"V" For Vicious Liberal Propaganda
Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
"V" for Vicious Propaganda
Front Page Magazine
March 13, 2006
Debbie Schlussel
[Note: You may perceive some of this column as a "spoiler".]
If you liked the politics of last weekend's Oscar nominees, you'll love
"V for Vendetta."
It's an exciting, quality Bin Laden film.
But if you're like the rest of mainstream America--you support our
troops, believe in firmly responding to terrorists on our own shores,
and/or respect Christianity--then, don't waste your time at this piece
of garbage masquerading as a superhero movie. It is anything but.
If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks
you over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of
extreme leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but
already the mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment
media are raving about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
Based on the graphic novel series of the same name, "V" comes complete
with all the bogeymen the far left loves to hate: NSA spying and
wiretaps; government renditions and torture complete with Abu Ghraib
hood fashions; lecherous, elderly Christian clerics in collars raping
young girls; Islam, gay rights, and free speech under attack; and even
a Bill O'Reilly-esque evil cable talk show host/wicked pharmaceutical
billionaire/heinous military officer combo rolled into one character.
Oh, and by the way, the hero of the movie: He's a terrorist in a Guy
Fawkes mask, who blows up important government buildings. Sound
familiar? His mask might as well be a kefiyeh wrapped around his head
in a Nick Berg video.
The movie takes place in futuristic England, and there is only one
American star (Natalie Portman, who plays the terrorist's protege). But
it's quite clear to whom the "commentary" is directed: Joe and Jane
American. When this movie takes place, "the United States of America"
doesn't exist anymore. America is in the midst of a civil war.
And America and the war on Iraq are the enemies--along with Christians
and the right--in this movie. We are treated to newscasts about how
"America's War [on terror] spread to England." One character--a gay,
British Jay Leno type who hosts a latenight show--keeps a secret vault
of prohibited items, including a giant poster of "the Coalition of the
Willing," depicting the American and British flags surrounding a
swastika. Think about our troops fighting and dying in Iraq, before you
decide to give your dollars to this film. Do you really think they are
Nazis?
Also in the secret vault of sacred prohibited items: a Koran. Portman,
whose Evie is the "heroine" of "V," asks, why the Koran? "Are you a
Muslim?" she asks the late-night host. "No, but its [the Koran's]
images are beautiful." Then he comments about how he can be executed
for possessing the Koran. (Not a peep in this film about the thousands
who've been executed in the name of the Koran and "its beautiful
images.")
Puh-leeze. If anything, both Britain and the U.S. have bent over
backwards not only for the Koran, but for its extremist Muslim
followers. Where Christian displays are absolutely forbidden in any
schools, despite so-called "freedom of speech"; where Ten Commandments
are removed from the Alabama Supreme Court, despite their being the
basis for our legal system; children are required to learn about Islam,
read from the Koran, and behave as Muslims in elementary schools, in
the name of "tolerance" and "education."
In "V", while Islam and the Koran are treasured but prohibited,
Christianity is pure evil. Nice juxtaposition, when in real life, the
19 hijackers, the '93 WTC, U.S. Embassy, U.S.S. Cole, and British
subway bombers were hardly Christians. Hmmm . . . what religion were
they? We don't recall Mohammed Taheri-Azar, saying on Friday in his
post attempted-murder 911 call, that he tried to use his jeep to kill
Americans in the name of Jesus. No, he mentioned someone else's name,
another religion . . . which are both nowhere blasphemed in "V."
We've already mentioned the high-ranking Christian priest, who
regularly rapes young girls procured for him through an "agency."
Before the priesthood, he was an evil military officer at a hospital
where politically dissident youth had experiments conducted on them for
the government (complete with Abu Ghraib-style hoods).
Then, there's the government. It's run by a religious Christian zealot.
But not just any Christian zealot.
No. Chancellor Sutler is the supreme evil Christian. In order to get
elected, he and the Bill O'Reilly-esque character (remember, before he
became a cable host, he was a pharmaceutical CEO and made billions)
arranged for hundreds of Brits to die from chemically poisoned water.
The government said that terrorists did it, a story which became
accepted fact and the conventional wisdom in media coverage. The fear
that ensued garnered Sutler the chance to rule England, along with the
martial law powers the English parliament gave him.
It's no coincidence that the symbol used for his government is some
sort of Cross-come-Swastika combo. Not offended yet?
Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up,
imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents, any
left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or flout the
Chancellor's actions. Tell that to the ACLU, which seems to be running
legal policy in our country, these days, and its partner in crime, the
Southern Poverty Law Center, the wealthiest "public interest" group in
the U.S., to the tune of hundreds of millions. We don't see any
prospect of them being rounded up by the government anytime soon,
unfortunately.
Under the religious Christian Chancellor, "unjust" Gitmo-style military
tribunals and absurd NSA-style wiretapping is going on at every corner.
Throughout the movie, we are shown vans of law enforcement personnel
listening in to every home. As if that's what NSA wiretapping was
about. It isn't, but "V" drills it into you the way the ACLU wants you
to see it: every conversation in every kitchen, etc., secretly being
listened in on and laughed at by guys in sweaty, rumpled shirts and
ties.
The evil government law enforcement chief, Creedy, runs a meticulously
ubiquitous surveillance program nationwide. If only our FBI's Robert
Mueller were so competent, we'd be safe. Instead, he's cavorting with
extremist Muslims and testified in depositions to ignorance of the most
basic newspaper facts about Al-Qaeda.
Overall, the most outrageous thing about "V" is the ending. Instead of
vanquishing terror, all of Britain sides with the terrorist hero of
this movie. They celebrate his murder of all the top officials in
government, his blowing up of the Houses of Parliament and other
government buildings.
Terrorists and terrorism are the heroes, the government fighting them
and trying to keep us safe are the enemy.
This is the glorious revolution? Osama Bin Laden must be very proud.
Splicer
Adam H
<soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>
>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>
>
>
>"V" for Vicious Propaganda
>
What, exactly, is with all these idiots making something significant
out of a MOVIE?
It's a MOVIE. That's all. Take your pills, go outside, cool off.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
Mark K. Bilbo
Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>
>
>
> "V" for Vicious Propaganda
It must just drive you nuts that Bush's approval rating is headed towards
lows not seen since Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon and some 50% of the
country wants Congress returned to the Democrats.
Somewhere in that dim brain, you must know the neocon, religious reich
agenda is failing...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Douglas Berry
<soundof...@mail2world.com> posting the following on 16 Mar 2006
19:54:37 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks
>you over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of
>extreme leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but
>already the mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment
>media are raving about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
Um, the movie has been in the planning stages since 1998, and is based
on a comic that came out in the early eighties. and it's an attack on
dictatorships.
>Based on the graphic novel series of the same name, "V" comes complete
>with all the bogeymen the far left loves to hate: NSA spying and
>wiretaps; government renditions and torture complete with Abu Ghraib
>hood fashions; lecherous, elderly Christian clerics in collars raping
>young girls; Islam, gay rights, and free speech under attack; and even
>a Bill O'Reilly-esque evil cable talk show host/wicked pharmaceutical
>billionaire/heinous military officer combo rolled into one character.
So?
>Oh, and by the way, the hero of the movie: He's a terrorist in a Guy
>Fawkes mask, who blows up important government buildings. Sound
>familiar? His mask might as well be a kefiyeh wrapped around his head
>in a Nick Berg video.
Um, no. Guy Fawkes was something quite different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
>The movie takes place in futuristic England, and there is only one
>American star (Natalie Portman, who plays the terrorist's protege). But
>it's quite clear to whom the "commentary" is directed: Joe and Jane
>American. When this movie takes place, "the United States of America"
>doesn't exist anymore. America is in the midst of a civil war.
LOL! Natalie Portman was born in Israel!
The film is a primarily British production, set in England. Amazingly
enough, they used British actors.
Shocking, I tell you.
>And America and the war on Iraq are the enemies--along with Christians
>and the right--in this movie. We are treated to newscasts about how
>"America's War [on terror] spread to England." One character--a gay,
>British Jay Leno type who hosts a latenight show--keeps a secret vault
>of prohibited items, including a giant poster of "the Coalition of the
>Willing," depicting the American and British flags surrounding a
>swastika. Think about our troops fighting and dying in Iraq, before you
>decide to give your dollars to this film. Do you really think they are
>Nazis?
Most German soldiers in WWII weren't Nazis, but ordianry Germans
serving a leadership gone mad.
>Also in the secret vault of sacred prohibited items: a Koran. Portman,
>whose Evie is the "heroine" of "V," asks, why the Koran? "Are you a
>Muslim?" she asks the late-night host. "No, but its [the Koran's]
>images are beautiful." Then he comments about how he can be executed
>for possessing the Koran. (Not a peep in this film about the thousands
>who've been executed in the name of the Koran and "its beautiful
>images.")
Because the film isn't about that. It's about the abuse of power and
extremism.
<snip>
>We've already mentioned the high-ranking Christian priest, who
>regularly rapes young girls procured for him through an "agency."
>Before the priesthood, he was an evil military officer at a hospital
>where politically dissident youth had experiments conducted on them for
>the government (complete with Abu Ghraib-style hoods).
And Alan Moore wrote all this years before the Catholic Church was
rocked by molestation scandals!
>Then, there's the government. It's run by a religious Christian zealot.
>But not just any Christian zealot.
>
>No. Chancellor Sutler is the supreme evil Christian. In order to get
>elected, he and the Bill O'Reilly-esque character (remember, before he
>became a cable host, he was a pharmaceutical CEO and made billions)
>arranged for hundreds of Brits to die from chemically poisoned water.
Which is a change from the graphic novel.
>The government said that terrorists did it, a story which became
>accepted fact and the conventional wisdom in media coverage. The fear
>that ensued garnered Sutler the chance to rule England, along with the
>martial law powers the English parliament gave him.
Yes, and? Ever hear of the Reichstag Fire?
>It's no coincidence that the symbol used for his government is some
>sort of Cross-come-Swastika combo. Not offended yet?
Not at all.
>Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up,
>imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents, any
>left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or flout the
>Chancellor's actions. Tell that to the ACLU, which seems to be running
>legal policy in our country, these days, and its partner in crime, the
>Southern Poverty Law Center, the wealthiest "public interest" group in
>the U.S., to the tune of hundreds of millions. We don't see any
>prospect of them being rounded up by the government anytime soon,
>unfortunately.
That last word justifies everything in the film. There are rightwing
loonies who would open death camps for anyone who doesn't conform and
submit.
>Under the religious Christian Chancellor, "unjust" Gitmo-style military
>tribunals and absurd NSA-style wiretapping is going on at every corner.
>Throughout the movie, we are shown vans of law enforcement personnel
>listening in to every home. As if that's what NSA wiretapping was
>about. It isn't, but "V" drills it into you the way the ACLU wants you
>to see it: every conversation in every kitchen, etc., secretly being
>listened in on and laughed at by guys in sweaty, rumpled shirts and
>ties.
Except that the film isn't about the NSA. Or wiretapping.
>Overall, the most outrageous thing about "V" is the ending. Instead of
>vanquishing terror, all of Britain sides with the terrorist hero of
>this movie. They celebrate his murder of all the top officials in
>government, his blowing up of the Houses of Parliament and other
>government buildings.
Because people, given the chance to rise up against dictators, will do
so.
>Terrorists and terrorism are the heroes, the government fighting them
>and trying to keep us safe are the enemy.
Depnds on the terrorist and the government, doesn't it?
Tell me, if the communists seized control, wouldn't you support
"terrorism" against them?
>This is the glorious revolution? Osama Bin Laden must be very proud.
Actually, he wouldn't. V advocates anarachy, which is not the Islamic
rule Osama calls for. Given a shot, V would blow up the Great Mosque
in Mecca.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
wond...@phreaker.net
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>
>
>
> "V" for Vicious Propaganda
>
>
> Front Page Magazine
>
> March 13, 2006
>
> Debbie Schlussel
>
>
> [Note: You may perceive some of this column as a "spoiler".]
>
> If you liked the politics of last weekend's Oscar nominees, you'll love
> "V for Vendetta."
>
> It's an exciting, quality Bin Laden film.
>
If Hollywood movies are "liberal propaganda", why are conservatives
watching them?
You have the money - what is stopping you from making your own movies,
just like Mel Gibson did?
towelie
Well now I'm interested in seeing the movie. I had no such interest until
this post. Good job.
pma...@hotmail.com
wond...@Phreaker.net wrote:
> If Hollywood movies are "liberal propaganda", why are conservatives
> watching them?
>
> You have the money - what is stopping you from making your own movies,
> just like Mel Gibson did?
You misunderstood the purpose of the original post. It is intended as
a science fiction short story; it's not too bad an example of the John
Ringo trope.
ffr...@mailandnews.com
What is difficult to understand is the inability of some people to
acknowledge the role terror tactics have played in causes they agree
with from the American Revolution and Civil War, to the bombings of
Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo, to the acts of terrorism
associated with the founding of the state of Israel. Their attitude
seems to be that terrorism is evil and only done by our enemies, the
same acts committed by us or our friends are defined as something else.
John Baker
<soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
Amazing. The author of this "review" could very well be even more
clueless than the idiot who posted it. I wouldn't have thought that
possible if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.
Warchild
<gldk12hs28871eebf...@fe06.highwinds-media.phx>,
Adam H <ad...@mailinator.com> wrote:
It is just another case of someone making a shoe that will fit many
people, and someone complaining that it happens to fit them.
Why is it the modern 'conservative' thinks that any anti-fascist
sentiment is an attack on them? Is that what they see when they look in
the mirror?
johac
"towelie" <bugoN...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I just came to the same conclusion. Thanks SOT.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
Mike Schilling
"johac" <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-D4742...@news.giganews.com...
Good for both of you.
Now, next time you decide to declare someone a loon, can you do it without
quoting every single fucking word he posted?
William December Starr
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> said:
Waaaah! Waaahhhh! WAAAAHHHHH!
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Joseph Michael Bay
I think the "Sound of Trumpet" person isn't totally clueless; there's
a good mix of newsgroups for a clash of opinions, at least. On the
other hand, crossposting trolls was novel in, what, 1992? Hey, let's
put on our plaid shirts and listen to Mother Love Bone.
Anyway, the review's just fine. When all you have is a reactionary
persecution complex, everything starts to look like a leftist conspiracy.
--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
.. or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University
Derek Janssen
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>
>
> "V" for Vicious Propaganda
>
> Front Page Magazine
>
> March 13, 2006
>
> Debbie Schlussel
>
> [Note: You may perceive some of this column as a "spoiler".]
(And the rest of it as Trumpy trying to get an encore vaudeville act to
beef up his DaVinci cut-and-post threads...)
Derek Janssen
eja...@comcast.net
William December Starr
Adam H <ad...@mailinator.com> said:
> What, exactly, is with all these idiots making something
> significant out of a MOVIE?
>
> It's a MOVIE. That's all. Take your pills, go outside, cool off.
And if the pills contain cyanide, so much the better.
(Think that's un-called for? Consider that the original article
contained this:
Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up,
imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents,
any left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or
flout the Chancellor's actions. Tell that to the ACLU, which
seems to be running legal policy in our country, these days, and
its partner in crime, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the
wealthiest "public interest" group in the U.S., to the tune of
hundreds of millions. We don't see any prospect of them being
rounded up by the government anytime soon, unfortunately.
That's right: "unfortunately.")
jbd...@hotmail.com
Uh, yes. Take a closer look at this paragraph:
"Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up,
imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents, any
left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or flout the
Chancellor's actions. Tell that to the ACLU, which seems to be running
legal policy in our country, these days, and its partner in crime, the
Southern Poverty Law Center, the wealthiest "public interest" group in
the U.S., to the tune of hundreds of millions. We don't see any
prospect of them being rounded up by the government anytime soon,
unfortunately."
The author is on the one hand claiming to be upset that the filmmakers
would suggest that fascism is where things are heading with people like
her in charge, and goes on to express disappointment that our
government isn't more like the fascist one in the movie.
Irony anyone?
kathryn
<ffr...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:1142572820.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
It all comes down to 'one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist'
kathryn
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote in message
news:1142567677.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>
>
>
> "V" for Vicious Propaganda
>
>
> Front Page Magazine
>
> March 13, 2006
>
> Debbie Schlussel
>
>
> [Note: You may perceive some of this column as a "spoiler".]
>
> If you liked the politics of last weekend's Oscar nominees, you'll love
> "V for Vendetta."
>
> It's an exciting, quality Bin Laden film.
>
The film is based on a comic which was a comment on Thatchers Britain -
that'd be Margaret Thatcher, Prime Mininster of GB & Northern Ireland.
Why are you so keen to prove your sheer ignorance and stupidity?
Dan Clore
V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM PST
Contributed by: Admin
Anarchists: This Friday marks the beginning of our most
important opportunity in decades to communicate with
millions about the possibility of a world without capitalism
or coercion. On Friday, March 17, 2006, the long awaited
film version of Alan Moore's classic graphic novel, V for
Vendetta, will premier throughout the US. V for Vendetta is
the story of an anarchist who dismantles a fascist state
through propaganda of the deed, inspiring the masses to
revolt with a vision of building an anarchist future. The
book's protagonist does not simply promote vague
anti-authoritarianism or nondescript appeals to "question
authority" but explicitly and compellingly calls for the
masses to eliminate the state and replace it with anarchy.
Unsurprisingly, this radical message has been lost in the
translation to Hollywood's watered-down film version. Warner
Bros. presents a hero rebelling against fascism and
advocating "freedom", yet never suggests that until the
state is destroyed, no one will truly be free. Alan Moore
has described the script of the film as "rubbish" and had
demanded that his name be removed from it.
Time and again, anarchists have seen our message distorted,
our comrades martyred, and our stories erased by the
corporate and governmental servants of the ruling class. We
cannot allow this to happen again!
An ad hoc group of anarchists in New York City have launched
http://AforAnarchy.com , a website and education campaign
designed to reinject anarchist politics into V for Vendetta
and radicalize audiences of the film.
We are calling for anarchists everywhere to use the film as
an opportunity for education and dialogue. Through the use
of literature, speakouts, lit tables, and street theater
outside movie theaters showing the film, we can inspire
moviegoers leaving the film to join the fight for a
stateless society. In New York, we will begin doing these
things at sneak previews on March 16th and will continue at
theaters for the duration of the films’s run in theaters.
To this end, we have created a number of ideas and tools
that we hope you will find helpful. (Further information and
downloads can be found at http://AforAnarchy.org in the
Contact & Press section):
* We have prepared a flyer to distribute at your local movie
theater where V is showing revealing the graphic novel's
anarchist politics and encouraging moviegoers to embrace
anarchy. We've deliberately kept the politics fairly general
in an attempt to create a document that can represent
anarchists of all tendencies.
Feel free to modify it to suit the needs of your local
community. And of course, if you don't like this flyer, by
all means, create one that you prefer.
* Engage audience through costumed role playing of "deleted
scenes" -- acting out portions of the graphic novel where V
speaks in support of anarchy.
* We have designed sticker mock-ups to promote the website
that you can download, print on sticker paper, and stick all
sorts of places. Of course, we DO NOT suggest that you put
them on V for Vendetta movie ads, as this would be
vandalism, and vandalism is against the law.
* While many of us are skeptical of the corporate and in
some cases even the alternative media, they can be a
powerful vehicle for getting the attention of large numbers
of people. While we obviously can't expect them to
accurately represent our entire message, we can at least use
them to pique people's curiosity and drive people to the
website, where we can present an unfiltered message, To this
end, we have prepared a model press release available on the
website that you can send to your local media documenting
your V for Vendetta related outreach activities, and will be
sending a national press release, which can include
information on your local actions if you email it to
ad...@wetlands-preserve.org.
We invite you to use these resources and join us in any or
all of the actions listed above. Our hope is to gain a
nationwide, significant, and unsuspected response to the
film's release that will lead moviegoers to a far more
radical place than the corporate filmmakers behind this film
intended, and help to bring thousands of new people to the
anarchist movement. We thank you for your consideration and
look forward to hearing from you.
For Anarchy,
(an ad hoc collective of individual members of groups like
New York Metro Anarchist Alliance, NEFAC, Wetlands Activism
Collective, http://Freegan.info , Students for A Democratic
Society, Libertad Skool Collective and other groups)
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060314074847304
*****
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Laurie Mann
> V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
> Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM PST
> Contributed by: Admin
>
> Anarchists: This Friday marks the beginning of our most important
> opportunity in decades to communicate with millions about the
> possibility of a world without capitalism or coercion.
If you want anarchy, Iraq is probably the place for you. Or
maybe the Sudan. Much as I dislike the current underelected
administration in America, I'd much rather live here than under
anarchy.
And you if you really think there's no coercion going on in Iraq,
dream on!
Laurie Mann
http://www.dpsinfo.com
Michael Price
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
> <soundof...@mail2world.com> posting the following on 16 Mar 2006
> 19:54:37 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
> >If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks
> >you over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of
> >extreme leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but
> >already the mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment
> >media are raving about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
>
> Um, the movie has been in the planning stages since 1998, and is based
> on a comic that came out in the early eighties. and it's an attack on
> dictatorships.
>
like they
did with "Attack of the Clones". It's like I said back then, the Evil
Empire looks
like the Bush administration because the Bush administration is evil
and an
empire and all such look the same.
> >Based on the graphic novel series of the same name, "V" comes complete
> >with all the bogeymen the far left loves to hate: NSA spying and
> >wiretaps; government renditions and torture complete with Abu Ghraib
> >hood fashions; lecherous, elderly Christian clerics in collars raping
> >young girls; Islam, gay rights, and free speech under attack; and even
> >a Bill O'Reilly-esque evil cable talk show host/wicked pharmaceutical
> >billionaire/heinous military officer combo rolled into one character.
>
> So?
>
> >Oh, and by the way, the hero of the movie: He's a terrorist in a Guy
> >Fawkes mask, who blows up important government buildings. Sound
> >familiar? His mask might as well be a kefiyeh wrapped around his head
> >in a Nick Berg video.
>
> Um, no. Guy Fawkes was something quite different.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
>
Well actually Guy Fawkes (or Guido as he signed himself) was a
hopelessly
out of touch religious fanatic so he has parellels to OBL.
> >The movie takes place in futuristic England, and there is only one
> >American star (Natalie Portman, who plays the terrorist's protege). But
> >it's quite clear to whom the "commentary" is directed: Joe and Jane
> >American. When this movie takes place, "the United States of America"
> >doesn't exist anymore. America is in the midst of a civil war.
>
> LOL! Natalie Portman was born in Israel!
>
> The film is a primarily British production, set in England. Amazingly
> enough, they used British actors.
>
> Shocking, I tell you.
>
> >And America and the war on Iraq are the enemies--along with Christians
> >and the right--in this movie. We are treated to newscasts about how
> >"America's War [on terror] spread to England." One character--a gay,
> >British Jay Leno type who hosts a latenight show--keeps a secret vault
> >of prohibited items, including a giant poster of "the Coalition of the
> >Willing," depicting the American and British flags surrounding a
> >swastika. Think about our troops fighting and dying in Iraq, before you
> >decide to give your dollars to this film. Do you really think they are
> >Nazis?
Well they certainly have more in common with Nazis than with
defenders
of freedom. They shut down newspapers, murder with impunity, torture,
invade countries their leader falsely claimed were threats, destroy
most of
some cities, need I go on?
>
> Most German soldiers in WWII weren't Nazis, but ordianry Germans
> serving a leadership gone mad.
>
> >Also in the secret vault of sacred prohibited items: a Koran. Portman,
> >whose Evie is the "heroine" of "V," asks, why the Koran? "Are you a
> >Muslim?" she asks the late-night host. "No, but its [the Koran's]
> >images are beautiful." Then he comments about how he can be executed
> >for possessing the Koran. (Not a peep in this film about the thousands
> >who've been executed in the name of the Koran and "its beautiful
> >images.")
Because the point is that we should be allowed to keep the Koran
regardless of how people think about it.
>
> Because the film isn't about that. It's about the abuse of power and
> extremism.
>
> <snip>
>
> >We've already mentioned the high-ranking Christian priest, who
> >regularly rapes young girls procured for him through an "agency."
> >Before the priesthood, he was an evil military officer at a hospital
> >where politically dissident youth had experiments conducted on them for
> >the government (complete with Abu Ghraib-style hoods).
>
> And Alan Moore wrote all this years before the Catholic Church was
> rocked by molestation scandals!
>
> >Then, there's the government. It's run by a religious Christian zealot.
> >But not just any Christian zealot.
> >
> >No. Chancellor Sutler is the supreme evil Christian. In order to get
> >elected, he and the Bill O'Reilly-esque character (remember, before he
> >became a cable host, he was a pharmaceutical CEO and made billions)
> >arranged for hundreds of Brits to die from chemically poisoned water.
>
> Which is a change from the graphic novel.
>
What did they do in the book?
> >The government said that terrorists did it, a story which became
> >accepted fact and the conventional wisdom in media coverage. The fear
> >that ensued garnered Sutler the chance to rule England, along with the
> >martial law powers the English parliament gave him.
>
> Yes, and? Ever hear of the Reichstag Fire?
>
> >It's no coincidence that the symbol used for his government is some
> >sort of Cross-come-Swastika combo. Not offended yet?
>
> Not at all.
Why would references to the Nazis in a fictional alternate universe
British
government upset anyone? Did references to Soviets offend people in
"1984"?
>
> >Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up,
> >imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents, any
> >left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or flout the
> >Chancellor's actions. Tell that to the ACLU, which seems to be running
> >legal policy in our country, these days, and its partner in crime, the
> >Southern Poverty Law Center, the wealthiest "public interest" group in
> >the U.S., to the tune of hundreds of millions. We don't see any
> >prospect of them being rounded up by the government anytime soon,
> >unfortunately.
>
> That last word justifies everything in the film. There are rightwing
> loonies who would open death camps for anyone who doesn't conform and
> submit.
Yeah, but he'll insist that the threat the film portrays is
unrealistic, even as
he exemplifies it.
>
> >Under the religious Christian Chancellor, "unjust" Gitmo-style military
> >tribunals and absurd NSA-style wiretapping is going on at every corner.
> >Throughout the movie, we are shown vans of law enforcement personnel
> >listening in to every home. As if that's what NSA wiretapping was
> >about.
How the hell do you know?
> > It isn't, but "V" drills it into you the way the ACLU wants you
> >to see it: every conversation in every kitchen, etc., secretly being
> >listened in on and laughed at by guys in sweaty, rumpled shirts and
> >ties.
>
> Except that the film isn't about the NSA. Or wiretapping.
>
> >Overall, the most outrageous thing about "V" is the ending. Instead of
> >vanquishing terror, all of Britain sides with the terrorist hero of
> >this movie.
That's because the government was far worse than the terrorist.
Someone
who's seen the film tell me, how many innocent people did "V" kill?
Innocent
people mind, not those who help the government enslaved Britain.
> > They celebrate his murder of all the top officials in
> >government, his blowing up of the Houses of Parliament and other
> >government buildings.
>
> Because people, given the chance to rise up against dictators, will do
> so.
>
> >Terrorists and terrorism are the heroes, the government fighting them
> >and trying to keep us safe are the enemy.
Just like that vicious terrorist-supporting film "Red Dawn".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/
>
> Depnds on the terrorist and the government, doesn't it?
>
> Tell me, if the communists seized control, wouldn't you support
> "terrorism" against them?
>
> >This is the glorious revolution? Osama Bin Laden must be very proud.
>
> Actually, he wouldn't. V advocates anarachy, which is not the Islamic
> rule Osama calls for. Given a shot, V would blow up the Great Mosque
> in Mecca.
>
No but the Saudi palace might get a bit of redecoration.
Forge
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
> But if you're like the rest of mainstream America--you support our
> troops, believe in firmly responding to terrorists on our own shores,
> and/or respect Christianity--then, don't waste your time at this piece
> of garbage masquerading as a superhero movie. It is anything but.
Interesting that this author's "mainstream America" doesn't include the
President or the majority of Congress.
Michael Price
> > Dan Clore wrote:
> > V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
> > Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM PST
> > Contributed by: Admin
> >
> > Anarchists: This Friday marks the beginning of our most important
> > opportunity in decades to communicate with millions about the
> > possibility of a world without capitalism or coercion.
>
> If you want anarchy, Iraq is probably the place for you.
> Or maybe the Sudan.
No those places both have governments. Somalia is a functioning
anarchy and is going quite well. Of course it was a socialist shithole
for years before it became anarchist so it's still got problems, but
it's
solving them.
> Much as I dislike the current underelected
> administration in America, I'd much rather live here than under
> anarchy.
>
Why? What could happen to you in an anarchical system that can't
happen to you in the current USA? In fact parts of the USA did become
anarchical in the aftermath of Katrina and were generally peaceful,
safe
and productive. When the troops came in of course there was a rise
in the level of coercion and a decrease in the level of safety from
violence
but while anarchy held it worked.
> And you if you really think there's no coercion going on in Iraq,
> dream on!
>
Well yes there's quite a lot of coercion going on, primarily by the
Iraqi
government and those foreign troops it says should stay in it's
country. I.e.
from the forces that represent an absence of anarchy.
>
> Laurie Mann
> http://www.dpsinfo.com
Michael Gray
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
- Refer: <441A97FA...@columbia-center.org>
>*****
>
>V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
>Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM PST
>Contributed by: Admin
>
>Anarchists: This Friday marks the beginning of our most
>important opportunity in decades to communicate with
>millions about the possibility of a world without capitalism
>or coercion. On Friday, March 17, 2006, the long awaited
Isn't one person telling anarchists how to behave a bit of an
oxymoron?
James A. Donald
wrote:
> The film is based on a comic which was a comment on Thatchers Britain -
> that'd be Margaret Thatcher, Prime Mininster of GB & Northern Ireland.
The movie however, is not about Thatcher's Britain, and the reference
to the two towers means that the movies message is "Americans had it
coming"
Mark K. Bilbo
Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
> But if you're like the rest of mainstream America--you support our troops,
Interesting definition of "mainstream" when around 60% of the public calls
the Iraq war a "mistake," almost 70% believe Bush has no plan for dealing
with Iraq, 51% believe Bush mislead us into the war, 54% believe we should
have stayed out, and around 60% say its time to start withdrawing our
troops (half of those believe we should withdraw all now).
In fact, it appears our troops don't "support our troops." What was it?
About 70% say we should be out of Iraq within the year?
I support our troops. I was against putting them in harms way for neocon
geopolitical games and think they should come home *right *now before
anymore are hurt or killed.
Mark K. Bilbo
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
> <soundof...@mail2world.com> posting the following on 16 Mar 2006
> 19:54:37 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
>>If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks you
>>over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of extreme
>>leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but already the
>>mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment media are raving
>>about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
>
> Um, the movie has been in the planning stages since 1998, and is based on
> a comic that came out in the early eighties. and it's an attack on
> dictatorships.
Me thinks the neocons protest too much if they perceive an attack on
dictatorships as an attack on them...
Karl M. Syring
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks
> you over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of
> extreme leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but
> already the mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment
> media are raving about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
caught the bird flu.
Karl M. Syring
Mark K. Bilbo
Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
> We've already mentioned the high-ranking Christian priest, who regularly
> rapes young girls procured for him through an "agency."
Girls?
Well, *that's not very realistic is it?
constan...@gmail.com
Michael Price wrote:
> Douglas Berry wrote:
> > What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
> > <soundof...@mail2world.com> posting the following on 16 Mar 2006
> > 19:54:37 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
> >
> > >If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks
> > >you over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of
> > >extreme leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but
> > >already the mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment
> > >media are raving about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
> >
> > Um, the movie has been in the planning stages since 1998, and is based
> > on a comic that came out in the early eighties. and it's an attack on
> > dictatorships.
> >
> And yet the Bushites jump to the conclusion it's about them, just
> like they
> did with "Attack of the Clones".
If you haven't seen the movie, you can't know whether it's about them
or not. The comic is not about them but the movie is not the comic.
constan...@gmail.com
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> In <tgek12t7coeeagqhm...@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
> <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
> > What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
> > <soundof...@mail2world.com> posting the following on 16 Mar 2006
> > 19:54:37 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
> >
> >>If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks you
> >>over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of extreme
> >>leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but already the
> >>mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment media are raving
> >>about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
> >
> > Um, the movie has been in the planning stages since 1998, and is based on
> > a comic that came out in the early eighties. and it's an attack on
> > dictatorships.
>
> Me thinks the neocons protest too much if they perceive an attack on
> dictatorships as an attack on them...
And methinks totalitarians protest too much if they perceive an attack
on pigs as an attack on them. I mean, come on people, Animal Farm is
about Pigs, not about human society.
Or maybe, just maybe, the the overt subject (pigs, dictatorships) is
merely a thin mask for the real subject. My apologies if I just caused
a vessel to rupture in your brain.
constan...@gmail.com
No, anarchism is opposed to coercive authority, but not opposed to some
guy making suggestions about what to do.
quibbler
soundof...@mail2world.com says...
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>
>
>
> "V" for Vicious Propaganda
Yes, your propaganda against it is vicious. However, even you
must realize that the very fact that freeper morons hate this movie will
absolutely guarantee that liberals will go see it. When Michael Medved
panned the movie that was a glowing endorsement for every sane person who
knows that Medved is a hate-filled lunatic. You would think that these
stupid, right-wing fucks would have learned to not give all this free
press coverage after all the times that Fox News ended up promoting books
for Al Franken and doing advertising for Michael Moore.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
constan...@gmail.com
quibbler wrote:
> In article <1142567677.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> soundof...@mail2world.com says...
> >
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
> >
> > http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
> >
> >
> >
> > "V" for Vicious Propaganda
>
> Yes, your propaganda against it is vicious. However, even you
> must realize that the very fact that freeper morons hate this movie will
> absolutely guarantee that liberals will go see it. When Michael Medved
> panned the movie that was a glowing endorsement for every sane person who
> knows that Medved is a hate-filled lunatic. You would think that these
> stupid, right-wing fucks would have learned to not give all this free
> press coverage after all the times that Fox News ended up promoting books
> for Al Franken and doing advertising for Michael Moore.
The comic, at any rate, is anti-government. If you like you can take
its message as being merely anti-"right wing" government, and maybe
even the author saw it that way. However, reading it, I didn't take
away that message. The message I took away is along the lines of,
government is inherently corrupt and unreformable, inherently an
instrument of oppression, and in the end the only thing that can be
done to fix it is to blow it up.
That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love the
state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
Consider the show, West Wing. Even before you know that the show's
politics are liberal, you can pretty easily guess that this isn't the
sort of show that's likely to appeal to a conservative audience.
James Burns
jbd...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Warchild wrote:
>
>>In article
>><gldk12hs28871eebf...@fe06.highwinds-media.phx>,
>>
>> Adam H <ad...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Mar 2006 19:54:37 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
>>><soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>>>>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>>>>"V" for Vicious Propaganda
> Uh, yes. Take a closer look at this paragraph:
>
> "Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up,
> imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents, any
> left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or flout the
> Chancellor's actions. Tell that to the ACLU, which seems to be running
> legal policy in our country, these days, and its partner in crime, the
> Southern Poverty Law Center, the wealthiest "public interest" group in
> the U.S., to the tune of hundreds of millions. We don't see any
> prospect of them being rounded up by the government anytime soon,
> unfortunately."
>
> The author is on the one hand claiming to be upset that the filmmakers
> would suggest that fascism is where things are heading with people like
> her in charge, and goes on to express disappointment that our
> government isn't more like the fascist one in the movie.
>
> Irony anyone?
It seems to be standard operating procedure, anymore. It's gone beyond
1984-like doublethink, like turning to a new "reason all along"
for invading Iraq as the old ones get used up. Now they like to
maintain contradictory ideas at the same time.
Another example, less amusing, is the standard talking point(s)
on Abu Ghraib et al: "I'm /outraged/ that you would suggest our
soldiers would do such a thing. And, anyway, if they did, it
wouldn't be a big deal."
Jim Burns
constan...@gmail.com
Politicians aren't mainstream America. Politicians are scum.
constan...@gmail.com
Dan Clore wrote:
> Alan Moore
> has described the script of the film as "rubbish" and had
> demanded that his name be removed from it.
I'll watch it anyway, but that's really too bad. I enjoyed the comic
and was hoping to see the comic on the screen. Oh well.
John Harkness
So totalitarianism is a metaphor for conservative authoritarianism?
Okey doikey.
John Harkness
constan...@gmail.com
No. I guess that vessel did burst after all. My apologies.
> Okey doikey.
>
> John Harkness
Don Kresch
<spamc...@adelphia.net> let us all know that:
> > Dan Clore wrote:
>> V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
>> Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM PST
>> Contributed by: Admin
>>
>> Anarchists: This Friday marks the beginning of our most important
>> opportunity in decades to communicate with millions about the
>> possibility of a world without capitalism or coercion.
>
>If you want anarchy, Iraq is probably the place for you. Or
>maybe the Sudan. Much as I dislike the current underelected
>administration in America, I'd much rather live here than under
>anarchy.
Please do stop conflating anarchy and chaos.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> No, anarchism is opposed to coercive authority, but not opposed to some
> guy making suggestions about what to do.
So it was only libertarians that decided to work with Republicans to
stop those Evil Liberal Democrats from making suggestions about what to
do? You know, that Evil Political Correctness (as defined by the
right).
Mike Schilling
<constan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142605838.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The comic, at any rate, is anti-government. If you like you can take
> its message as being merely anti-"right wing" government, and maybe
> even the author saw it that way. However, reading it, I didn't take
> away that message. The message I took away is along the lines of,
> government is inherently corrupt and unreformable, inherently an
> instrument of oppression, and in the end the only thing that can be
> done to fix it is to blow it up.
>
> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love the
> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
Which is why liberals want to grant the excutive branch unlimited powers in
an indefinitely prolioged wartime.
That dog ceased to hunt years ago.
Douglas Berry
posting the following on 17 Mar 2006 06:41:33 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
Moore's objections have to do with the renaming of some characters and
a change in how England becomes fascist. He's a bit of a control
freak, it seems.
All the reviews I've seen from sources both fannish and mundane seem
to agree that it is a brilliant film.
Mark Fergerson
political spectrum reflexively drag out their propaganda points and wave
them around as if they were Truth Incarnate?)
Dan Clore wrote:
> *****
>
> V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
> Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM PST
> Contributed by: Admin
>
> Anarchists: This Friday marks the beginning of our most important
> opportunity in decades to communicate with millions about the
> possibility of a world without capitalism or coercion.
I find it curious that you juxtapose "capitalism" and "coercion",
especially considering that nobody ever associated "laissez faire" with
any other form of socioeconomic structure; capitalism has always been
badmouthed as "out of control" by would-be coercers of all stripes. Not
that I have any great love for capitalism, but it sure beats the hell
out of any top-down system.
Equating coercion specifically with politics, religion, or anything
else focuses on the form and ignores the substance of the issue; that
humans use force to modify others' behavior. This is in our ape genes
and we simply haven't evolved past it yet. In fact we may not be able to
do so, and that may not be a bad thing in terms of species survival;
frinst rather than allow children to acquire third-degree burns in their
exploration of the bright pretty world, we slap their hands and say
"fire HOT!" when appropriate. That's coercion. Is it justifiable? Most
will say "yes", because they'd rather have a child cry from that slap
for a moment than be horribly scarred for life. Some adults see other
adults as "childlike" and do similar things to them "for their own good"
or "for the greater good". Is that justifiable? Most will say
"sometimes", but agreeing on when "sometime" may be is where the trouble
started long before Gilgamesh's day.
Anarchy shouldn't be about a blanket "No Coercion" because that's
simply impracticable (don't tell _me_ how to be an Anarchist! ;>)). It
should be about "No Mass Coercion", but then what would TV and movie
producers do for a living?
<suggestions for anarchists skylining themselves snipped>
Mark L. Fergerson
Midnighter
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dvdo48$fni$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <gldk12hs28871eebf...@fe06.highwinds-media.phx>,
> Adam H <ad...@mailinator.com> said:
>
>> What, exactly, is with all these idiots making something
>> significant out of a MOVIE?
>>
>> It's a MOVIE. That's all. Take your pills, go outside, cool off.
>
> And if the pills contain cyanide, so much the better.
>
> (Think that's un-called for? Consider that the original article
> contained this:
>
> Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up,
> imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents,
> any left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or
> flout the Chancellor's actions. Tell that to the ACLU, which
> seems to be running legal policy in our country, these days, and
> its partner in crime, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the
> wealthiest "public interest" group in the U.S., to the tune of
> hundreds of millions. We don't see any prospect of them being
> rounded up by the government anytime soon, unfortunately.
>
Its True, the "Unfortunatly" Completly validates the viewpoint of the
movie and points out scary things about the writer.
>
Angle
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
> "V" for Vicious Propaganda
yeah, I want my vicious Conservative propaganda: some muscular Austrian
or Italian American killing lots of slant eyes or desert n-------s.
That's good entertainment, that's something to take the kids to. It's
patriotic. I mean ever since Charles Bronson stopped killing
minorities in the movies hollywood has become a bastion of liberal -
read commie feminazi values. Where's Clint Eastwood, why doesn't Bruce
Willis kill some Germans and get his wife begging to replace the Ms.
With Mrs. and take back his last name. When will Hollywood come back
to the Midwest values and have self-made male cops killing bad guys or
countries that fuck with us getting put in their place by Tom Cruise in
an airplane or something. I am a victim to all these people who use
victim politics. I liked it better when I could be a proud vicimizer
and they just had to shut up and take it.
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nMednWQBZbk...@megapath.net...
> In <1142567677.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "Sound of
> Trumpet" <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>
>> We've already mentioned the high-ranking Christian priest, who regularly
>> rapes young girls procured for him through an "agency."
>
> Girls?
>
> Well, *that's not very realistic is it?
Not based on true events, obviously :P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire
#1557
brique
Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:dgol125vke7rh291l...@4ax.com...
> What's so funny about peace, love and constan...@gmail.com
> posting the following on 17 Mar 2006 06:41:33 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
> >
> >Dan Clore wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Moore
> >> has described the script of the film as "rubbish" and had
> >> demanded that his name be removed from it.
> >
> >I'll watch it anyway, but that's really too bad. I enjoyed the comic
> >and was hoping to see the comic on the screen. Oh well.
>
> Moore's objections have to do with the renaming of some characters and
> a change in how England becomes fascist. He's a bit of a control
> freak, it seems.
Authors tend to be, it's in the nature of the vocation. It's instructive to
read the original scripts he writes and gives to the artists, every detail
of each frame is set down such that you can mentally construct the final
page quite easily. Moore has had some bad experiences with his previous
works that have been made into movies and refused to have anything to do
with this one. I imagine if he had his way it would never have been made, as
he has said, they are comics, an art form of their own.
As for the changes made to characters and the scenario, this is not unusual
in movie adaptations and few authors would consider them to be any kind of
improvement upon the original work. But hey, that's Hollywood and respect
for the written word has never been a key influence there-in, as the old
joke goes, the actress was so dumb, she slept with the script-writer.
Niels
> What's so funny about peace, love and constan...@gmail.com
> posting the following on 17 Mar 2006 06:41:33 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>
>>Dan Clore wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Moore
>>> has described the script of the film as "rubbish" and had
>>> demanded that his name be removed from it.
>>
>>I'll watch it anyway, but that's really too bad. I enjoyed the comic
>>and was hoping to see the comic on the screen. Oh well.
>
> Moore's objections have to do with the renaming of some characters and
> a change in how England becomes fascist. He's a bit of a control
> freak, it seems.
That's not really the case. Here's a good article on the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html
> All the reviews I've seen from sources both fannish and mundane seem
> to agree that it is a brilliant film.
I've seen the movie. I'm a big fan of Alan Moore, and I was slightly
disappointed by the movie. It's certainly above average, but it isn't as
perfect as I had hoped. I suppose that's how it always is when you've read
the book first.
//Niels
Gene Ward Smith
constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love the
> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is true.
Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell us what
we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate the world
according to the neocon agenda. The state should be allowed to
spy on people as much as it wants, should be able to imprison people,
even citizens, without charges or trials, should be worshipped with
symbols such as flags and heretics who disparage those symbols should
be punished.
The convervative creed: All Hail the Holy State! Conservatives are
*Statists*.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>news:dgol125vke7rh291l...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Moore's objections have to do with the renaming of some characters and
>> a change in how England becomes fascist. He's a bit of a control
>> freak, it seems.
>
>Authors tend to be, it's in the nature of the vocation.
No, it isn't; that's just Moore.
> It's instructive to
>read the original scripts he writes and gives to the artists, every detail
>of each frame is set down such that you can mentally construct the final
>page quite easily.
Compare this with any other comics scripter and you'll see that Alan
Moore is an obsessive loon.
A brilliant one, but an obsessive loon.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Fred Stone
news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
the
>> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>
> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is true.
> Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell us what
> we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate the world
> according to the neocon agenda. The state should be allowed to
> spy on people as much as it wants,
If they communicate with known terrorists.
> should be able to imprison people,
If they are known terrorists.
> even citizens,
If they are terrorists.
> without charges or trials,
If they are enemy combatants.
> should be worshipped with
> symbols such as flags and heretics who disparage those symbols should
> be punished.
>
Patriotism is not the same as worship. And nobody should be punished for
being unpatriotic. They should just be ignored.
> The convervative creed: All Hail the Holy State! Conservatives are
> *Statists*.
>
The liberal creed: When we do it, it's good; when conservatives *don't*
do it, accuse them of it anyway and pretend that it's BAAAAAD.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When people say they intend to kill you, take them seriously."
constan...@gmail.com
Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love the
> > state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>
> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is true.
> Conservatives seem to looove the state.
What you are seeing is not conservatives, but the way government works.
Anyone in power is tempted to use that power and to expand that power.
constan...@gmail.com
Liberals don't like a Republican president having all that power. But
back when Franklin Roosevelt vastly expanded the state, they were all
for it. Roosevelt was, of course, a Democrat. So yeah, liberals worship
the state. They just want to be in control of it, that's all.
And that's why a comic whose message is that the state itself is evil
and needs to be blown up, is unlikely to appeal to liberals. If they
come out of this movie liking it, it will be because they've
interpreted its message as being limited to an anti-"those other guys"
message. And maybe that's what the movie's message is. But it's not
what I remember the comic's message was.
constan...@gmail.com
I don't see what your rant about PC has to do with anarchism.
Pubkeybreaker
Applause!
Amen! Amen!!!
Add to it: Conservatives think "freedom of religion" means the right
to force
their religious views on everyone else.
George Carlin had it right. We need to red-do the 10 commandments.
Get
rid of some (I thru III), consolidate others, and ADD ONE MORE:
Keep thy religion to thyself.
Mike Schilling
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:mfsl12lnbof606ukm...@news.rcn.com...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:51:39 -0000, "brique" <briqu...@freeuk.c0m>
> wrote:
>
>>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:dgol125vke7rh291l...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Moore's objections have to do with the renaming of some characters and
>>> a change in how England becomes fascist. He's a bit of a control
>>> freak, it seems.
>>
>>Authors tend to be, it's in the nature of the vocation.
>
> No, it isn't; that's just Moore.
I've seen enough authors talk about how every editing change in wording or
punctuation is like a freshly inflicted wound that I suspect Moore is well
within the normal range and you're obsessively reasonable.
David Johnston
Well actually the writer wasn't upset that the government was depicted
as doing those things. It was upset that the things the government
was doing were depicted as a bad thing, and that the antigovernment
terrorism was depicted as a good thing.
>>
>
>
constan...@gmail.com
Pubkeybreaker wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> > constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love the
> > > state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
> >
> > Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is true.
> > Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell us what
> > we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate the world
> > according to the neocon agenda. The state should be allowed to
> > spy on people as much as it wants, should be able to imprison people,
> > even citizens, without charges or trials, should be worshipped with
> > symbols such as flags and heretics who disparage those symbols should
> > be punished.
> >
> > The convervative creed: All Hail the Holy State! Conservatives are
> > *Statists*.
>
> Applause!
>
> Amen! Amen!!!
>
> Add to it: Conservatives think "freedom of religion" means the right
> to force
> their religious views on everyone else.
Mote, beam.
Mike Schilling
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9789832F6...@81.174.50.80...
> "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
> the
>>> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>>
>> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is true.
>> Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell us what
>> we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate the world
>> according to the neocon agenda. The state should be allowed to
>> spy on people as much as it wants,
>
> If they communicate with known terrorists.
Or are suapected of it.
>
>> should be able to imprison people,
>
> If they are known terrorists.
Or accused of it.
>
>> even citizens,
>
> If they are terrorists.
Or accused of it.
>
>> without charges or trials,
>
> If they are enemy combatants.
Or declared so.
And, gosh, no one would ever abuse those powers.
Mike Schilling
<constan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142618386.4...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> <constan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142605838.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >
>> > The comic, at any rate, is anti-government. If you like you can take
>> > its message as being merely anti-"right wing" government, and maybe
>> > even the author saw it that way. However, reading it, I didn't take
>> > away that message. The message I took away is along the lines of,
>> > government is inherently corrupt and unreformable, inherently an
>> > instrument of oppression, and in the end the only thing that can be
>> > done to fix it is to blow it up.
>> >
>> > That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love the
>> > state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>>
>> Which is why liberals want to grant the excutive branch unlimited powers
>> in
>> an indefinitely prolioged wartime.
>>
>> That dog ceased to hunt years ago.
>
> Liberals don't like a Republican president having all that power.
And conservatives do? Very principled people.
David Johnston
>
>Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>> In <tgek12t7coeeagqhm...@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
>> <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
>> > <soundof...@mail2world.com> posting the following on 16 Mar 2006
>> > 19:54:37 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>> >
>> >>If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks you
>> >>over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of extreme
>> >>leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but already the
>> >>mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment media are raving
>> >>about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
>> >
>> > Um, the movie has been in the planning stages since 1998, and is based on
>> > a comic that came out in the early eighties. and it's an attack on
>> > dictatorships.
>>
>> Me thinks the neocons protest too much if they perceive an attack on
>> dictatorships as an attack on them...
>
>And methinks totalitarians protest too much if they perceive an attack
>on pigs as an attack on them. I mean, come on people, Animal Farm is
>about Pigs, not about human society.
No it isn't. Pigs don't talk.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
That apparantly some guy making suggestions about what to do is
perfectly okay if he's an anarchist, or perhaps also a libertarian,
neocon, conservative, right wing christian, etc., but not if he's a
liberal.
natch
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>
>
>
> "V" for Vicious Propaganda
>
>
David Johnston
<fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
>the
>>> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>>
>> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is true.
>> Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell us what
>> we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate the world
>> according to the neocon agenda. The state should be allowed to
>> spy on people as much as it wants,
>
>If they communicate with known terrorists.
Bunk. The way to find out if someone is communicating with known
terrorists is in fact to spy on them. Therefore your statement should
read "If we have some suspicion that they might be communicating with
possible terrorists."
>
>> should be able to imprison people,
>
>If they are known terrorists.
If they are suspected terrorists.
>
>> even citizens,
>
>If they are terrorists.
If they are suspected terrorists.
>
>> without charges or trials,
>
>If they are enemy combatants.
If they are suspected of being enemy combatants. It is not necessary
to be armed or to have done any known fighting to be interned as an
"enemy combatant". That's just a catch-all phrase to cover anyone you
want to interrogate because they might know something.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> And, gosh, no one would ever abuse those powers.
Don't bother wasting time with Fred Stone, Mike. Judging from the past
posts of his I've seen, his head that could stand in as the immovable
object. He's completely immune to reason.
Fred Stone
news:Z9DSf.54714$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9789832F6...@81.174.50.80...
>> "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
>> the
>>>> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>>>
>>> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is
>>> true. Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell
>>> us what we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate
>>> the world according to the neocon agenda. The state should be
>>> allowed to spy on people as much as it wants,
>>
>> If they communicate with known terrorists.
>
> Or are suapected of it.
>
Where "suspected" means "a phone call was intercepted".
>>
>>> should be able to imprison people,
>>
>> If they are known terrorists.
>
> Or accused of it.
>
>>
>>> even citizens,
>>
>> If they are terrorists.
>
> Or accused of it.
>
>>
>>> without charges or trials,
>>
>> If they are enemy combatants.
>
> Or declared so.
>
Because they were captured in combat on a battlefield.
> And, gosh, no one would ever abuse those powers.
>
And, gosh, nobody would ever be paranoid about THAT. Nope, not ever.
Midnighter
"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
news:441aa69...@news.telusplanet.net...
The Unfortunatly indicates that the author wishes that it were so that those
people were hearded into camps.
Fred Stone
news:441aaa27...@news.telusplanet.net:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:53:36 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
>>"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
>>the
>>>> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>>>
>>> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is
>>> true. Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell
>>> us what we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate
>>> the world according to the neocon agenda. The state should be
>>> allowed to spy on people as much as it wants,
>>
>>If they communicate with known terrorists.
>
> Bunk. The way to find out if someone is communicating with known
> terrorists is in fact to spy on them.
"Them" being the terrorists, who are already known to be terrorists.
> Therefore your statement should
> read "If we have some suspicion that they might be communicating with
> possible terrorists."
>
If they are calling or receiving phone calls from international numbers
known to be used by terrorists.
<snip the rest. One piece of liberal spin to untwist at a time>
David Johnston
<torture...@gmail.cam> wrote:
>
>> Well actually the writer wasn't upset that the government was depicted
>> as doing those things. It was upset that the things the government
>> was doing were depicted as a bad thing, and that the antigovernment
>> terrorism was depicted as a good thing.
>
>The Unfortunatly indicates that the author wishes that it were so that those
>people were hearded into camps.
Oh yes, certainly. The author is upset that this is depicted as a
_bad_ thing.
Midnighter
Which is kind of worrying, to me at least.
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns9789832F6...@81.174.50.80>
wrote:
>"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
>the
>>> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>>
>> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is true.
>> Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell us what
>> we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate the world
>> according to the neocon agenda. The state should be allowed to
>> spy on people as much as it wants,
>
>If they communicate with known terrorists.
Or if someone suspected of being a terrorists might have contacted
them. Or their phone. And there is no reason to follow the law and get
a warrant. Or change the law if it does not work. The Executive knows
what is good and bad, that should be enough for us.
>> should be able to imprison people,
>
>If they are known terrorists.
For some notion of "known". Not one that seems to stand up to
examination of the evidence.
>> even citizens,
>
>If they are terrorists.
In which case legal restrictions don't apply. If the cops know you are
bad that is sufficient.
>> without charges or trials,
>
>If they are enemy combatants.
Or the administration says they are, that is enough.
>> should be worshipped with
>> symbols such as flags and heretics who disparage those symbols should
>> be punished.
>>
>
>Patriotism is not the same as worship. And nobody should be punished for
>being unpatriotic. They should just be ignored.
The right in the U.S. supports a flag burning amendment, for example.
>> The convervative creed: All Hail the Holy State! Conservatives are
>> *Statists*.
>>
>
>The liberal creed: When we do it, it's good; when conservatives *don't*
>do it, accuse them of it anyway and pretend that it's BAAAAAD.
Don't let the facts get in your way. Lets take an example, a major
conservative push in the U.S. has been to assert that government laws
that somehow lower property rights are illegal. Of course, this only
applies to environmental laws. Drug laws, for example, which lower my
ability to make money by selling drugs, are quite fine. And laws
governing what adults I can and can't have sex with and what acts are
acceptable are fine, that is not big government. And what kind of web
searches I do, that is fine for the government to look at. And it is
bad for me to see too much skin or hear inappropriate words on TV. It
is a small government that protects me there. And it is a small
government that requires that states set up educational standards and
requires that the states show improvement in those standards. Not fund
this, just require it. Yes, Republicans are in favor of a balanced
budget. That they increased the non-defense, non-entitlement budget by
just about 50% in 5 years, we will look the other way.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Lawrence Watt-Evans
If that were the case, no collaborations would ever get published.
Moore's at least as far off his end of the bell curve as I'm off mine.
The Other Kim
> news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
> the
> >> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
> >
> > Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is
true.
> > Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell us
what
> > we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate the world
> > according to the neocon agenda. The state should be allowed to
> > spy on people as much as it wants,
>
> If they communicate with known terrorists.
You're saying that the Quakers who were spied on communicate with known
terrorists. That's a good one. What about the vegan group who was
spied on during a peaceful protest? I guess they communicate with known
terrorists.
> > should be able to imprison people,
>
> If they are known terrorists.
Not everyone who has been rounded up since 9-11 are "known terrorists".
> > even citizens,
>
> If they are terrorists.
Let's go back to those Quakers and vegans and other peace activists
whose only "crimes" were exercising their First Amendment right of
peaceful assembly...
> > without charges or trials,
>
> If they are enemy combatants.
Let's go back to those simply rounded up and sold to their captors, who
committed no crime, were fighting for no enemy, yet somehow found
themselves shipped off to Guantanamo with no recourse.
> > should be worshipped with
> > symbols such as flags and heretics who disparage those symbols
should
> > be punished.
> >
>
> Patriotism is not the same as worship. And nobody should be punished
for
> being unpatriotic. They should just be ignored.
And here we have the current administration's view for all to see. We
don't have to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with us, even though
what we're doing goes against the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions,
all treaties we've ever signed, and international law.
> > The convervative creed: All Hail the Holy State! Conservatives are
> > *Statists*.
> >
>
> The liberal creed: When we do it, it's good; when conservatives
*don't*
> do it, accuse them of it anyway and pretend that it's BAAAAAD.
Neocons are talking about this, have done most of it, and are planning
on building detention camps.
Please show me where in recent memory liberals have done any of the
above. And don't mention the internment of those of Japanese ancestry
during WW2. We all know that was wrong, yet the current administration
has enough people in it who want to repeat this crime but want to apply
it to anyone who dares to not fall in line with their views. Dissent is
not treason. Waving the flag because one is told to and "getting with
the program" is not patriotism. There is nothing more patriotic than
questioning the motives and actions of the government when one knows the
government is acting against the Constitution and everything this
country was founded on. Sheesh, by the definitions of some people, our
Founders should have just "gotten with the program", and we'd still be
singing "God Save the Queen".
Sheesh, pull your head out and start reading the news instead of
watching Faux News.
The Other Kim
kimagreenfieldatyahoodotcom
kathryn
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:oval12hnt63iv4iaf...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:18:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <nos...@here.com>
> wrote:
>> The film is based on a comic which was a comment on Thatchers Britain -
>> that'd be Margaret Thatcher, Prime Mininster of GB & Northern Ireland.
>
> The movie however, is not about Thatcher's Britain, and the reference
> to the two towers means that the movies message is "Americans had it
> coming"
>
>
Of course it does sweetie.
Have you tried wearing a tin foil hat? I believe it helps block out the
signals.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I've seen enough authors talk about how every editing change in wording or
>punctuation is like a freshly inflicted wound that I suspect Moore is well
>within the normal range and you're obsessively reasonable.
Moore is, however, a bit of a loon. I mean, this is the man who
(paraphrasing his own words), decided that instead of having a regular
midlife crisis he'd go mad and worship a sock puppet. A brilliant loon,
mind you.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, cunctator maximus. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
dchi...@cablespeed.com
Warchild wrote:
> Why is it the modern 'conservative' thinks that any anti-fascist
> sentiment is an attack on them? Is that what they see when they look in
> the mirror?
>
Why do so many modern "liberals" think that any anti-communist
sentiment is an attack on them?
For *precisely* the same reasons.
Think about it.
dchi...@cablespeed.com
William December Starr wrote:
> In article <gldk12hs28871eebf...@fe06.highwinds-media.phx>,
> Adam H <ad...@mailinator.com> said:
>
> > What, exactly, is with all these idiots making something
> > significant out of a MOVIE?
> >
> > It's a MOVIE. That's all. Take your pills, go outside, cool off.
>
> And if the pills contain cyanide, so much the better.
>
> (Think that's un-called for? Consider that the original article
> contained this:
>
We don't see any prospect of them being
> rounded up by the government anytime soon, unfortunately.
>
> That's right: "unfortunately.")
>
Your call for the original poster to poison himself weakens your case.
Ash
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
The cluelessness of these rightards never fails to shock me
snip insanity
Ash
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>
>
>
>
> Based on the graphic novel series of the same name, "V" comes complete
> with all the bogeymen the far left loves to hate: NSA spying and
> wiretaps; government renditions and torture complete with Abu Ghraib
> hood fashions; lecherous, elderly Christian clerics in collars raping
> young girls; Islam, gay rights, and free speech under attack; and even
> a Bill O'Reilly-esque evil cable talk show host/wicked pharmaceutical
> billionaire/heinous military officer combo rolled into one character.
wow, just like the comic of the 80s
> Oh, and by the way, the hero of the movie: He's a terrorist in a Guy
> Fawkes mask, who blows up important government buildings. Sound
> familiar?
Well, it does sound a bit like Guy Fawkes. and the 80s comic "V for
Vendetta" had a very smilar plot
> We've already mentioned the high-ranking Christian priest, who
> regularly rapes young girls procured for him through an "agency."
> Before the priesthood, he was an evil military officer at a hospital
> where politically dissident youth had experiments conducted on them for
> the government (complete with Abu Ghraib-style hoods).
wow, just like the comic of the 80s
> Then, there's the government. It's run by a religious Christian zealot.
> But not just any Christian zealot.
>
I shall have to wait and see if this is projection, but if true, that
would be a change from the comic, in which religion played very little role
>
> Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up,
> imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents, any
> left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or flout the
> Chancellor's actions.
wow, just like the comic of the 80s
> Under the religious Christian Chancellor, "unjust" Gitmo-style military
> tribunals and absurd NSA-style wiretapping is going on at every corner.
> Throughout the movie, we are shown vans of law enforcement personnel
> listening in to every home. As if that's what NSA wiretapping was
> about. It isn't, but "V" drills it into you the way the ACLU wants you
> to see it: every conversation in every kitchen, etc., secretly being
> listened in on and laughed at by guys in sweaty, rumpled shirts and
> ties.
wow, just like the comic of the 80s (and 1984 before that)
> The evil government law enforcement chief, Creedy, runs a meticulously
> ubiquitous surveillance program nationwide. If only our FBI's Robert
> Mueller were so competent, we'd be safe. Instead, he's cavorting with
> extremist Muslims and testified in depositions to ignorance of the most
> basic newspaper facts about Al-Qaeda.
wow, just like the comic of the 80s
> Overall, the most outrageous thing about "V" is the ending. Instead of
> vanquishing terror, all of Britain sides with the terrorist hero of
> this movie. They celebrate his murder of all the top officials in
> government, his blowing up of the Houses of Parliament and other
> government buildings.
wow, just like the comic of the 80s
Ash
> John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> writes:
>
>> On 16 Mar 2006 19:54:37 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
>> <soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>
>> Amazing. The author of this "review" could very well be even more
>> clueless than the idiot who posted it. I wouldn't have thought that
>> possible if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.
>
> I think the "Sound of Trumpet" person isn't totally clueless; there's
> a good mix of newsgroups for a clash of opinions, at least. On the
> other hand, crossposting trolls was novel in, what, 1992? Hey, let's
> put on our plaid shirts and listen to Mother Love Bone.
>
Well, as he didn't post to alt.insane.rightwing.paranoia, I doubt he
will see much agreement
Ash
> *****
>
> V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
> Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM PST
> Contributed by: Admin
>
> Anarchists: This Friday marks the beginning of our most important
> opportunity in decades to communicate with millions about the
> possibility of a world without capitalism or coercion. On Friday, March
> 17, 2006, the long awaited film version of Alan Moore's classic graphic
> novel, V for Vendetta, will premier throughout the US. V for Vendetta is
> the story of an anarchist who dismantles a fascist state through
> propaganda of the deed, inspiring the masses to revolt with a vision of
> building an anarchist future. The book's protagonist does not simply
> promote vague anti-authoritarianism or nondescript appeals to "question
> authority" but explicitly and compellingly calls for the masses to
> eliminate the state and replace it with anarchy.
>
> Unsurprisingly, this radical message has been lost in the translation to
> Hollywood's watered-down film version. Warner Bros. presents a hero
> rebelling against fascism and advocating "freedom", yet never suggests
> that until the state is destroyed, no one will truly be free.
What does he suggest for when the state has been destroyed?
Ash
> Michael Price wrote:
>> Douglas Berry wrote:
>>> What's so funny about peace, love and "Sound of Trumpet"
>>> <soundof...@mail2world.com> posting the following on 16 Mar 2006
>>> 19:54:37 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>>
>>>> If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks
>>>> you over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of
>>>> extreme leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but
>>>> already the mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment
>>>> media are raving about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
>>> on a comic that came out in the early eighties. and it's an attack on
>>> dictatorships.
>>>
>> And yet the Bushites jump to the conclusion it's about them, just
>> like they
>> did with "Attack of the Clones".
>
> If you haven't seen the movie, you can't know whether it's about them
> or not. The comic is not about them but the movie is not the comic.
>
No, but all the objections are to points the film has in common with the
comic
Ash
> Dan Clore wrote:
>
>> Alan Moore
>> has described the script of the film as "rubbish" and had
>> demanded that his name be removed from it.
>
> I'll watch it anyway, but that's really too bad. I enjoyed the comic
> and was hoping to see the comic on the screen. Oh well.
>
Moore is a bit odd, I don't think you can go by what he sasy
David Johnston
>
>Warchild wrote:
>> Why is it the modern 'conservative' thinks that any anti-fascist
>> sentiment is an attack on them? Is that what they see when they look in
>> the mirror?
>>
>
>Why do so many modern "liberals" think that any anti-communist
>sentiment is an attack on them?
I haven't noticed that happening. What I HAVE noticed is large
numbers of conservatives claiming that liberals are communists.
RichA
LEFT, but we
NEVER see them portrayed negatively by Hollywood's or the art industry
cabals.
Fred Stone
news:081m12l68adjftgcu...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:53:36 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns9789832F6...@81.174.50.80>
> wrote:
>
>>"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
>>the
>>>> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>>>
>>> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is
>>> true. Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell
>>> us what we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate
>>> the world according to the neocon agenda. The state should be
>>> allowed to spy on people as much as it wants,
>>
>>If they communicate with known terrorists.
>
> Or if someone suspected of being a terrorists might have contacted
> them. Or their phone. And there is no reason to follow the law and get
> a warrant. Or change the law if it does not work. The Executive knows
> what is good and bad, that should be enough for us.
>
The law does not require warrants in the particular cases in question,
therefore the law works just fine and doesn't need to be changed. The
comment about the Executive is merely an insult to the intelligence of
the observer and therefore can be ignored.
>>> should be able to imprison people,
>>
>>If they are known terrorists.
>
> For some notion of "known". Not one that seems to stand up to
> examination of the evidence.
>
For some notion of "examination" that seems to stand up only to
examination by those who are biased against the US or the Bush
administration, or both.
>>> even citizens,
>>
>>If they are terrorists.
>
> In which case legal restrictions don't apply. If the cops know you are
> bad that is sufficient.
>
And Matt runs his mouth with the usual liberal goofball lies again.
>>> without charges or trials,
>>
>>If they are enemy combatants.
>
> Or the administration says they are, that is enough.
>
No, Matt, the administration says they are enemy combatants when they
are captured in combat or in raids on terrorist hangouts.
>>> should be worshipped with
>>> symbols such as flags and heretics who disparage those symbols
>>> should be punished.
>>>
>>
>>Patriotism is not the same as worship. And nobody should be punished
>>for being unpatriotic. They should just be ignored.
>
> The right in the U.S. supports a flag burning amendment, for example.
>
For some value of "the right" which includes very few actual
conservatives.
>>> The convervative creed: All Hail the Holy State! Conservatives are
>>> *Statists*.
>>>
>>
>>The liberal creed: When we do it, it's good; when conservatives
>>*don't* do it, accuse them of it anyway and pretend that it's BAAAAAD.
>
> Don't let the facts get in your way. Lets take an example, a major
> conservative push in the U.S. has been to assert that government laws
> that somehow lower property rights are illegal.
Yeah, like eminent domain laws, which raised howls of outrage from
conservatives all over the country.
> Of course, this only applies to environmental laws.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
<snip the rest of Matt's outrageous lies>
Fred Stone
news:480g53F...@individual.net:
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9789832F6...@81.174.50.80...
>> "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> > constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals
>> >> love
>> the
>> >> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>> >
>> > Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is
>> > true. Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell
>> > us what we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate
>> > the world according to the neocon agenda. The state should be
>> > allowed to spy on people as much as it wants,
>>
>> If they communicate with known terrorists.
>
> You're saying that the Quakers who were spied on communicate with
> known terrorists. That's a good one. What about the vegan group who
> was spied on during a peaceful protest? I guess they communicate with
> known terrorists.
>
What about them? What specific damages have they suffered as a result of
their being "spied on"? You don't have a right to never ever have your
name or phone number come across a computer screen, you know.
>> > should be able to imprison people,
>>
>> If they are known terrorists.
>
> Not everyone who has been rounded up since 9-11 are "known
> terrorists".
>
Not everyone who has been "rounded up" has been imprisoned, either.
>> > even citizens,
>>
>> If they are terrorists.
>
> Let's go back to those Quakers and vegans and other peace activists
> whose only "crimes" were exercising their First Amendment right of
> peaceful assembly...
>
Let's talk about them. Were any of them arrested? Deprived of their
right to an attorney? Imprisoned without bond?
>> > without charges or trials,
>>
>> If they are enemy combatants.
>
> Let's go back to those simply rounded up and sold to their captors,
> who committed no crime, were fighting for no enemy, yet somehow found
> themselves shipped off to Guantanamo with no recourse.
>
Name them, and provide documentation to prove your claims.
>> > should be worshipped with
>> > symbols such as flags and heretics who disparage those symbols
>> > should be punished.
>> >
>>
>> Patriotism is not the same as worship. And nobody should be punished
>> for being unpatriotic. They should just be ignored.
>
> And here we have the current administration's view for all to see. We
> don't have to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with us, even though
> what we're doing goes against the Constitution, the Geneva
> Conventions, all treaties we've ever signed, and international law.
>
Well, as a matter of fact, no, they don't have to listen to you. Doesn't
that just totally chap your ass?
>> > The convervative creed: All Hail the Holy State! Conservatives are
>> > *Statists*.
>> >
>>
>> The liberal creed: When we do it, it's good; when conservatives
>> *don't* do it, accuse them of it anyway and pretend that it's
>> BAAAAAD.
>
> Neocons are talking about this, have done most of it, and are planning
> on building detention camps.
>
Oh, right, suuuuuuuure they are. You know, they make these nice little
pills that can make those voices stop telling you those things.
> Please show me where in recent memory liberals have done any of the
> above. And don't mention the internment of those of Japanese ancestry
> during WW2. We all know that was wrong, yet the current
> administration has enough people in it who want to repeat this crime
> but want to apply it to anyone who dares to not fall in line with
> their views.
Cite them.
> Dissent is not treason.
Dissent is not patriotism either.
> Waving the flag because one is
> told to and "getting with the program" is not patriotism. There is
> nothing more patriotic than questioning the motives and actions of the
> government when one knows the government is acting against the
> Constitution and everything this country was founded on.
There is nothing *LESS* patriotic than hiding behind that lame phony
excuse for patriotism to justify your own stupid paranoid partisan
fantasy about the fact that your socialist politics suck.
> Sheesh, by
> the definitions of some people, our Founders should have just "gotten
> with the program", and we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen".
>
> Sheesh, pull your head out and start reading the news instead of
> watching Faux News.
>
Sorry, I don't watch them now.
> The Other Kim
> kimagreenfieldatyahoodotcom
Douglas Berry
Kj|nn|y) posting the following on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:56:46 +0000
(UTC) iin alt.atheism?
>In article <p4DSf.54712$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I've seen enough authors talk about how every editing change in wording or
>>punctuation is like a freshly inflicted wound that I suspect Moore is well
>>within the normal range and you're obsessively reasonable.
>
>Moore is, however, a bit of a loon. I mean, this is the man who
>(paraphrasing his own words), decided that instead of having a regular
>midlife crisis he'd go mad and worship a sock puppet. A brilliant loon,
>mind you.
Which is why I've resigned myself to never seeing Watchmen come to the
big screen. Even though Nicholas Cage would be perfect for Night Owl.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Dan Clore
>>Let's go back to those simply rounded up and sold to their captors,
>>who committed no crime, were fighting for no enemy, yet somehow found
>>themselves shipped off to Guantanamo with no recourse.
>>
> Name them, and provide documentation to prove your claims.
You can find some of them named in the tribunal records
released under FOIA:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/index.html
and news stories on them through:
http://antiwar.com/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
http://www.cageprisoners.com/
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
David Johnston
That's a lie of course. I have seen both fascists and communists
portrayed negatively in films and on television. Or did you think
the lengthy prison torture scene at the start of the last Brosnan Bond
movie was a favourable portrayal of North Korea? I assure, the North
Koreans most definitely did not.
Rich
wrote:
>On 16 Mar 2006 19:54:37 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
><soundof...@mail2world.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>>
>>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>>
>>
>>
>>"V" for Vicious Propaganda
>>
>
>What, exactly, is with all these idiots making something significant
>out of a MOVIE?
>
>It's a MOVIE. That's all. Take your pills, go outside, cool off.
Why is it leftists, when they want to deflect criticism of a movie
say "Its just a movie, its not significant" or something to that
effect? Meanwhile, they drone on about how pertinent a movie is
when it suits them. Make up your gelatinious minds.
-Rich
Rich
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>*****
>
>V for Vendetta is about Anarchy
>Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM PST
>Contributed by: Admin
>
>Anarchists: This Friday marks the beginning of our most
>important opportunity in decades to communicate with
>millions about the possibility of a world without capitalism
>or coercion. On Friday, March 17, 2006, the long awaited
>film version of Alan Moore's classic graphic novel, V for
>Vendetta, will premier throughout the US. V for Vendetta is
>the story of an anarchist who dismantles a fascist state
>through propaganda of the deed, inspiring the masses to
>revolt with a vision of building an anarchist future. The
>book's protagonist does not simply promote vague
>anti-authoritarianism or nondescript appeals to "question
>authority" but explicitly and compellingly calls for the
>masses to eliminate the state and replace it with anarchy.
That might have been interesting. Sort of like the idea that
people were "better off" after the French Revolution than before.
-Rich
Kate
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:53:36 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
><fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
>>"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
>>the
>>>> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>>>
>>> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is true.
>>> Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell us what
>>> we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate the world
>>> according to the neocon agenda. The state should be allowed to
>>> spy on people as much as it wants,
>>
>>If they communicate with known terrorists.
>
>Bunk. The way to find out if someone is communicating with known
>terrorists is in fact to spy on them. Therefore your statement should
>read "If we have some suspicion that they might be communicating with
>possible terrorists."
>
>
>>
>>> should be able to imprison people,
>>
>>If they are known terrorists.
>
>If they are suspected terrorists.
>
>>
>>> even citizens,
>>
>>If they are terrorists.
>
>If they are suspected terrorists.
>
>>
>>> without charges or trials,
>>
>>If they are enemy combatants.
>
>If they are suspected of being enemy combatants. It is not necessary
>to be armed or to have done any known fighting to be interned as an
>"enemy combatant". That's just a catch-all phrase to cover anyone you
>want to interrogate because they might know something.
Not to mention there is no good definition of terrorist that doesn't
cover Bush and his armys as well.
So a vague word defines anyone we want to attack and doesn't when we
don't for whatever agenda we might feel like following today.
How convienent for the proven corrupt.
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns9789AAD9B...@81.174.50.80>
wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>news:081m12l68adjftgcu...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:53:36 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns9789832F6...@81.174.50.80>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:1142615007.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is not a message that liberals would approve of. Liberals love
>>>the
>>>>> state and have faith in the state far more than conservatives do.
>>>>
>>>> Judged by their actions and not their behavior, the opposite is
>>>> true. Conservatives seem to looove the state. The state should tell
>>>> us what we can and cannot do. The state should be used to dominate
>>>> the world according to the neocon agenda. The state should be
>>>> allowed to spy on people as much as it wants,
>>>
>>>If they communicate with known terrorists.
>>
>> Or if someone suspected of being a terrorists might have contacted
>> them. Or their phone. And there is no reason to follow the law and get
>> a warrant. Or change the law if it does not work. The Executive knows
>> what is good and bad, that should be enough for us.
>>
>
>The law does not require warrants in the particular cases in question,
>therefore the law works just fine and doesn't need to be changed.
Except that the law does require it, it even sets up a special court,
>The
>comment about the Executive is merely an insult to the intelligence of
>the observer and therefore can be ignored.
I agree that it is an insult to the intelligence, unfortunately it is
your insult.
>>>> should be able to imprison people,
>>>
>>>If they are known terrorists.
>>
>> For some notion of "known". Not one that seems to stand up to
>> examination of the evidence.
>
>For some notion of "examination" that seems to stand up only to
>examination by those who are biased against the US or the Bush
>administration, or both.
Accusing me of disliking American won't fly just like no one buys it
when they accuse Murtha and others. We have Padilla, accused in the
press of terrible plans, but not so accused in court. We have plenty
of people in or released from Gitmo who were picked up because they
were near something or other or someone said something. Not knowledge,
not evidence, just a vague notion. You continue to confuse accusation
with conviction.
>>>> even citizens,
>>>
>>>If they are terrorists.
>>
>> In which case legal restrictions don't apply. If the cops know you are
>> bad that is sufficient.
>
>And Matt runs his mouth with the usual liberal goofball lies again.
Me and the courts, I guess. What did Padilla do again?
>>>> without charges or trials,
>>>
>>>If they are enemy combatants.
>>
>> Or the administration says they are, that is enough.
>>
>
>No, Matt, the administration says they are enemy combatants when they
>are captured in combat or in raids on terrorist hangouts.
Or nearby when an attack occurs. Or someone accuses them for separate
purposes. Your blind conviction that anything the administration says
is inherently correct is touching in a way.
>>>> should be worshipped with
>>>> symbols such as flags and heretics who disparage those symbols
>>>> should be punished.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Patriotism is not the same as worship. And nobody should be punished
>>>for being unpatriotic. They should just be ignored.
>>
>> The right in the U.S. supports a flag burning amendment, for example.
>
>For some value of "the right" which includes very few actual
>conservatives.
But lots and lots of elected Republicans.
>>>> The convervative creed: All Hail the Holy State! Conservatives are
>>>> *Statists*.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The liberal creed: When we do it, it's good; when conservatives
>>>*don't* do it, accuse them of it anyway and pretend that it's BAAAAAD.
>>
>> Don't let the facts get in your way. Lets take an example, a major
>> conservative push in the U.S. has been to assert that government laws
>> that somehow lower property rights are illegal.
>
>Yeah, like eminent domain laws, which raised howls of outrage from
>conservatives all over the country.
I was talking about extensions of the eminent domain concept. But,
while we are at it lets discuss the Kelo case. Read the decision, it
is a classic conservative non-activist decision. The court ruled that
it was not the place of the courts to impose their views on this, that
it was a political decision whether the purpose was acceptable. It was
exactly the kind of decision that conservatives approve of, a
non-activist court. And, yet, they almost universally condemned it.
>> Of course, this only applies to environmental laws.
>
>Liar, liar, pants on fire.
I guess you don't know of the movement.
><snip the rest of Matt's outrageous lies>
Here is hint: that you don't know about it does not make my comments a
lie.
firel...@hotmail.com
> It seems to be standard operating procedure, anymore. It's gone beyond
> 1984-like doublethink, like turning to a new "reason all along"
> for invading Iraq as the old ones get used up.
Odd - all the reasons I've ever heard the Bush administration
use for the invasion were stated by them before the invasion
began. One isn't being used any more - WMD, due to the
lack of evidence - but all the rest were part of the Bush
administration's pre-war propaganda. What's your reason
for thinking that new reasons are being created? Especially
since, besides the WMD one, the rest were pretty much
standard-issue US President pro-intervention spiel as used
for the past 40 years.
Well, OK, they did rub out "communism" and pencil in
"islamofascism".
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Mark K. Bilbo
<MPG.1e84720af...@news.readfreenews.net>...
> In article <1142567677.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> soundof...@mail2world.com says...
>>
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595439/posts
>>
>> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621
>>
>>
>>
>> "V" for Vicious Propaganda
>
> Yes, your propaganda against it is vicious. However, even you must
> realize that the very fact that freeper morons hate this movie will
> absolutely guarantee that liberals will go see it. When Michael Medved
> panned the movie that was a glowing endorsement for every sane person who
> knows that Medved is a hate-filled lunatic. You would think that these
> stupid, right-wing fucks would have learned to not give all this free
> press coverage after all the times that Fox News ended up promoting books
> for Al Franken and doing advertising for Michael Moore.
I hope they raise such a stink, it becomes a "must see" for the entire
country...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com