Uh, did they forget something?
-
love-song — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 06:47 PM)
Oke, so I just googled "Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better" And this was the one that sounded the most reliable, of course it's still the internet, so no "hard proof", but I'll just post it here so you can decide for yourself if this might be a "real source"
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100105151413AAgf1Xy
Me, I liked the movie. Haven't read the book though. For me the story was simple but not really lacking. Like one of the reviewers wrote, a movie with a nice 80's feeling to it.
(though it didn't change my mind about Tom Cruise getting to old for these action flicks) -
Hmmwhatshisface — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 07:12 AM)
The quote seems to be a paraphrase of A religious war is like killing someone over who has the better imaginary friend. The quote is attributed to Larry Beinhart.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/225935-a-religious-war-is-like-killing-someone-over-who-has -
JW-7 — 11 years ago(August 01, 2014 03:30 PM)
Well, thanks for clearing that up. Apparently I did miss it because it makes so little sense and is so ridiculous that my brain filtered it out. So for this they go around shooting people willy-nilly? There was no other avenue? Right!
-
wvmcl — 11 years ago(November 03, 2014 05:48 AM)
The killing-multiple-victims-to-hide-the-true-victim thing has been used many, many times, dating back at least to the Agatha Christie days. But has it ever once happened in real life? I don't think so. The easy way to get rid of the main victim would be to just kill her and make it look like an accident. Why complicate things so unnecessarily?
Of course, then there wouldn't be a story, would there? -
saburaukami-645-566777 — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 08:59 AM)
no, no, no, no. Seriously?! You have your facts all wrong. I mean do you even know anything about the DC shootings? There is this amazing thing called google that fixes our worlds problems oh you cant use it? Here let me google that for you.
- He never killed his wife. so no it didn't "happen in real life." His wife was never a victim in relation to the DC shootings. AND is still alive today. If his real intention was to kill his wife why wait till shot #14? I think she would be dead.
- He didn't want custody of his kids. In fact, He kidnapped them in '99. Before he was executed in 09, he was given a chance to call his family. He never called his kids.
- Evidence suggested he wanted money from the government. Which EVIDENCE is usually what we use to convict people.
- Article from Washington post 10 years after: "Lee Boyd Malvo (accomplice) said. 'My focus is on witnesses, passengers, and whenever there was an opening, I told him to shoot.' It was rapid, one after another, he said, all at random. 'Whoever was there.'" Article shows it was random.
So stop being and idiot and learn truth before you spread lies.
-
Don-the-Lamplighter — 9 years ago(June 20, 2016 11:47 PM)
Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine.
rayonmullings never said the DC sniper killed his wife. He said that he targeted random strangers so that he
could
kill his wife. Which he obviously never managed to do.
I heard the same thing. I just never bothered to vet every detail I heard fly about the case at one time or another.
Why not simply correct what you felt was inaccurate? Why resort to name-calling and condescension? What are you, in 3rd grade? -
sidgirl — 9 years ago(April 22, 2016 03:11 PM)
Stella Nickell poisoned random Excedrin capsules with cyanide in 1986 and planted some of them in retail stores to cover up the fact that she poisoned her husband Bruce with cyanide. Her attempt to hide her husband's murder by making him look like a serial killer's victim resulted in one other death, an innocent woman Nickell had never met named Susan Snow.
And that's just the first example that came to mind, because it's particularly famous. I'm sure there are others that I can't recall offhand at the moment.
People said love was blind, but what they meant was that love blinded them.
-
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(December 13, 2015 10:20 PM)
Because some company/group pays enough money to some congressperson's "re-election" fund that they push to get a project built under the guise that it will put people to work.
It happens all of the time. There were tons of "pork barrel projects" in 0bama's "Shovel Ready" jobs bill. And, it isn't just one party which does stuff like that.
It is one of the problems with the way our government "operates" now. States have to give billions to the Federal government, who, in turn, doles out money to the states to fund their projects.
So, members of Congress feel that if they don't fight to get as much money from the Feds as they can, they aren't doing their job. They think that their job is to get the money for jobs for their district - even if it means people's taxes will be higher and/or the project that is being built is useless and wasteful.
For example, in my area they built a civilian use airport on an air force base. They measure the success of the airport on if they have to sink less millions into it this year than last in an effort to keep it open. For most of the time it has been built, it hasn't been in use. But, we're still on the hook for it and they keep p!ssing away more money on it even though there are less people in the area/state than when they first built it and said that it was needed because of the over-flow from St. Louis (never mind that they shut down one of the terminals at that airport due to lack of use) -
BertramWilberforceWooster — 11 years ago(August 03, 2014 04:57 PM)
Read the book, it'll fill in the blanks
Why? If the adaptation is good, non-readers should be able to enjoy it without ever cracking it open. Everything is explained in this, you just have to pay attention.
If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go! -
-
vake — 11 years ago(August 04, 2014 03:23 PM)
Why doesn't it make sense? You think the Russian mob makes their living by selling flowers, or by killing people? When they take over a construction firm which has lucrative contracts with the city, they make millions in profits. People have killed for far less.
-
Beauq81 — 11 years ago(August 04, 2014 03:33 PM)
Some, but less than in the book. The filmmakers complicated it a bit to sound flashier, with a bit of conspiracy theory. In the book, the Zec and his gang own a quarry and the killed couple owned the competing quarry. No international conspiracy, just a local dispute.
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better. -
transmentalist — 10 years ago(September 23, 2015 03:12 PM)
No international conspiracy, just a local dispute
Hmn, but "local dispute" doesn't sound big enough (in my opinion) to justify the whole scheme (setting up Barr, killing four innocents, having meth-dealer thugs on call, etc.).
That much effort, I'd expect a bigger conspiracy to justify it - Zec & Charlie going state to state, making a killing financially & sometimes literally, that's big enough to justify this elaborate a scheme
Just my take on it, having never read the book -
Beauq81 — 10 years ago(September 30, 2015 04:02 AM)
In the book, Zec's company keeps winning city construction contracts by bribing city officials. The woman they killed in the shooting and her husband owned a competing company and when they suddenly stopped getting work and saw only one company was getting all of it, they started asking questions and got themselves killed.
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.