Posted on 12/16/2005 4:23:29 PM PST by NYer
I vote for "Buttcrack Mountin'"
LOL!
Buttcrack Mountin'
Guess they changed the rating, due to explicit "abiding in the fields," huh? ;)
It was originally entitled "Brokedick Mountain", but for some unknown reason they changed it. Why does queerdom have to go to the cowboy. Is not New York, Los Angeles and city high ligfe good enough for these pricks. The only refuge I have left is hunting and fishing, and I am sure the queers are hot on the trail to ruining that too. I suppose their claim on beastiality would naturally drive them that direction. What a world.
Buttcrack MountHim!
Do they acutally "stump-break" a heifer in this movie?
I want to know if Trey Parker and Matt Stone have somethig to do with this movie. I wouldn't put it past them to do something like this as a joke.
You couldn't be more wrong. I have known and still do know cowboys (ranchers) so run sheep. In fact, I grew up on a sheep ranch and there wasn't ever a man who epitomized the ideals of a "cowboy" more than my Dad and his Dad.
He was the genuine article....not some phony.
I must say, I take high offense at your directing that question to me. Can you elucidate why?
Southpark,,,,,Southpark,,,,,,We don't get that out here on the ranch. Hell, I am even hesitant to say I live on a ranch with this g*****mn movie out there announcing this kind of sh*t. What a world.
Well, at least they revised but it remains a very huge problem to me that they'd have had to revise their opinion, in that the original opinion was irrational, given the contents of this film.
This film's contents, homosexual acts aside, is comprised of two main characters who embody and live their entire lives based upon active and preconceived decreit, dishonesty, corruption and even violence (to and about others and to and about themselves). THEN there's the added offense of homosexual sexual behaviors.
I realize that liberals who are so enthused about this film reject conservative, Christian (and otherwise) complaints and offenses about this film but they (those who enthuse about the film) don't understand why: yes, it's offensive as to the homosexuality involved, but the characters are the antithesis of heroic and are quite entirely corrupt and even worse, seem very gratified by their corruption.
You know, now that I think about it, Donnie Gay may be fudgepacking Booger Brooks. Gay is a 7 times World Champion bull rider and Booger.....well Booger is Booger. I always was suspicious about anyone named "Donnie", and Gay, well, that speaks for itself.
Turning this issue back upon these nonsensical (I'm being kind) "reviewers" here, what is it about the film that they find worthy? What, exactly, in essence, does this film offer that is even (remotely) worthy of enjoyment?
It's pornography with pretty hats. It's still pornography and that the two profess a relationship of lifelong proportions to one another, is meaningless since they do same to others throughout their lives. All of which they violate.
The film is just about active, homosexual sex. No organization of any type, particularly affiliated with the Catholic Church -- my God! -- has any shred of reason to even be writing about this film other than to call it the pornographic title that it is.
It's pornography about homosexuals who live their lives deceiving and lying and engaging in various acts of perversion the entire 'story' through. One gets murdered, the other one lies to his parents and his wife and everyone else.
The film's an adaptation, worse, from a terrible story written in idiot-script.
Yeah, my take on that, too.
Their original opinion was what they actually think. The revised one is now what they conclude they should and have to opine inorder to avoid what little support some people are still willing to extend to them, within and as examples of Catholic opinion.
But, it's pretty clear here that the organization is corrupt and is no more Catholic in perspective and ideology than this film is.
Note her being described there as "an artist," among other things. Her work is like something written by an illiterate in the dark of night with a crayon...terrible.
That's exactly WHY this film is being so "touted" and enthused about by, mostly, homosexuals and agenda-enthusiasts who are also, mostly, those in entertainment media (they rate the films and write the reviews): BECAUSE it's a film that's been expected to be shown and released in neighborhood theatres nationwide, and thus, conditions people into the assumption that homoseuxality on the screen is "normal," usual film fare, the big screen normalacy.
It's an agenda picture in that regard and that's what's got most of Hollywood (same crowd) going about this title. They're finding it marvelous and all that because it's called, "a love story."
It's THEIR concept of "love" unfortunately: deceit, lying, etc.
It's actually called "Raw Hind."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.