the slightest understanding of aboriginal cultures knows of the importance placed in the extended family. It's not treated as a sin or a crime to falsely claim aboriginal heritage within aboriginal cultures, but it is of such personal importance that doing so is inconceivable. The people who took Bolt to court were not politicians, but the people has actually offended/

As for your claims that "the noisy left" would like to see Bolt shut down, they probably wouldn't object to it if it happened. But so far, "the noisy left" is probably better described as "the silent left" - nobody has bothered to comment on Bolt. He'd probably like the idea of Labor trying to shut him down, but in reality, they're ignoring him. And that probably hurts him even deeper than the idea that they'd try to silence him. Andrew Bolt is Australia's answer to Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck - self-important, with an opinion and an audience ... but he desn't even have the balls to admit that everything he does, he does for the sake of his own political leanings.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

No, he was genuinely offensive.

So fucking what? If you don't like what someone writes then you're free to debate them. Going off and crying to a lawyer is for pygmies. Hard to believe the concept of free speech still needs defending in this day and age.

'Course I don't blame the plaintiff for merely using the legislative tools given to them by Keating and Lavarch. That pair of giddy, illiberal social engineers are the real villains of the piece.

Quote :

But so far, "the noisy left" is probably better described as "the silent left" - nobody has bothered to comment on Bolt.

Bullshit. There was a tidal wave of gloating from Fairfax and the ABC in the immediate aftermath of the verdict. I don't blame you for not reading their muck (it's hazardous to one's health) but it was there.

Quote :

but he desn't even have the balls to admit that everything he does, he does for the sake of his own political leanings.

He routinely refers to himself as politically conservative. I don't know where you ever got the impression he tries to be an ideologically unbiased news reporter. At least he doesn't spread his political views at the taxpayers' expense like the tovarisihi at Our ABC.

Quote :

At least he doesn't spread his political views at the taxpayers' expense like the tovarisihi at Our ABC.

Or the Beeb (for the non Brits, that's slang for BBC).

CJB wrote:

So fucking what? If you don't like what someone writes then you're free to debate them. Going off and crying to a lawyer is for pygmies. Hard to believe the concept of free speech still needs defending in this day and age.

Uh, because Bolt has a following. People, unfortunately, listen to him. If they agree with him, they might start to believe that people only claim aboriginal heritage because it suits them, and employers might discriminate against them because of it. Can you say unfair?

CJB wrote:

Bullshit. There was a tidal wave of gloating from Fairfax and the ABC in the immediate aftermath of the verdict. I don't blame you for not reading their muck (it's hazardous to one's health) but it was there.

But it didn't come from the actual politicians that Bolt so despises.

CJB wrote:

I don't know where you ever got the impression he tries to be an ideologically unbiased news reporter.

Have you ever actually seen "The Bolt Report"? He might say he's conservative, but his entire on-screen attitude is one that "I'm a guiding light in a world of political darkness, and my way of thinking is the only way there is" when he's little more than a mouthpiece for the Opposition. You claim that Fairfax and the ABC produced a "tidal wave of muck" in the aftermath, but their guilt doesn't automatically make Bolt innocent. Whatever they said about him, you can be sure he said the same (and worse) about them, and first. He's the worst journalist in Australia.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

No, he was genuinely offensive. He claimed that it was fashionable for fair-skinned people of a mixed cultural background to claim aboriginal ancestry to further their social and political standing. Anybody who has even the slightest understanding of aboriginal cultures knows of the importance placed in the extended family. It's not treated as a sin or a crime to falsely claim aboriginal heritage within aboriginal cultures, but it is of such personal importance that doing so is inconceivable. The people who took Bolt to court were not politicians, but the people has actually offended

This is fucking laughable. Its farcical, that these deep thinkers, thought they had a court case, because they were "offended." Amazing how the left, in its sanctimonious morally-superior fog, postures to support free speech, yet looks for every opportunity to impose correct-speech. I recommed Ezra Levant's excellent book on the left's self-serving assault on democracy and free-speech, via abuse of so-called human-rights tribunals,Shakedown, (2009).



[quote="Prisoner Monkeys"]

CJB wrote:

If they agree with him, they might start to believe that people only claim aboriginal heritage because it suits them, and employers might discriminate against them because of it. Can you say unfair?

Might, might, might. (sorry you only used the word twice) Life can be unfair! Say it ain't so? Can you say naive? You really believe that people wouldn't claim aboriginal heritage because it suits them? And if they do and it works for or against them. We better have a law ready, just in case.

Sanity break. We don't need laws or court rulings to protect against such stupidity. We don't need to be charging people with thought-crimes, as much as some might like it - as long as its the right-thought that's beeing prosecuted of course.

Lets all live in a bubble, or better yet, lets all work for the government, where we can be protected from everything.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Uh, because Bolt has a following. People, unfortunately, listen to him. If they agree with him, they might start to believe that people only claim aboriginal heritage because it suits them, and employers might discriminate against them because of it. Can you say unfair?

What's "unfair" is these trigger-happy litigators who won't engage in a rational debate with him. Rather they simply play judge, jury and executioner behind cosy discrimination laws. Bunch of cowards in other words.

If you're truly offended and have a modicum of decency and guts, you'll argue with Bolt on a level playing field.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

But it didn't come from the actual politicians that Bolt so despises.

The political class rarely engages with the press. If they do, it's only to suit their agenda (i.e. with the recent News International phone hacking scandal over - just a way to get rid of our last remaining right wing mogul - Rupert Murdoch).

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Have you ever actually seen "The Bolt Report"? He might say he's conservative, but his entire on-screen attitude is one that "I'm a guiding light in a world of political darkness, and my way of thinking is the only way there is" [...]

That's the basic mentality of all political columnists, left or right. They see themselves as prophets of the free press.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

You claim that Fairfax and the ABC produced a "tidal wave of muck" in the aftermath, but their guilt doesn't automatically make Bolt innocent. Whatever they said about him, you can be sure he said the same (and worse) about them, and first

He isn't innocent, but that's not what we're arguing about. We're talking about the spineless means used by the offended parties.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

He's the worst journalist in Australia.

:roll:

He's not a Goddamn journalist.

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

At least he doesn't spread his political views at the taxpayers' expense like the tovarisihi at Our ABC.

Or the Beeb (for the non Brits, that's slang for BBC).

Or the Corp or Corpse (for the non Canucks, that's slang for the State Broadcaster, CBC)

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Uh, because Bolt has a following. People, unfortunately, listen to him. If they agree with him, they might start to believe that people only claim aboriginal heritage because it suits them, and employers might discriminate against them because of it. Can you say unfair?

What a laughable excuse to stamp out free speech. Maybe we should ban nasty statements about Julia Gillard as it might harm her future employment prospects (and she'll be needing a new job very soon). And hell, the public sector, paid for with my taxes, discriminates in favour of people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. I think they'll do just fine.

Quote :

Have you ever actually seen "The Bolt Report"? He might say he's conservative, but his entire on-screen attitude is one that "I'm a guiding light in a world of political darkness, and my way of thinking is the only way there is"

Unsubstantiated rubbish. He has never said anything to that effect. The "on-screen attitude" you speak of are merely atrributes you concocted and applied to him.

Just because someone is opinionated doesn't mean they believe their way is the only way. And Bolt ain't the one calling for "incorrect" opinions to be dealt with before judges.

Quote :

when he's little more than a mouthpiece for the Opposition.

Ban dissent!

Quote :

You claim that Fairfax and the ABC produced a "tidal wave of muck" in the aftermath, but their guilt doesn't automatically make Bolt innocent. Whatever they said about him, you can be sure he said the same (and worse) about them, and first. He's the worst journalist in Australia.

I never doled out guilt or innocence to anyone. Fairfax/ABC were free to smugly gloat if they so pleased. I was merely pointing out that the Left (and yes, that includes large swathes of Fairfax and the ABC) were anything but silent on the matter.

Sharky wrote:

What's "unfair" is these trigger-happy litigators who won't engage in a rational debate with him.

Because a "rational debate" with Bolt would probably take about three minutes for him to start on a case of "YOU DON'T THINK THE WAY I DO SO YOU'RE WRONG!" Bolt believes that people with a mixed or undefined heritage will claim aboriginal ancestry for their own gain. Anyone who approached him for "rational debate" would only validate his beliefs.

Sharky wrote:

If you're truly offended and have a modicum of decency and guts, you'll argue with Bolt on a level playing field.

Bolt can't be argued with. He's like John Laws - if you disagree with him, he'll just talk over the top of you.

Sharky wrote:

That's the basic mentality of all political columnists, left or right. They see themselves as prophets of the free press.

Not Bolt. He sees himself as a prophet of the Australian people.

Sharky wrote:

He isn't innocent, but that's not what we're arguing about. We're talking about the spineless means used by the offended parties.

So Bolt is in the right because they took him to court? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Sharky wrote:

:roll:

He's not a Goddamn journalist.

But he believes he is. He might describe himself as a political columnist, but he clearly believes that he is a barometer for public opinion, and that his opinions are fact.

CJB wrote:

What a laughable excuse to stamp out free speech.

Bolt could have said what he wanted to without being offensive about it.

CJB wrote:

Just because someone is opinionated doesn't mean they believe their way is the only way.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. But in this case, it's the truth.

CJB wrote:

Ban dissent!

I have no problem with people talking up the opposition - if they've actually done something worth talking up. Which they haven't. Tony Abbott's entire policy seems to be "do or say whatever it takes to be Prime Minister, and figure it out from there". He criticises Gillard for the carbon tax, but he has no environmental policy of his own. He demands to know why Labor hasn't considered an ETS, conveniently forgetting that they tried to introduce an ETS, and it was the Liberals who shot it down. He attacks Gillard for the "Malaysia Solution", and puts forward the "Pacific Solution", which is essentially the same thing, just in a different country. Abbott it more interested in saying he is Prime Minister than he is in actually being Prime Minister, and Andrew Bolt laps this up as a good policy. How on earth can the Liberal Party be better than Labor when the Liberals have no policies of their own? At least Labor are actually trying to do something.