Posted on 07/11/2011 5:30:46 PM PDT by Daffynition
A documentary film chronicling the rise of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) will play exclusively at AMC Theatres in Dallas, Atlanta, and a host of other cities in the South and Midwest beginning in July.
Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corporation announced Friday that the Stephen Bannon film The Undefeated, about Palin’s rise in Alaska politics, will roll out at select theaters on July 15. The film makes no attempt at objectivity, featuring Palin supporters and conservative political commentators and bloggers like Tammy Bruce and Andrew Breitbart.
The film is expected to premiere later this month in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, before the national rollout in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Houston, Kansas City, and Indianapolis.
“After screening The Undefeated, we took the unusual step of immediately exploring an expedited theatrical release," said Trevor Drinkwater, CEO of ARC Entertainment, the company handling distribution of the film.
Palin supporters who don't live in the cities where the film is airing still have an opportunity to watch the documentary. Cinedigm is offering the public the chance to vote for future screening locations.
Well, there you go then. He may be guilty after all...
;^)
You’ve probably pegged it about right there.
G posted the emails on the thread. SJB said he was kidding. Judge for yourself.
Thank you. Somehow I managed to post right next to the post and missed it. I don’t think it was addressed to me, and I don’t catch every post.
Frankly, I can’t definitively say. If SBJ sent that, I don’t approve. If someone fabricated it, I don’t approve of that either.
Both parties are still here.
I’m not charging either with anything, because I honestly can’t prove what is true and what isn’t.
In light of the ‘just kidding’ comment I should acknowledge it and adjust my thoughts on the situation. Sorry to have seemed misleading.
But as you somehow cogently pointed out in your first post to me on this ridiculous, tragically over-beaten long-dead horse of a non-issue (!!!), there is nothing ot be gained by fabrications. So stop it. Please. You're probably better than this.
"You and your PDS thugs... stop in daily..."
read it again, slowly, in context:
"You and your PDS thugs... stop in daily..."
Not just poor widdle Stevie Johnny Bakie thingy. All the PDS thugs were being explicitly referred to in that statement.
So now who is having to lead the "ignoramus" around to show him what he missed? Now who is making stupid crap up to prove a pointless, piccayune, petulant and petty point?
And just what does this "Daddy replacing" predator have on you guys that you'll spend days rushing to his defense (from nothing!) like he was some kind of blind schoolgirl under attack by husky Latvians?
Get a life.
8^D
Your suggestion that the emails SJB sent me might have been "fabricated" is truly rich. You and yer boy are the only ones creating crap out of whole cloth here.
Good grief. This is so lame.
:^\
"So now I am required to lead you around by the hand like your father and show you what you have done, that we both already know you did? Is that about it? "
You and your hypocritical, phony ilk are just as dismissive, insulting, and trouble-making a pack of instigators here as anyone else on FR, we just don't put on phonily affected airs of being "somehow above all that nastiness." Nor do we hold ourselves out as islands of logical propriety in a sea of unwashed, foul-mouthed plebians.
You then go on to quote me proving my innocence, and feign that you've proven my guilt. Rather. Well done, old bean. Pip pip!
;^\ as
"You and your PDS thugs... stop in daily..." LINK That's what you're claiming, but it's not what you posted in the original. You used the word "you" as you changed the subject. If you wanted to continue the collective as you changed the subject, you should have stated something like 'you folks' or 'you all' or 'at least one of you'... You could have also used an "and" in there, to make it a compound sentence.
read it again, slowly, in context:
"You and your PDS thugs... stop in daily..." LINK That's what you're claiming, but it's not what you posted in the original. You used the word "you" as you changed the subject. If you wanted to continue the collective as you changed the subject, you should have stated something like 'you folks' or 'you all' or 'at least one of you'... You could have also used an "and" in there, to make it a compound sentence. Here you reaffirm the statement. LINK
Not just poor widdle Stevie Johnny Bakie thingy. You're condescention doesn't impact SJB. It impacts you when folks watch you act childish like this. All the PDS thugs were being explicitly referred to in that statement. Nope. Nice try, but you moved from addressing behaviors those people did not do, to addressing a different subject that SBJ supposedly did do.
So now who is having to lead the "ignoramus" around to show him what he missed? Ignoramus? These are very powerful arguments you're using here. /s Now who is making stupid crap up to prove a pointless, piccayune, petulant and petty point? You still are. Dancing around like an elephant in a tutu isn't going to help you out of this mess you created for yourself either.
And just what does this "Daddy replacing" predator have on you guys that you'll spend days rushing to his defense... Daddy replacing? Oh, so now you're a licensed phychologist? What degrees do you have in this field?
...(from nothing!) Like making stuff up about him? That's nothing?
...like he was some kind of blind schoolgirl under attack by husky Latvians? Are you a husky Latvian? Who knew?
Get a life. I've got one.
8^D
Just a few of your posts that reflect your premise that you were talking about a group...
Post 84 You just stop in daily to urinate repeatedly on Palin threads... Correct! I don't see any clarifcation there, claiming you were talking about a group. Do you?
Post 92 Here you take him (alone) to task again on the frequecy of his posts to Palin threads. We later found out was that two out of three examples provided by someone else didn't even address Palin.
Post 137 There were fewer than 24 Palin threads yesterday alone, and he posted on 2-or-3 of them... Hmmm, doesn't look like a comment about a group to me. 2 of 3 did not reference Palin.
If I was incorrect with regard to post 49-51, I am sorry. Trying to figure out what inspired things to spiral out of control isn’t always cut and dried.
As for the fabrication comment, the very next post addressed SJB’s reference to his eMails. I said that I needed to adjust my thoughts on the overall issue in light of that.
BTW, I’m still waiting for you to point out something that I fabricated that I haven’t been frank about when it came to my attention, whether you informed me or I became aware of it on my own.
Stating I wasn’t sure the eMail wasn’t fabricated wasn’t making something up. It was factual. When I became aware that SJB admitted to sending it, I quickly posted a recognition of that.
As for the posts that were removed, it had been my honest understanding they were drafted to SJB. When you mentioned they weren’t, I apologized.
"So now I am required to lead you around by the hand like your father and show you what you have done, that we both already know you did? Is that about it? "
You and your hypocritical, phony ilk are just as dismissive, insulting, and trouble-making a pack of instigators here as anyone else on FR,... Hypocritical? Phony? Ilk? Dismissive? Insulting? Trouble-making? Pack of instigators? Gee, seems like you forgot 'non-toilet flushing', 'miscreants', 'disruptors'... kindof a lame list. I'm certain you can do better. I've seen you do better. Come on, up your game.
...we just don't put on phonily affected airs of being "somehow above all that nastiness." We? Hmmm, evidently you haven't seen the responses I get when I ask folks not to act the way they do. First off they deny saying things they have said. Then they state I am being unfair, making things up. Then they start telling me everyone else is so mean to them. Perhaps you can think of one such instance if you strain real hard. You've been denying what you did for what three or four posts now?
Nor do we hold ourselves out as islands of logical propriety in a sea of unwashed, foul-mouthed plebians. "I politely asked you if you would, in all collegial candor..." This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
You then go on to quote me proving my innocence, and feign that you've proven my guilt. Rather. Well done, old bean. Pip pip! Well, I've added a few more posts since you wrote this, so I'll just recognize here how you got your lunch handed to you and move on.
;^\ as
You haven’t been clicking on the freeper name of the half-posts? You’ve been missing out on a lot.
No I just know what the hell I’m talking about.
Citizen Kane won the Academy Award for best cinematography. Using what was then ground breaking deep focus techniques, Orson Welles achieved something that had never been done before. To think even for a moment that the hand-held cam shot documentary is going to rise to this level is lunacy.
Citizen Kane broke new film ground by pionering non-linear and unreliable narrative that up until Citizen Kane had never been done before. Yet, you seem to think that a documentary is going to rise to the same level. Hah.
This isn’t about politics or Sarah Palin™, it’s about you looking like an idiot for suggesting that a documentary, comprised largely of pieced together footage of news footage, talk show hosts, comedians and man in the street interviews is going to equal a cinematic masterpiece like Citizen Kane. How can you even hope to be taken seriously when you make claims like this?
Do you know how many abuse reports we get about your 1/2 posts?
LOL, a lot of poster are convinced we are hacked every time you do it.
(_8(|) DOH!!!!
'Nuff said. Buh-bye.
Bye.
80)
For shame.......
:-)
Well now you got me curious. Has anyone been counting?
:-)
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.