| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/11/2005 8:07:18 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Troll bait. |
Posted on 01/10/2005 10:33:48 AM PST by bushfamfan
So would I. When reading these posts I thought of how the old "witch hunts" might have been. This sort of thing is really beneath conservatives. It is actually more like something that you would see over at the DUmp.
Yours is the voice of reason, carried on this thread. I was thinking the same thing.
Don't really know what you're raving about here, since I've said nary a thing about "pro-war/anti-war" positions vis-a-vi conservatives, at least not in this thread. But while we're on the topic of what is "POSSIBLE" for a "conservative" to believe, I must say you'd be much more credible if you weren't given to regurgitating leftist talking points about "finding no WMD's" and whimpering silliness about being considered "unpatriotic."
"I was for the war initially but when the lack of WMD's and the media changing the story daily about why we even went there, well shucks..color me CURIOUS about what's really going on! By QUESTIONING an administration of your chosen political affiliation, you are unpatriotic? I voted for Bush, that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly swallow everything he says. I don't do that for ANY leader. I mean, aren't conservatives based on saving money and lives when it comes to foreign interests?"
Ditto for this steaming pile of nonsense gussied up as some kind of confessional soul-searching of a "QUESTIONING" mind..I don't know who you think you're fooling, but it sure isn't me.
"This is all I will say on the matter in fears of being labeled a troll"
LOL. Well, if the label shoe fits....
He's got that right!
Ha, ha, boy you're a funny one, you surely are. /sarcasm
Do you really think trolling through this forum with some kind of DUmmyland one-liner makes you a hero?
He's a nut. Gibson's an eccentric whose real personna was on display in Lethal Weapon.
You said:
"I don't think any conservative would agree with MM's portrayal as Saddam's Iraq as a nice place to live as has been reported."
--Have you SEEN the movie?
--If you had bothered to SEE the movie, you'd realize that Moore wasn't portraying Saddam's Iraq as "a nice place to live" so much as he was showing what daily life was like in Baghdad before the war began. He had several images of people going about their daily business: children playing; people congregating in public places; people living their daily lives WITHOUT WAR AND WITHOUT BOMBS DROPPING ALL AROUND THEM.
--THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF MOORE'S IMAGES. He wasn't praising Saddam's Iraq as being a "nice place to live" or making a statement about the virtue of Saddam's regime, as much as he was showing that ordinary people live ordinary lives, and that those ordinary lives will be interrupted with incredible turmoil and perhaps even destroyed when and if a war comes, whether or not that war is "justified" or "righteous" or for some supposedly "better cause." The whole point was that Moore was showing that wars take their tolls upon innocent civilians who are caught in the cross fire.
--Only a rabidly partisan and paranoid wacko who has some screws loose would interpret those scenes in Moore's film as an endorsement of Saddam or the "wonderfulness" of Saddam's Iraq. That wasn't what Moore was saying, and those who assert such, in my opinion, are either complete idiots or liars.
--Next time, see the film before you form any opinions about it. Either that, or say, "I don't want to see the film. And because I refuse to see the film, I'm REALLY NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT UPON IT."
--Otherwise, to those people who are in-the-know, you will come off clearly as someone who really is speaking out of his ignorance, and really doesn't know what he is talking about, and your opinions will be discounted as such by them . . . especially when you comment upon Mel Gibson's "conservatism" or supposed lack of it because he may have said something about Moore's film.
It was the neo-Cons who screamed about WMDs for 18 months to justify the invasion. When it was apparent there were no WMDs the neo-Cons stopped mentioning them and then focused on human rights. That's when the leftists began screaming about no WMDs. Thank the Republicans for leaving that door wide open.
Okay, this had got to be a joke. My harmless little post couldn't possibly have engendered such vituperation. Give me a break...... You're another liberal, right? Just horsing around? Either that or you're just nuts.
Seriously, if this was a sincere response, how does merely identifying myself as a liberal transmogrify into bragging? I'm not out to win any arguments in here. Maybe I'm just testing the waters a bit to see how long it takes before I get stomped to death.
So far, so good.
Actually, I work in the motion picture business in Hollywood. Though I am by no means wealthy, I have to cop to being among the so-called media elite I hear guys like Joe Scarborough complaining so much about. Personally, I have absolutely no objections to Mel Gibson making a faith based film about Jesus and the Passion. By any standards, the story of the Christ is a drama of enormous, almost unbearable dramatic power. I think Gibson's approach is vastly superior to films like KING OF KINGS which show little, if any, insight into the life, times and death of Jesus. While I personally preferred THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, which dared to meet questions of divinity head on, I think an approach like Gibson's, where the audience is shocked into a higher state of awareness, has merit. Everytime I heard that all the liberals out here were screaming in protest over Gibson's film, I just sort of scratched my head and wondered who was making this stuff up.
Here's what THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and FAHRENHEIT 9/11 have in common. Both are independently produced projects, completely devoid of the kind watering down that studio productions are famous for, created by deep feeling men with strong world views for reasons other than mere commerce. Both films seek to challenge their respective audiences. Both films were successful in pushing people's buttons. Both films are works of art which have stirred up enormous controversy.
There's no such thing as an innocuous work of art. All true art seeks to explore the human condition.
Those scenes were deliberately juxtaposed with the "shock and awe" bombing bits to make Iraq appear as kind of a middle-eastern version of Belgium--a peaceful, prosperous country just going about it's business until the wicked old United States showed up raining death from the skies at the behest of an ignorant, warmongering administration. So the next time you want to make ridiculous claims of this sort, I'd recommend you at least clean up the blatant falsehoods.
By-the-by: "Estes Kefauver"? The late liberal Dimocrat Senator, publicity-hound, and professional idiot? Ha, ha. Surely you jest...
Uh-huh...those dastardly Jews "neo-Cons" sure do rile you up, don't they? /sarcasm
I swear, every time I hear that phrase I immediately know what species of ugliness I'm dealing with, and what's really lurking beneath the pointy hat of the feigned outrage...
You said:
"I don't think any conservative would agree with MM's portrayal as Saddam's Iraq as a nice place to live as has been reported."
--Have you SEEN the movie?
--If you had bothered to SEE the movie, you'd realize that Moore wasn't portraying Saddam's Iraq as "a nice place to live" so much as he was showing what daily life was like in Baghdad before the war began. He had several images of people going about their daily business: children playing; people congregating in public places; people living their daily lives WITHOUT WAR AND WITHOUT BOMBS DROPPING ALL AROUND THEM.
--THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF MOORE'S IMAGES. He wasn't praising Saddam's Iraq as being a "nice place to live" or making a statement about the virtue of Saddam's regime, as much as he was showing that ordinary people live ordinary lives, and that those ordinary lives will be interrupted with incredible turmoil and perhaps even destroyed when and if a war comes, whether or not that war is "justified" or "righteous" or for some supposedly "better cause." The whole point was that Moore was showing that wars take their tolls upon innocent civilians who are caught in the cross fire.
--Only a rabidly partisan and paranoid wacko who has some screws loose would interpret those scenes in Moore's film as an endorsement of Saddam or the "wonderfulness" of Saddam's Iraq. That wasn't what Moore was saying, and those who assert such, in my opinion, are either complete idiots or liars.
--Next time, see the film before you form any opinions about it. Either that, or say, "I don't want to see the film. And because I refuse to see the film, I'm REALLY NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT UPON IT."
--Otherwise, to those people who are in-the-know, you will come off clearly as someone who really is speaking out of his ignorance, and really doesn't know what he is talking about, and your opinions will be discounted as such by them . . . especially when you comment upon Mel Gibson's "conservatism" or supposed lack of it because he may have said something about Moore's film.
Jesus was a liberal...
Did this REAL conservative see Passion of the Christ?
If so...ping me to his/her review of same.
I'm asking both of you (but there are others). Is there REALLY a necessity to ping the RKBA to EVERY little thing or thread on FR?
The pinging is inordinate to the necessity.
Ditto bump. It was the most important movie I've ever seen.
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.