Big Blue, The
February 8, 2010
|
IMDB rating: 6.50 Plot: Enzo and Jacques have known each other for a long time. Their friendship started in their childhood days in the mediterranean. They were not real friends in these days, but there was something they both loved and used to do the whole day long: diving. One day Jacques’ father, who was a diver too, died in the mediterranean sea. After that incident Enzo and Jacques lost contact. After several years, Enzo and Jacques had grown up, Johanna, a young clerk in a security office, has to go to Peru. There she meets Jacques who works for a group of scientist. He dives for some minutes into ice cold water and the scientist monitor his physical state that is more like a dolphin’s than a human’s. Johanna can not believe what she sees and gets very interested in Jacques but she’s unable to get acquainted with him. Some weeks later, back in her office, she notices a championship for divers that is supposed to take place in Taormina, Italy. In order to see Jacques again she makes up a story so the firm sends her to Italy for business purposes. In Taormina there is also Enzo, the reigning diving world champion. He knows that only Jacques can challenge and probably beat him. This time Johanna and Jacques get closer, but Jacques, being more a dolphin than a man, can not really commit and his rivalry with Enzo pushes both man into dangerous territory… |
Actors: Brisbin David,Erdman John,Neu Jim,Ben Yehuda Ben,Castle Ted,Conversano Frank,Crozier Dan,Edwards Nick,Knaster Wyatt,Nesci John,O’Reilly Terry,Rafael Jose,Rice William,,
Do you think having a senate is unfair to the big states?
I have this feeling that is why the red states get money from the blue states, because they have an unfair advantage in the senate
We’ve been though this discussion already. The pathetic liberal states need to pay homage to the true patriots of America.
Only liberals would argue against that.
Emilio Largo | Feb 01, 2010
No, it helps to protect the little states from the over reaching big states.
baldone | Feb 01, 2010
That’s why there is a House of Representatives…
Think Outside the Ballot Box | Feb 01, 2010
No. All states are represented equally in the senate. It is the House of Reps where the representation is according to size.
Ever stop to think that no state should get money from another state. The purpose of the federal government is not to redistribute the wealth of different states.
Tell you what, red states and blue states can start managing their own budgets and spending projects. Then we’ll see how long the blue states can last before going bankrupt.
? | Feb 01, 2010
But they have the advantage in the House. Legislation has to pass both to become law. Advantages are evened out.
Crown Royal | Feb 01, 2010
I think the only way to truly fix this country is put term limits on all elected positions. Career politicians are and always have been the problem.
Answer man | Feb 01, 2010
Every state has two U.S. Senators and as far as the House (Congress) goes that is based on a states population.
The problems lay in how new Congressional districts are drawn.If you want to look at the problem Google "Congressional districts"
dstr | Feb 01, 2010
I can’t understand the unfair advantage that you seem to claim exists.
1. All money bills need to originate in the House, not the Senate.
2. Democrats control both the House and the Senate.
3. How could "red states" (republican leaning states) benefit more than "blue states" (democrat leaning states) when republicans don’t have a majority in either Legislative body?
So no, I don’t believe that our legislative system is unfair at all.
ItsJustMe | Feb 01, 2010
that’s why we have the House of Representatives, to balance this out.
Madd Hatter | Feb 01, 2010
No, it ensures equal representation of all states. Citizenship 101.
Norm Deguere | Feb 01, 2010
Yeap
The House should be good enough…………and the Senators should just be Janitors
Milk Cow | Feb 01, 2010
Yes, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Tom | Feb 01, 2010
Because most corporate headquarters are in large cities (i.e. blue states), the income tax generated by business conducted in red states is attributed to having been paid by blue states. However, red states do not receive more money than they pay in taxes when corporate taxes are recalculated as having been paid by the states that generated them.
As for the Senate, it prevents the big states from oppressing the smaller states. It was on the basis of this protection that many smaller states joined the Union.
Dutch | Feb 01, 2010
Despite the need to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority the disparity in power has gotten extreme. The senators from California represent nearly 37,000,000 people whereas the senators from Wyoming represent fewer than 550,000.
Hubris252 | Feb 01, 2010
Its funny that you mention this, because a few hundred years ago, there was this thing called the Constitutional Convention. The small states complained that if they gave representation based on size, that they would have no voice since the big states would have too much power. The big states argued that if you gave equal representation it would be unfair since they have much more people. So they made a compromise and made 2 houses, the House of Representatives as the lower house that is based on population, and the upper house, the Senate, based on equal representation. As far as I’m concerned the issue was solved then.
pepito | Feb 01, 2010
No, It’s fair… Well somewhat.
Sugar | Feb 01, 2010
It clearly is unfair and inequitable, for New hampshire or rhode island to have the same representation as texas or california is clearly ridiculous, however the politicians and activist judges have virtually dismantled the constitution over the last 100 years, so maybe it is time for a complete re-structure but definitely not one designed by politicians, with more rights reverting to the states and a limit on federal government
Harley Drive | Feb 01, 2010
Yeah. That’s why Al Gore invented the House of Representatives.
water_skipper | Feb 01, 2010