You wrote: “The mind is limitless, Inception, drives that point home.”

Actually, no, Inception drives the _opposite_ of that home, proving yet again how unimaginative it truly is (as opposed to how truly brilliant it could have been). The film from start to finish is completely limited to the mind, dreams and memories of Cobb- and not only limited in that way- but Cobb himself is limited by the film. We know nothing of his life to care about whether his wife or children actually exist. We are given no incentive to invest into his character or his story, because we are given no reason for his situation, his purpose, nor are we even offered a slither of a reason for Nolan’s point in introducing him and the story to us.

Perhaps our minds are limitless. But Nolan limits his story, his character and his entire purpose in creating what is essentially an exercise in futility: an attempt at appearing brilliant by making clumsy shallow characters intertwine into what is basically a one line plot: “Do we really know what’s real?”

Someone should tell Nolan that asking philosophical questions without investing into an exposition does not equal depth nor brilliance. He made the film equivalent of an idiot who gets high and starts thinking he’s deep because he questions reality.

Inception is limited completely by its own false depth. It could never be called limitless. And if it’s any indication of Nolan’s mind: neither can he.

I will never be convinced this film was “brilliant.” I stand by my original assessment. It was a badly written story for a great concept.

Question: At which point does our kindness expire? The problem for cons with how the liberal’s sense is viewed and not explained to non-libs is within that kindness, at which point do we proverbially teach our recipients of kindness “how to fish?” One of the things that President Clinton did, while controversial, was put a time limit on welfare… however, not much was done to teach “how to fish”. This would lead us into the education system, but that’s another conversation with various levels of failure to note.

My real desire between libs and cons when it comes to these issues, many trivial, is that there are blanks to be filled by both sides that I really think is “conservative” in nature, not Conservative, and this is where I really take issue with the outspoken ultra-libs and ultra-cons alike in that they are profiting off of polarized nonsense…

Yes, we need to find commonality and it is not completely lost on the Christians on the right. The pressures put on people because of their religious affiliation with Christianity has disenchanted many on the Right in regards to the government, not allowing Biblical sentiments by asking these members to hide their faith in the public arena, even the most non-proselytizing artifacts like the Ten Commandments… led by what is perceived to be the darker side of the ACLU… I personally appreciate much of the work that the ACLU does, even for Christians much of the time, however at the same time their activities against Christians sends a mixed message that ultimately cannot be trusted by the people on the Right.

I do not intend that assessment of the ACLU to be a jab, but rather an understanding of why the Right does not like them, and why many religious righties can’t exercise “kindness” in fear of being litigated against for being outspoken of their religious way of life.

Commonality is what we need to find. But we must find commonality in strengthening the weak (a down-right biblical sentiment for all those xians on the right). If we do not, we will slowly see the erosion of us all.

I actually know people who complain about paying taxes for public school because their kids go to private schools. Well- guess what? If you don’t educate those children who _can’t_ go to private school- they will likely end up needing your tax dollars later for welfare, childcare, or prisons. Would you rather pay taxes _now_ for a better tomorrow or later to cover the mistakes of the past?

As a liberal- I can say this: We rise and fall as a nation. For too long many people have strived to rise, only to not even be able to reach the ladder of success. Meanwhile, many others whom have no need don’t see how out of reach that ladder is. It is impossible to climb what isn’t even an _option_. It isn’t that we aren’t patriotic, it’s that we pride our patriotism in helping the little guy- something the founders had in mind when they framed the constitution and claimed equality for all. We don’t pride our patriotism in flags or battlefronts or in capital gained or in legislations thwarted- we know that we are only as strong as our _weakest_ link- and therefore we strive to strengthen those who are weak from within our collective strength. What some refer to as “socialism” is just plain kindness. Now _that_ makes me Patriotic.