Posted on 05/12/2006 8:55:00 AM PDT by doesnt suffer fools gladly
What do you think has been preventing another massive terrorist attack? Sheer luck?
Post 213 makes sense to me. What do you mean?
Are you calling for UN sanctions against the "rogue" US state?
Thats's it, let him be. He's got a right to his opinion.
I think it's more like 81%
whatever...
The absence of something not happening is proof of nothing.
I agree. John Carpenter made "They Live" as a piece of Marxist agit-prop, but it's still got one of the most awesome fight scenes in any movie. George Lucas was inspired by the Vietcong but that didn't mess up his movies till he tried to make an homage to them with the Ewoks, but I still like the Star War movies other than those Ewoks parts. Artists make movies for all sorts of crappy reasons that end up being great despite those reasons.
This Gibson movie sounds pretty god to me... Less CGI and more actual action.
Sure, that's it. Unlike neocons, I don't push for wars or sanctions based on "international law". Last time I looked, it was the President who justified going to war based on U.N. treaties being violated.
It's proof that no 9/11-type attack has succeeded since 9/11. To have any validity your post has to assume that the terrorists have not been plotting another massive attack. It is foolish to assume they haven't been. And the Department of Homeland security knows that they have for they have thwarted some.
By his logic, from 93 to 01, there were no terrorist attacks from abroad on the homeland so that means Clinton was very successful in preventing terrorist attacks after the first WTC bombing.
I'm not a neocon. Lifelong conservative Republican and likely much older than you.
Fallacious non-point. We know Clinton was doing nothing comparable to what the Bush Administration is doing now to prevent terrorist attacks.
No it looks like you can't trust any one in Hollywood not to sell out those who made them rich.
I never said you were. But Rummy, Cheney and Wolfie are. As well as many of his backers. To that, there is no doubt.
Maybe you're older. It's not relevant to the topic.
I don't care to be a lifelong Republican. I agree with Washington that one of the worst things to happen to America is political parties. It would be better if people ran as individuals and we judged them based on their fealty to the Constitution rather than a party platform (which is meaningless these days as well). Blind party loyalty has helped destroy much of our Constitutional Republic (especially this deceitful "two-party" system that monopolizes power and prevents dissent).
In 1994, I bought the whole "Contract with America" "Republican Revolution" thing. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 3000 times, shame on me."
Sorry if my post wasn't clear. My point was that many ASSUMED because Mel Gibson is anti-abortion, he automatically supported President Bush.
Sean Hannity tried to get Mr. Gibson to say he supported President Bush before the last election and Mr. Gibson wouldn't do it. I don't care who Mr. Gibson supports or endorses or what he thinks. I was merely pointing out that many assumed because of the "Passion" movie and his stand on abortion, that he was a supporter of President Bush. He isn't and never was!
I have never thought of Gibson as a conservative, but I guess I could be wrong...
Remember when the JPII said that a belief in natural selection was not incompatible with belief in God.
The papers wrote it up as: "Pope Says We Descended From Apes!!"
He's never been a supporter of the President from what I've seen. Criticizing the President seems to be the thing to do at FR (and of course, all those who follow the trend say THEY are immune to walking in lockstep, uh huh) and a lot of other places, but he seems to be calling 'em like he sees them.
I'm just curious if it's now going to be OK to criticize his Passion movie, or to admit that one hasn't seen it and has no desire to. When I did that here you'd think I called for something illegal. But I guess now that he's said this it's OK for us all to admit something that was plain back then but no one wanted to say, which is that he's just a Hollywood loon, his lunacy just goes in a different direction from the Clooney-Robbins crowd, and occassionally they cross paths on their way into orbit.
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.