Well, this should kill what's left of Kelsey Grammar's and James Woods' careers.



I predict it will do as well as the idiotic Ben Stein evolution film.

I always suspected that Gary Coleman was a war-mongering neocon.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always suspected that Gary Coleman was a
> war-mongering neocon.


I think people like Coleman and Leslie Nielson just want/need a check.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
>> I think people like Coleman and Leslie Nielson just want/need a check.


LOL ORLY?

What's the matter, libby? When the shoe is on the other foot it isn't so funny to you? We all get it. We know you and your cronies on here don't like the right. You really don't need to post your worthless thoughts here every day. Now go be like a good little liberal and go burn a flag and protest something else.

yawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's the matter, libby? When the shoe is on the
> other foot it isn't so funny to you?

I laughed my ass off at Team America, which focused pretty much on slamming liberal Hollywood. Something tells me that a movie directed by the guy who made "Scary Movie 4" and stars the guy from the Enterprise Rent-A-Car commercials isn't going to be particularly good.

We all get
> it. We know you and your cronies on here don't
> like the right.

This is true.

You really don't need to post
> your worthless thoughts here every day.

Then don't bother coming here everyday. Nobody cares what you think.

Now go be
> like a good little liberal and go burn a flag and
> protest something else.

Seems to me millions of Americans have died so that I will have that right. Maybe you should spend some time reading up on our Founding Fathers and Constitution.

The concept of FU cronyism....

Again FRAMMING the issue. "Oh, flag burning is bad" those damn liberal flag burners!

According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there have been only 16 documented cases of flag burning in the last two years, and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement!

So take your "Oh those flag burning liererals!" issues elsewhere. Flag burning is NOT a problem worthy of your feeble minds attention.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again FRAMMING the issue. "Oh, flag burning is
> bad" those damn liberal flag burners!
>
> According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag
> Alliance, there have been only 16 documented cases
> of flag burning in the last two years, and the
> majority of those cases involved vandalism or some
> other activity that is already punishable by local
> law enforcement!
>
> So take your "Oh those flag burning liererals!"
> issues elsewhere. Flag burning is NOT a problem
> worthy of your feeble minds attention.

You're right. They don't burn them anymore. The Liberals just
throw them in the trash like they did in Denver during the
DNC.

Old Glory Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Again FRAMMING the issue. "Oh, flag burning is
> > bad" those damn liberal flag burners!
> >
> > According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens
> Flag
> > Alliance, there have been only 16 documented
> cases
> > of flag burning in the last two years, and the
> > majority of those cases involved vandalism or
> some
> > other activity that is already punishable by
> local
> > law enforcement!
> >
> > So take your "Oh those flag burning liererals!"
> > issues elsewhere. Flag burning is NOT a
> problem
> > worthy of your feeble minds attention.
>
> You're right. They don't burn them anymore. The
> Liberals just
> throw them in the trash like they did in Denver
> during the
> DNC.


Only sccoundrels wrap themselves around the flag like you have! You dont own it..and you shouldnt being trying to win some argument by wrapping yourself around it. Pure jingoism!

Vince,

Shouldn't you be wrapped up in some guys hairy arms now instead of on the internet?

ph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince,
>
> Shouldn't you be wrapped up in some guys hairy
> arms now instead of on the interne


LOL! fANTABULOUS!

Old Glory Wrote:
>>> throw them in the trash like they did in Denver during the DNC.


Maybe you're just that fucked-in-the-head, but I'd rather live in a country where misguided jerkoffs can burn a symbolic piece of cloth, rather than live in a country where the State can criminalize people who openly protest its policies.

George Washington would probably cough his wooden teeth out if he ever met you fucking dumbasses.

The same people who are angry about the flag being thrown away are also the ones who have no problem longing for this one....



Which was part of a country that abandoned the flag altogether. Go figure.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Old Glory Wrote:
> >>> throw them in the trash like they did in
> Denver during the DNC.
>
>
> Maybe you're just that fucked-in-the-head, but I'd
> rather live in a country where misguided jerkoffs
> can burn a symbolic piece of cloth, rather than
> live in a country where the State can criminalize
> people who openly protest its policies.
>
> George Washington would probably cough his wooden
> teeth out if he ever met you fucking dumbasses.

UH, ME ANGRY LIBEROCRAT, CANT STAND BEING WRONG, MUST RESORT TO CUSSING AND NASTY NAMECALLING

Dummies

Bacon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> UH, ME ANGRY LIBEROCRAT, CANT STAND BEING WRONG,
> MUST RESORT TO CUSSING AND NASTY NAMECALLING


Naturally. It's the built-in defense mechanism of liberals. If name calling doesn't work then they usually just take their ball and go home.

Folks don't "long" for the Confederate flag by the way. Sure, there are some people that adopted it as a symbol of hate (which it was not in the Civil War). Most of us actually look at that flag as a reminder of the sacrifices people have made to try and move this country forward. Prejudice and racism had nothing to do with that flag.

Those who want to bury history or the things that remind of us that history are bound to repeat those mistakes again at some point.

Registered Voter Wrote:
>> Most of us actually look at that flag as a reminder of the sacrifices people have made to try and move this country forward.


Haha. RV, you say alot of idiotic stuff on here, but this comment takes the cake.

Equating secessionists to "trying to move this country forward" is about as stupid of a statement as I could imagine. It's so bad I'm actually surprised you said it.

It totally makes you sound like a dumb hick.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Equating secessionists to "trying to move this
> country forward" is about as stupid of a statement
> as I could imagine. It's so bad I'm actually
> surprised you said it.
>
> It totally makes you sound like a dumb hick.


Sarah P's husband is a secessionist - and he is a republican proud American. Sarah P even sent a videotape of of her saying she supports secessionists Why do they love America and you hate it Meep?

You know, when you take a shallow view of one issue, that was one part of what happened then, you can truly sound like an uneducated dork.

There was nothing wrong with what I said. It is comments like yours that shows why people are willing to let others take something unrelated to their issue and make it a symbol of something else. I tend to embrace all aspects of our country, good and bad, and deal with each issue as it comes. You seem to want to take the bad things, act like they didn't happen, and then do something else to take your mind off it.

The small petty BS you push as "issues" in this election, such as when McCain last picked his nose, or who Palin may have referenced in some obscure way, show how well the MSM and the education of our country has gone in "dumbing down" the conversation to who is more eloquent and can speak better as a candidate - even when what they say (take a look at Obama's proposed policy document) is so totally off the wall and unrealistic you are willing to overlook the content.

I will gladly take being a dumb hick over being someone who doesn't have a clue.

 
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Folks don't "long" for the Confederate flag by the
> way. Sure, there are some people that adopted it
> as a symbol of hate (which it was not in the Civil
> War).

During the Civil War, the "Southern Cross" was actually one of many Confederate battle flags. It was never the official flag of the Confederacy. At that time, many Confederate Generals derided it as "suspenders." The battle flag didn't gain currency in the South until the KKK adopted it following the Civil War as their "battle flag" to reclaim the South. Later, many Southern States began to incorporate it into their state flags as a protest against the North for interference in the Civil Rights movement. Saying the Confederate Flag is benign is like saying the Swastika is benign because before Hitler it was commonly used and not tied to hate.

> Most of us actually look at that flag as a
> reminder of the sacrifices people have made to try
> and move this country forward. Prejudice and
> racism had nothing to do with that flag.

It had nothing to do with "moving this country forward" and everything to do with creating a separate country. At its best it is a symbol of treason.

>
> Those who want to bury history or the things that
> remind of us that history are bound to repeat
> those mistakes again at some point.

You want to bury history by misrepresenting the Confederate Flag as representing something to envy. It represents treason and hate.

You know... people seem to forget that the Federal government structure that was created with the Constitution and related documents, was not all about making the Federal Government the do all, end all for the States forming the Union. The Federal Government had some very specific functions and rights given to it as part of the formation and ratification. One of the things the Civil War did was challenge that structure.

For many years after the Civil War a lot of new amendments were added to the Constitution, redefining many of the powers the Federal Government had in regards to the States. But when the US Constitution was ratified, there was a lot more to the argument about the power of the States to set their own laws, and have their own Constitutions, etc. The Civil War was one of the defining moments in determining the power of the Federal Government over the States. Slavery and economic issues played a large part in it for sure - with many of the Northern States threatening to secede long before the Southern States did. There had been a balance of power for decades between the North and the South, and much of that changed with the addition of new territories over time - but usually they tried to balance the addition of a new "free" state with one that was a "slave state".

You should read up on it. At that time, those States were not anywhere near as "treasonous" as you would like to suggest. They held to States rights, and felt the Federal government was trampling their rights based on the agreed to and ratified Constitution. They held a legal process within each State that voted to secede. Since Lincoln "won" the war, it can be argued now that his (our current) side was right, and the Federal Government was correct in exercising its power in that way. If they had lost, we would still have finally abolished slavery - it just would have taken a lot longer.

As I said, people and groups choose to take symbols and make them their own. Your issue with the swastika being similar is not true. That symbol is a sacred religious symbol in many countries in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Quote

In particular, the swastika is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Mithraism, religions with a total of more than a billion adherents worldwide, making the swastika ubiquitous in both historical and contemporary society. The symbol was introduced to Southeast Asia by Hindu kings and remains an integral part of Balinese Hinduism to this day, and it is a common sight in Indonesia. It is also used by several Native American cultures.

It's origins had little to do with its eventual use by the Nazis.

All that being said, it is a good thing that slavery was eventually abolished, but the Confederate flag is more truly associated with the issues regarding the power of State's rights versus the Federal Government and also majority rights versus minority rights (in Representative Government), and, as a rally flag for troops that felt they were fighting a larger foe and winning. The groups that decided to adopt the Confederate flag as their own symbol in later years were more radical hate groups - the fact that they used the symbol does not represent what the majority of people who embrace it feel. This has become more of an issue in recent years due to people wanting to simplify the history of what was going on back before the Civil War.

>>> power of State's rights


Oh yeah? The state's rights to what?

The right to own slaves.

Maybe in whatever in-bred environment you were raised in, "people" are dumb enough to believe that. But the fact remains that in places other than the south, that stupid flag is viewed as an object of scorn and ridicule, as are people like you who seem to find pride in it.

Yes, it was part of the original Constitution. So as much as you want to act like that is not relevant to the discussion, it shows how little you know.

Meep, you are a perfect example of those that only have the "dumbed down" history of the US to live on. By taking the things that formed the core of what this country is today and trying to remove them from the public, other than referring to them as symbols of hate, you lose the entire reason why they were important in the first place.

Registered Voter Wrote:
>>> that only have the "dumbed down" history

Hahaha. I don't feel like I've lost anything by not worshipping your beloved confederate flag.


>> the core of what this country is today

The "core" of this country? Face it dude, you are a dumb hick from down south. You are not the "core" of this country. And especially not this community. You belong to a small faction of people who embarrass most Americans. Go anywhere else in the country and see how well people receive your "stars and bars".


>> other than referring to them as symbols of hate,

I never said they were a symbol of hate. What I will say is that it is a symbol of ignorant people.



>>lose the entire reason why they were important in the first place.

They were never important. That's why they were defeated.

The entire socio-economic history of the south..from pre-revolutionary days through most of the 20th century is a history of violence and supression against blacks..plain and simple. There was nothing glorious....or honorable about it! Symbols softening or sugar coating that history are distorting the truth!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2008 05:37PM by Vince(1).

Here's is what I said that started this sub-discussion:

Quote

Folks don't "long" for the Confederate flag by the way. Sure, there are some people that adopted it as a symbol of hate (which it was not in the Civil War). Most of us actually look at that flag as a reminder of the sacrifices people have made to try and move this country forward. Prejudice and racism had nothing to do with that flag.

Those who want to bury history or the things that remind of us that history are bound to repeat those mistakes again at some point.

Can you follow that?

1. That flag was NOT a symbol of hate in the Civil War. As you have noted, it was adopted by the KKK and other organizations later.

2. Yes, Americans (even the Confederate ones) sacrificed their lives for a number of reasons on both sides of that argument to move this country forward. The one thing the soldiers back than had was respect for each other. The all felt honor bound to defend on one side or the other of the argument at that time - many families were torn apart by the Civil War. That conflict had many roots, not the LEAST of which was the very foundation of the country and the power of the Federal Government. Period.

3. Prejudice and racism, at the time of that conflict, had nothing to do with that flag. It was a battle standard for the Confederate Army. Other people have adopted that flag for hate and racism (again, as you later pointed out).

4. Based on your collective comments here, it is pretty clear you all have a very limited understanding of the reasons for the conflict. You have responded to my comments in the exact way that supports the arguments I have made here.

I still find it funny today that the party that supported slavery, today is the champion of civil rights and anti-racists causes...

By the way, I was born and raised in Northern Virginia. When did you move here?

By the way Vince - how about the violence and suppression of the American Indians? Do you hold that in the same regard as slavery and such in the South? Just wondering since that was mostly practiced in the North. Was that war important to our country as well?

An interesting article on Ignorance of History:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/03/politics/main561525.shtml

What a bullshit answer...as if any of those "facts" refute the symbolage of the hate and violence that the rebel flag stands for!

It's all in your mind Vince. The hate that is. Sorry you had such a troubled childhood.

Do you even know what "honor" means Vince? Somehow I doubt it - unless Wikipedia can tell you.

Try not to worry too much.

Register voter = scary thoughts

there is no honor in the history of the south up to the mid 20th century. there is only a history of hate and abuse. to defend or deny that history is like saying the holocaust never happened!

The only thing wrong with the South was wrong with our entire country you moron. Slavery was legal in the entire US prior to the Constitution, and in many States after ratification. After some time each territory or State decided if they would or would not support Slavery.

You may as well point a finger at yourself if you think that living in the North somehow makes you any less culpable than anyone else whose ancestors or family were born and raised here from that period of time. If not, then you can always trace your roots back to Europe or Africa where the practice flourished for many years before it was ever taken up in the Americas. Some places in Africa it is still practiced...

In any case, the majority of the farming States based almost their entire economy on slave labor to run their plantations. And contrary to your misguided belief, not all slave owners were hateful or abusive to their slaves. So again, you make these global assertions of hate and abuse, to a practice that was widely held in this country at one time, and certainly not practiced the same by any two people. Much like today you have abusive husbands, and non-abusive husbands - that does not make the practice of marriage full of hate and abuse.

Anyway, it is obvious you are as bigoted in your own way as the people you seem to want to accuse. This is one of the problems today - as evidenced by the way COngress acts - people are so totally wrapped up in the hate side of their arguments that they fail to look at the whole argument



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2008 01:39PM by Registered Voter.

Free States - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_state_(United_States)

Better link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slave_and_Free_States_before_the_American_Civil_War.svg

Try this one - it is what I am talking about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

Quote

Slavery in the United States began soon after English colonists first settled Virginia in 1607 and lasted until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865. Before the widespread establishment of chattel slavery, much labor was organized under a system of bonded labor known as indentured servitude. This typically lasted for several years for white and black alike, and it was a means of using labor to pay the costs of transporting people to the colonies. By the 18th century, court rulings established the racial basis of the American incarnation of slavery to apply chiefly to Black Africans and people of African descent, and occasionally to Native Americans. In part because of the Southern colonies' devotion of resources to tobacco culture, which was labor intensive, by the end of the 17th century they had a higher number and proportion of slaves than in the north.

From 1654 until 1865, slavery for life was legal within the boundaries of the present United States. Most slaves were black and were held by whites, although some Native Americans and free blacks also held slaves. The majority of slaveholding was in the southern United States where most slaves were engaged in an efficient machine-like gang system of agriculture.

EDIT: Further down in the article:

Quote

All the Northern states passed emancipation acts between 1780 and 1804; most of these arranged for gradual emancipation and a special status for freedmen, so there were still a dozen "permanent apprentices" in New Jersey in 1860.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2008 02:33PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only thing wrong with the South was wrong with
> our entire country you moron. Slavery was legal in
> the entire US prior to the Constitution, and in
> many States after ratification. After some time
> each territory or State decided if they would or
> would not support Slavery.
>
> You may as well point a finger at yourself if you
> think that living in the North somehow makes you
> any less culpable than anyone else whose ancestors
> or family were born and raised here from that
> period of time. If not, then you can always trace
> your roots back to Europe or Africa where the
> practice flourished for many years before it was
> ever taken up in the Americas. Some places in
> Africa it is still practiced...
>
> In any case, the majority of the farming States
> based almost their entire economy on slave labor
> to run their plantations. And contrary to your
> misguided belief, not all slave owners were
> hateful or abusive to their slaves. So again, you
> make these global assertions of hate and abuse, to
> a practice that was widely held in this country at
> one time, and certainly not practiced the same by
> any two people. Much like today you have abusive
> husbands, and non-abusive husbands - that does not
> make the practice of marriage full of hate and
> abuse.
>
> Anyway, it is obvious you are as bigoted in your
> own way as the people you seem to want to accuse.
> This is one of the problems today - as evidenced
> by the way COngress acts - people are so totally
> wrapped up in the hate side of their arguments
> that they fail to look at the whole argument


You sick bastard...so some of the slaves had goooood masta's!!! They were so lucky to have it so gooooood....better then they would've had it in AAAffrrrricccaa! You are one sick p...k!

As far as blaiming the entire country...go right ahead....butttttt...no one in the North (besides racists like you) is going around defending the honnnnor of the old south.....how goood the negroes were treated....and we see the slave economy..the slave owner mentality for what it is....an original sin on this nation....nothing to be proud of..nothing to be sentimaental about...nothing to be defended!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2008 04:25PM by Vince(1).

Vince, can you do something other than respond to the last post like I said nothing in the other zillion posts I made? I have already made it clear that slavery was wrong. You are such an idiot lol.

Crawl back in your hell hole! Im so happy you think slavery was wrong! Youre an enlightened man for the 19th century...for the 21st century you are a racist bigot..who thinks that some slaves were well treated. That's like saying a raped deserved it because she flirted or that other women enjoy the experience! Siiiicccccckkkkk!

Vince - the difference is, I look at issues and try to frame them in the time they happened, and what the current political and moral landscape was at the time. You can't just apply 20th century ideals to reality at that time and do anything other than judge them for the era they lived in. My belief that slavery is and was wrong is correct. Back then, there were people that held to the belief that it was not - across many different areas of the political landscape. Most of the Industrialized nations decided to do away with slavery since they had a growing population to do the work, and came to the realization that it was time to move past the tribal days of enslaving one's enemies. One of the good things that comes about with civilization is the realization that all people should be treated with respect. Let me point out once more - the Republicans in the northern states were the ones that pushed for the ending of slavery. The Democrats (whigs) in the southern states are the ones who embraced it and fought for it. I only bring that up to make a point in response to your issues with enlightenment and the ideas and people folks align themselves with.

It is like going back and saying when we invaded the beaches at Normandy, all our troops were homicidal maniacs because they charged up a hill under withering artillery and machine gun fire and then killed almost every German at the top without giving quarter. The situation, and the time of the events have a lot to do with how things are viewed.

Should Obama totally disavow any relationship with William Ayers since he was involved with a group that advocated the violent overthrow of the US government (and actually killed some people with bombs) - in our time? It is not of the same magnitude, but certainly the argument you are making is very close to the same issue.

You are pretty much a lost cause Vince.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crawl back in your hell hole! Im so happy you
> think slavery was wrong! Youre an enlightened man
> for the 19th century...for the 21st century you
> are a racist bigot..who thinks that some slaves
> were well treated. That's like saying a raped
> deserved it because she flirted or that other
> women enjoy the experience! Siiiicccccckkkkk!

So, he's a recist, you're a sexist who told a woman to go iron your shirts cause she disagreed with you. We each have our faults. Until you are no longer a sexist, you should refrain from slinging mud.

An American Carol was not screened for press; producers don't screen when they know they have a dog so try to get one or two days of box office receipts before the word hits that the movie is trash.

They did allow Sean Hannity to see it, though, and he liked Expelled, so that tells you something.

Yeah, they know that most of the critics are liberals and would trash it no matter if they pre-screened it or not, so who cared? I have found that perhaps 1 in 10 times do the critics have a clue.

To me, a movie critic is someone that no one really liked to work with on a regular basis because they were so critical of everything other folks around them did, so eventually they took the movie critic job so they would be able to live out their life's dream, :)

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, they know that most of the critics are
> liberals and would trash it no matter if they
> pre-screened it or not, so who cared? I have found
> that perhaps 1 in 10 times do the critics have a
> clue.
>
> To me, a movie critic is someone that no one
> really liked to work with on a regular basis
> because they were so critical of everything other
> folks around them did, so eventually they took the
> movie critic job so they would be able to live out
> their life's dream, :)

Is there a special school for movie critics? Sounds like all you have
to do is sit on your duff, eat popcorn, watch movies, and complain.
Gravy job and I can meet and exceed the above job requirements already
but some formal training would look good in my resume.

Most critics are liberal? Where did you get this little tidbit? Did you take a poll? Did a school - elementary or high school because we know colleges are liberal - do a study?

Oh the liberals, Oh the liberals! If I only knew where the liberals met and formed their liberal agenda, I would take care of them once and for all.

Oh, by the way - we are paying the Iraqi's not to shoot at us. How "conservative" is that?

Well, most critics complain and whine and so do most liberals. I think it goes without saying.

Loony Liberal Lefty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, most critics complain and whine and so do
> most liberals. I think it goes without saying.

Then, under your hypothsis (a hypothesis, not a theory - a theory has some basis of fact to stand upon from the get go), most "Conservatives" talk in general terms, blame unnamed "liberals" for our ills, and whine and complain about the unnamed "liberals".

I just asked a question: did you take a poll or do a study? Sorry if my simple question rocked your "conservative" world in a bad way. I will be more carefull next time.

Oh, by the way - we are paying the Iraqi's not to shoot at us. Does this tidbit of fact make me a liberal?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2008 06:39PM by Radiophile.

Loony Liberal Lefty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, most critics complain and whine and so do
> most liberals. I think it goes without saying.


Most guys look at naked pictures of women on the internet. Most lesbians look at naked pictures of women on the internet. So it goes without saying, most lesbians are guys.

Loony Liberal Lefty Wrote:
>> most critics complain and whine and so do most liberals.

Hey well there's a brilliant observation. Guys like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O' Reilly never complain or whine.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
So it goes without saying,
> most lesbians are guys.


I think you might be on to something there
Attachments:

An American Carol opened in 9th place, making $3.8 million. That is David Zucker's worst opening since BASEketball, which opened just over $3 million. It also has a lower per-theater average ($2,325) then Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed did ($2,824). Another craptasical flop from the wacky right.

Republicans don't do well with humour. If you need convincing watch this clip of the short-lived 1/2 Hour News Hour from Fox News.

RIGHT WING SATIRE = FAIL????

NO WAI!!!


Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans don't do well with humour. If you
> need convincing watch this clip of the short-lived
> 1/2 Hour News Hour from Fox News.
>
>

Not even Rush can do humor, here he is mocking the McCain campaign.

Film Box Office Gross # Screens Average
American Carol $3,810,000 1,639 $2,325
Religulous $3,500,000 502 $6,972

Religulous did about 10% less in gross receipts on fewer than a third of screens.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2008 10:43AM by FUNdamental.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Film Box Office Gross # Screens
> Average
> American Carol $3,810,000 1,639
> $2,325
> Religulous $3,500,000 502
> $6,972
>
> Religulous did about 10% less in gross receipts on
> less than a third of screens.


Also, An American Carol cost $20 million to make. I would be shocked if Religulous cost more than $5 million.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most critics are liberal? Where did you get this
> little tidbit? Did you take a poll? Did a school -
> elementary or high school because we know colleges
> are liberal - do a study?
>
> Oh the liberals, Oh the liberals! If I only knew
> where the liberals met and formed their liberal
> agenda, I would take care of them once and for
> all.
>
> Oh, by the way - we are paying the Iraqi's not to
> shoot at us. How "conservative" is that?

Here - its from a blog, but it certainly presents some interesting evidence :)
http://dalp.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/unimpeachable-statistical-evidence-film-critics-are-liberal/

I am sure they are across the spectrum, but traditional wisdom in this day and age supports that most of those working for MSM are left leaning or liberal. Somehow I doubt the critics are one of the groups that tilts that in the opposite direction.

Actually you are wrong in your statement on conservatives. They do not "blame" liberals for all their ills. Quite the contrary, they point out that liberals blame "all of us" for our ills. Conservatives tend to be part of the "cup half full" group IMO, whereas liberals are usually of the "cup half empty" crowd.

Now, the last part was not directed at me, but I will give an answer to it:
When did you find out we were paying Iraqi's to not shoot at us? Two days ago? I have pointed that out before in a different thread - it has as much to do with the reduction of violence in Iraq as anything else.

Since you brought it up... this is a pet peeve in regards to how we deal with problem countries. Do you feel we should "bribe" North Korea with promises to help them build a light water reactor, provide them with free crude oil shipments, and other similar measures to stop them from pursuing nuclear arms development? Note that when folks wanted the US to get into a unilateral talk with NK, that is why they kept pushing it. Somehow the US needed to "pay off" the NK (Clinton originally made this deal but reneged on it) - which is why the US pushed for multilateral talks before they would even sit at the table with them. We see this again and again in foreign policy. Is this the way we should go? This is similar to what we are seeing in Iraq - paying off the Shia militias and others (either giving them paying jobs, or just paying them outright) to not shoot at us. On one hand maybe it is addressing the problem - but if that is the case, should we do the same thing in places where the drug trade and gangs result in increasing violence here in the US? Just a philosophical question.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Most critics are liberal? Where did you get
> this
> > little tidbit? Did you take a poll? Did a school
> -
> > elementary or high school because we know
> colleges
> > are liberal - do a study?
> >
> > Oh the liberals, Oh the liberals! If I only
> knew
> > where the liberals met and formed their liberal
> > agenda, I would take care of them once and for
> > all.
> >
> > Oh, by the way - we are paying the Iraqi's not
> to
> > shoot at us. How "conservative" is that?
>
> Here - its from a blog, but it certainly presents
> some interesting evidence :)
> http://dalp.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/unimpeachable
> -statistical-evidence-film-critics-are-liberal/
>
> I am sure they are across the spectrum, but
> traditional wisdom in this day and age supports
> that most of those working for MSM are left
> leaning or liberal. Somehow I doubt the critics
> are one of the groups that tilts that in the
> opposite direction.
>
> Actually you are wrong in your statement on
> conservatives. They do not "blame" liberals for
> all their ills. Quite the contrary, they point out
> that liberals blame "all of us" for our ills.
> Conservatives tend to be part of the "cup half
> full" group IMO, whereas liberals are usually of
> the "cup half empty" crowd.
>
> Now, the last part was not directed at me, but I
> will give an answer to it:
> When did you find out we were paying Iraqi's to
> not shoot at us? Two days ago? I have pointed that
> out before in a different thread - it has as much
> to do with the reduction of violence in Iraq as
> anything else.
>
> Since you brought it up... this is a pet peeve in
> regards to how we deal with problem countries. Do
> you feel we should "bribe" North Korea with
> promises to help them build a light water reactor,
> provide them with free crude oil shipments, and
> other similar measures to stop them from pursuing
> nuclear arms development? Note that when folks
> wanted the US to get into a unilateral talk with
> NK, that is why they kept pushing it. Somehow the
> US needed to "pay off" the NK (Clinton originally
> made this deal but reneged on it) - which is why
> the US pushed for multilateral talks before they
> would even sit at the table with them. We see this
> again and again in foreign policy. Is this the way
> we should go? This is similar to what we are
> seeing in Iraq - paying off the Shia militias and
> others (either giving them paying jobs, or just
> paying them outright) to not shoot at us. On one
> hand maybe it is addressing the problem - but if
> that is the case, should we do the same thing in
> places where the drug trade and gangs result in
> increasing violence here in the US? Just a
> philosophical question.


Once again you think quite too much of yourself RV...what an utter lie when you say conservatives are optimists...what they are are people who live in the past...you know those small town values where everyone knew each other..abortions were illegal and available only for the rich...where the darkies knew there place and were polite! Once out of that comfort zone they turn nasty.

Now to your question...let's see...let me restate it in a different way! when in diplomatic negotiations with a foreign country and you want them to take some action which they feel is not in their own self interest...should the other country offer the foreign country some benefit to altering their behavior? Of course they do! In your typical dreg way you refer to that as "buying off" the other country. Others see it as an alternative to war....oh! but that is the republikan platform..100 years of war!

As far as drug countries....get f...ing real! m The problem doesnt start in the south/central american country and come north! The problem is this countries unending desire for drugs...fueled by the means to purchase those drugs at any price. The answer to the violence and the drug culture in this country isnt to prohibit the sale of drugs..but to legalize it...while at the same time educating and rehabilitating people with a drug problem. This has worked in this country whn it comes to cigarrettes...and in other countries like holland when it comes to drugs.

Before you even start dont bother dumping the thread with all your lies/"facts" about how legalizing drugs doesnt work anywhere..all that information are lies!

Hahaha, conservatives are "the cup is half full", lol... what a crock

I think a better analogy is:

Liberals- "the cup is half empty"
Conservatives- "Where the fuck is the rest of my water?"

That's a more fitting description.

Vince.

If you knew anything about me - and thank God you don't...

I believe in legalizing marijuana - and I don't even use it. I wouldn't go so far as to legalize all the drugs out there, but with the way they treat marijuana possession in this country, why bother? I firmly believe in using tax money for drug education - gasp - how can I be conservative and say that hmm?

So please. STFU.

No

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
>> I am sure they are across the spectrum, but
> traditional wisdom in this day and age supports
> that most of those working for MSM are left
> leaning or liberal.

So is it "left leaning or liberal" to read a coffee cup and be able to understand what that cute quote actually says?

You actually read those? I just look at the pictures on the cups myself, much more entertaining.

:)

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince - the difference is, I look at issues and
> try to frame them in the time they happened, and
> what the current political and moral landscape was
> at the time. You can't just apply 20th century
> ideals to reality at that time and do anything
> other than judge them for the era they lived in.
> My belief that slavery is and was wrong is
> correct. Back then, there were people that held to
> the belief that it was not - across many different
> areas of the political landscape. Most of the
> Industrialized nations decided to do away with
> slavery since they had a growing population to do
> the work, and came to the realization that it was
> time to move past the tribal days of enslaving
> one's enemies. One of the good things that comes
> about with civilization is the realization that
> all people should be treated with respect. Let me
> point out once more - the Republicans in the
> northern states were the ones that pushed for the
> ending of slavery. The Democrats (whigs) in the
> southern states are the ones who embraced it and
> fought for it. I only bring that up to make a
> point in response to your issues with
> enlightenment and the ideas and people folks align
> themselves with.
>
> It is like going back and saying when we invaded
> the beaches at Normandy, all our troops were
> homicidal maniacs because they charged up a hill
> under withering artillery and machine gun fire and
> then killed almost every German at the top without
> giving quarter. The situation, and the time of the
> events have a lot to do with how things are
> viewed.
>
> Should Obama totally disavow any relationship with
> William Ayers since he was involved with a group
> that advocated the violent overthrow of the US
> government (and actually killed some people with
> bombs) - in our time? It is not of the same
> magnitude, but certainly the argument you are
> making is very close to the same issue.
>
> You are pretty much a lost cause Vince.

Hannity gets hit hard on the air for his misreporting

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/10/08/obama_spokesman_confronts_hannity_on_his_radical_association.php

So somehow quoting me, and then noting Hannity "got hit hard" is relevant in some way? Did I mention Hannity in my post? Uh no.

BTW - I saw that live (surprised huh?) and Gibbs looked and acted like an idiot. He was on a mission to do exactly what he did, so I guess he is proud of himself today. Big whoop. You could tell that Alan was more embarrassed that one of Obama's advocates would come on and act that way - and that attack actually made the "guilt by association" issue more relevant since Gibbs actions gave it legitimacy. His problem was, Hannity is not running for President.

But hey, hope it makes you all happy and warm inside :) You guys seem to need these little cheers all the time.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So somehow quoting me, and then noting Hannity
> "got hit hard" is relevant in some way? Did I
> mention Hannity in my post? Uh no.
>
> BTW - I saw that live (surprised huh?) and Gibbs
> looked and acted like an idiot. He was on a
> mission to do exactly what he did, so I guess he
> is proud of himself today. Big whoop. You could
> tell that Alan was more embarrassed that one of
> Obama's advocates would come on and act that way -
> and that attack actually made the "guilt by
> association" issue more relevant since Gibbs
> actions gave it legitimacy. His problem was,
> Hannity is not running for President.
>
> But hey, hope it makes you all happy and warm
> inside :) You guys seem to need these little
> cheers all the time.


If Hammity makes a "guilt by association" claim, we have every right to raise the question of Hammity's "political associates," if we are to put credence into this notion.

Let's see, Hammity's associations...there is Paul Guckert the male prostitute, pretend white house correspondant, and liar, there is Hammisfaar, the quack Dr. that couldn't even diagnose a brain dead patient correctly, and he is a liar, there is Dick Morris who cross dresses and lies, there is this Jerome Corsi character who hates black people (according to his writings in court records) and is a liar, there is the liar Oliver North, and now we have Alan Martin, an anti-Semite and a liar.

So we can conclude that Hammity has bad judgment, and is a liar.

Let me put it in a more relevant light.

If the only way you can refute their claim is by accusing them of the same thing, you have lost the argument. It didn't show that Hannity was wrong, nor ridiculous. What it showed was how much this issue bothers them that they were willing to go out and defend it. If it is such a non-issue, why even make a point on it? This guy Gibbs has never had any problem before on deflecting these types of questions in the past - the fact that he chose to attack Hannity on it last night smacked of intimidation. A tactic well used by the Democrats on MSM - but maybe not so smart in the case of Hannity.

Then you sit there and misname folks as if that somehow diminishes them. I think when Rush and Levin do that it makes their arguments that much weaker IMHO.

No, he was using the same tactic to display the tactic hammity used was flawed, and illogical. Hammity has been pounding away at this issue on TV and on radio and someone needed to shed some much needed light on Hammity's incorrect assertions and planned distortions.

If Obama is winning anyhow per all the polls and such, and Hannity has been pounding it for all this time...

Why attack him on it now?

Is Vince one of their advisers now? Because it looked like a desperation play.