March 8, 2006, - 6:23 am

“V” for Propaganda

By 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.

natalieportman.jpgvforvendetta3.jpgvforvendettaguyfawkes.jpg

“V for Vendetta”:

Natalie Portman, Guy Fawkes Mask-wearing “V” Are Terrorist Heroes

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-cum-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.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

82 Responses

Hector,
Why should I rush this … it’s too much fun.
Do you know Dennis Hopper?
Starred in “Easy Rider” …. now stars in E-Ring.
Guess who ripped Dennis off, Hector??? :)
Here’s how Hollywood works … URL and all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/09/19/dennis_hopper_land_of_the_dead_interview.shtml
Q: There has been constant rumours about an Easy Rider sequel. Do you know anything about this?
A: I think that they’re trying to do it now. They’re doing it without me. I think that Peter [Fonda] may be involved. Peter and I have not spoken in a few years. I had to sue Peter to be paid for Easy Rider. We had a falling out before we started shooting principle photography for Easy Rider and never really got back together. But I made him look very good in that movie and I’m proud of the job he did. But no, I’m not involved.
Unfortunately, I don’t own the movie and I don’t own the rights to make a sequel … even though I wrote the film.
Q: Did you have an idea for a sequel?
A: I had a great sequel but they’re not doing the one I thought of.
Q: What was it like?
A: Oh, you don’t want to get me telling you about a movie I’m never going to make, do you?
So you see Hector … this is how it works, they wait until the copyright is expired then they make a sequel ‘based on’ … very honest and forthright of Hollywood isn’t it :)
I’m saving Moore for last … I’m enjoying this Hector … :)
Hopper’s life was nearly destroyed by drugs and alcohol. Finally he got de-tox’d and started thinking clearly and coherently again and … OH MY GOD he became a Republican !!!!!!!!!!!
Alas, poore Moore took far too much LSD and hasn’t been anywhere near sanity since, which is why he’s so easy to rip off … all druggies are.
Every socialist Utopia rounds up the druggies and execute them … Soviets did it Maoists did it .. I think that was a social statement.
Druggies do not win revolutions or wars … sorry Hector, that’s Hollywood BS :)

Athling on March 13, 2006 at 9:55 pm

Hector,
Unfortunately something important came up and I can’t hang around and play any moore …
So here’s the url about Moore …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore
This isn’t the only one by a long throw … but since you seem to have a problem with the concept of Google, and you can’t even use Wikipedia, I took mercy on you.
This isn’t about Moore or Hopper … this is about how Hollywood operates … and how they operate makes them anything but reliable when it comes to moral or ethical concepts … much less political concepts.
If you like Moore … fine. He seems like your kinda guy … rhetorically speaking, of course :)

Athling on March 13, 2006 at 10:08 pm

By the way Hector,
There are other sites that explore this topic in greater depth. I choice a ‘neutral’ site that is readily available to anyone so that I can’t be accused of spinning this. And there’s enough in the ‘neutral’ info to lead people to other sites.
Now that I’ve humored you, Hector … I ‘demand’ a ‘neutral’ site from you that proves Bush is a Fascist.
If you cannot do that, Hector, then you prove my point that ‘V’ is rank propaganda, and that there is NO justification for that kind of rhetoric … not even for fun and profit.

Athling on March 14, 2006 at 12:51 pm

Natalie Portman somehow dodged serving in the Israeli army as it is mandatory when you become of age.
I think Hollywood will soon be performing for itself.
I, TOO, WONDERED HOW SHE GOT OUT OF MANDATORY SERVICE, SINCE SHE WAS BORN THERE AND BOTH PARENTS ARE REPORTEDLY ISRAELIS. IF ANYONE KNOWS THE ANSWER, PLEASE E-MAIL ME.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

caroline on March 14, 2006 at 4:37 pm

You claimed that Moore was censured, and had a continuing stuggle with the ‘Brit Libs’, a government which he hated.
So, somehow, in your view, DC Comics and Marvel Comics are part of this elusive liberal British government? Funny thing. And here I was thinking they were comic book publishing companies located in New York. Silly me.
Which just proves you just don’t have an idea about what you’re talking about. Which I knew since your third post about Moore, but I just wanted to be sure.
Why should I post a link ‘proving’ Bush is a fascist? Where did I said that? Oh, yeah. I didn’t. I posted an interview with Moore saying he sees similarities between the US and a fascist state. But, as far as I know, the movie doesn’t explicity says ‘BUSH IS FASCIST’. That people like you and several others here dislike the movie so much says more about you than about Moore or the filmmakers.
I mean, in Debbie’s ‘critic’ she somehow manages to be obvlivous to the fact that the goverment in the movie exterminated minorities, effectively ceased any kind of civil liberty using fear and ‘security’ as an excuse and routinely rapes and murder people at their whim. Nice thinking there.
But hey, if that’s the goverment you prefer, I can’t do anything to change your mind.
By the way, no need to thank me about the Wikipedia article, which probably is where you found all your information about Moore, I helped write it and fact check it so people could learn about more about such great writer.

Hector on March 14, 2006 at 6:40 pm

Hector,
SOPHISTRY works on college freshmen, not mature adults.
When you stated that there was credibility to the claims in ‘V’, when you champion the proponents of ‘V’, when you quote them, when you call the President a chimp, when you use every opportunity to pretend that this garbage is not blatant propaganda … that’s called sophistry … the tool of cowards who elude responsibility for their words and actions.
Hollywood is corrupt … that’s common knowledge. I don’t need a URL to prove what is common knowledge. And you side stepped the Easy Rider issue .. or did you write that one too … LOLOL … please send me the URL proving you wrote the wikipedia piece … yeah, sure.
You are soo full of it Hector, and now you’re trying to run from the issues I spelt out for the whole world to see.
Moore hated the Brits who ripped him off … why shouldn’t he??? Are you denying that? Again, sophistry.
Are you denying the linkage between the Brit comics and Pinewood, and between Pinewood and Holywood, and between the American comics?? Are you so deluded that you honestly think that no one else knows??? Wow … imagine that … Hector is guarding the deep dark secret.
Have you been at Moore’s stash, Hector? You must be to think that everyone is as gullible as you need them to be.
Go to De-Tox … it’ll clear your head up.

Athling on March 15, 2006 at 3:28 am

PS Hector,
Moore doesn’t hate lefty dictatorships, or socialist cess pits … he loves them … when I said he hated the Brits, I meant specifically his good ole lefty buddies who ripped him off. Why shouldn’t he?
I pointed this out because … once again Hector … it’s about the money. The Brit Libs are as Neo-Con as their Yank counterparts when it comes to money.
I did NOT say that Moore was ‘censured’ … nice try Hector :)
Using that word … censure … also tells me that you are a Limey Lefty … no wonder you got so twitchy when I brought up the evil Brit Libs.
Stick to running your own Clockwork Orange, Hector. We’ve got enough of a mess from Yank LIbs without Euro-trash marxists butting in.

Athling on March 15, 2006 at 12:45 pm

‘Euro-trash marxist’ Man, you’re a laugh riot!
You going all Sherlock Holmes, ‘deducting’ I’m a ‘Limey Left’ because I wrote censure instead of censored (which, you know, you did said, here: -especially the Brit Libs and their censorship of Moore’s best creative work-) was also funny as hell.
But no, your deductive reasoning is on par with your debating skills. Twice you have implied I do drugs, which I don’t. Never have. Never interested me at all. And I’m not british, either. Or european for that matter.
But it’s easier that way, isn’t it? Dismiss based on useless ad hominem. Boring tactic.
Oh, I see. You couldn’t find when I said Bush was fascist. Another straw man. I did called him a chimp. Because he’s an incompetent idiot. But chimps aren’t fascist, are they?
I wasn’t championing the movie. What I did said was that both the writer of the original GN and the filmmakers could find similarities with Bush’s America. Against your claims that Hollywood perverted V for Vendetta with their views.
I’m not championing this movie. I haven’t seen it. Who knows? I’ll probably won’t like it. Perhaps I have read the GN so many times I won’t be able to accept any change made, no matter how minimal.
But those who have been angered about this movie? Maybe they think Bush is a fascist. Maybe you think he is a fascist and you’re pissed because this movie implies that. Maybe those who have hated the movie think fascism is a good thing. The review opening this discussion certainly seems to think so.
Or maybe, people will hate this movie because it challenges you. Because it says things you don’t want to hear. You, and all here who ‘thanked’ Debbie for telling them that they shouldn’t see this movie seems like the type or people who like to be told how to think, instead of thinking for themselves.
What should have answered when you brought up Dennis Hopper? That Hollywood rips people off. That studios routinely make sequels of movies without the participation of the creators? Well, duh.
I don’t need to prove that I wrote the Wikipedia article (which, again, what I said was that I helped write it, and fact check it.) that wasn’t part of the discussion. It’s for my own amusement, as when this discussion started I genuinely tought you might know something about Moore I didn’t. Obviously I was wrong.

Hector on March 15, 2006 at 7:32 pm

Thank you Hector …
I wanted everyone to see propaganda in action. I pushed your buttons, you complied. Thanks man.
You pretend to be reasonable until someone stresses you, then it’s ‘Bush is a chimp’.
If you did write the Wikipedia piece, then you have revealed yourself as a pathological liar.
I stated that Moore had been mined by the Brits. This data was in the Wikipedia piece. If you wrote that piece, you should have admitted it, then questioned my conclusions. Instead you cat called me for ‘not substantiating’ my claim by providing you with a url … what was wrong with admitting to that one little truth, Hector?
That, Hector, is a propaganda tactic. There is no attempt for dialogue. It is sophistry, intellectual dishonesty, with intent. You meant to deceive from the first until you got caught at it.
When I further stated that there is collusion between the comics and the movie industry. YOU called me a moron, or what ever … while deliberately ignoring the syndications that link comics to “TV”, from “TV to movies” in both the US and UK, then arrogantly dismiss me for not knowing what I’m talking about … LOLOLOLOLOLOL
That’s not even sophistry Hector … that’s a blatant lie by ommision … another propaganda technique. Except you screwed it all up :)
Then the verbal slip … no YANK would ever substitute ‘Censure for Censor’ … scream all you want, Hector, the American speaking audience reading these posts know it’s true … man you are too easy :) LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Propaganda is always reasonable … but depends on lies, mainly by ommision, a deliberate unwillingness to engage in forthright dialogue while concealing malice … but you screwed up calling Bush a chimp … so you’ve been outed :)
There IS and NEVER was dialogue with the LEFT. The left is a movement of pathological liars.
But here’s the absolutely best part …
Fascism is evil … we must fear Fascism … Bush is a Fascist … Bush is a chimp … we must fear the diabolical fascist chimps … run away !!! run away !!!
Kind of mixing your signals huh, Hector :)LOLOL
Real Patriots, both Democrats and Republicans, fought Fascism in WW2. Arlington cemetary is filled with the Crosses and Stars of David of those fallen patriots. The Republicans, and those few conservative Democrats who are still around, continue to honor that patriotic tradition … and then a guy like you comes along and equates this with Fascism? … why else argue FOR a piece of blatant propaganda like ‘V’ … what? … oh, on principle? … what principle? … certainly not the principle that filled Arlington with patriots fighting fascism.
Nice try though … truly worthy of your idol … a self consumed sociopath on LSD.
You DID write that Wikipedia article to let people know how wonderful Moore is … right?

Athling on March 15, 2006 at 8:52 pm

Don’t worry. I’m not stressed at all. Certainly calling Bush a chimp isn’t a sign of stress. Frankly, it seems to stress you more than it does me.
And now I’m a liar? More insults. Where exactly did I lie? Becuse I’m pointing your straw men? Or maybe because I don’t see where Moore was ‘mined’ by the brits? I honestly don’t. You say it’s there in the Wikipedia article (which, I again, I never said I wrote it entirely) So, I ask, where is the exact part where it says that. Copy and paste it. I’ll admit if I’m wrong.
You say that there can’t be a dialogue. Well, who is the one here throwing insults? Twice you have implied I’m a junkie, you called me ‘Euro-trash marxist’ and now a liar. Mind you, I find it hysterical. But still I don’t think I’m being the close-minded one here.
Ah, that ‘verbal slip’ which you seem to love patting yourself in the back for your impressive deductive skill, what does it matter? What does it matter where I come from? I’m not from either the US or England, but what would it matter if I were?

Hector on March 16, 2006 at 1:09 am

Debbie,
You may wonder why I’m doing this. It does seem rather childish, right? It isn’t. YOU were very correct when you said that ‘V” is deliberate propaganda. Now I’m going to tell you who is behind it, and why.
My first interest was to determine ‘who’ had come on your site to engage in deliberate disinformation. Since Moore is a cult figure, I started screwing with his image and Hector responded. It is VITALLY important to them to preserve Moore’s cult standing as some kind of anti-fascist hero.
Hector is not one person. Hector is a collective … at leat two people. One is older, either Brit or Canadian, the younger may be American, and may be a recent defector to Canada. This double teaming is done so that if the older one is caught at it, he can blame the ranting on the younger one … this tactic is all about plausible deniability. But, oh dear, they messed up with the ‘censor’ to ‘censure’ slip. It was bound to happen sooner or latter.
I appealed to their arrogance by pretending to be less than knowldgeable …. they took the bait.
The hard Left in the UK, Canada, and the US are in big trouble over a scandal that is going to break very soon.
The Libs in Canada were content to be a second rate socialist welfare state until the defector Yanks moved in recently. You know … the ones who left recently calling America a fascist state. It is these hard Left Yanks who actually talked the Canadian Libs into an extreamist platform … cracking down on churches that defied their leftist agenda. They went too far … they sued a Catholic Church in New Foundland into bankruptcy, among oher things, and revealed how FASCIST the Left really is when it comes out of the closet.
The Canadians, including the French Canadians, were outraged and voted in a Conservative government. The conservatives are now finding out just how far the Libs went, and how much they broke the law … not just Canadian law, but international law.
I have plenty of Canuck friends, and for them to vote conservative is right up there with Elvis giving up rock&roll for opera.
Worse yet, the Libs imported marxist south Americans and militant jihadists, among others, to help overthrow Canada in the event of a civil uprising as Canada was dragged into a Marxist dictatorship, and then wanted to use them against us … those idiots actually thought they could control the jihadists.
This whole plot tanked when the conservatives took power. The Libs freaked … including the ones here in the US … ever wonder why they suddenly started screaming like Hawks over the Dubai thing??? Believe me when I say they are running scared and trying to distance themselves from the repercussions in Canada by pretending to be vehemently anti-jihadist.
Why is ‘V’ so importantant to them? They’re desperately trying to make Americans paranoid over the Homeland Security act by calling it fascist. If they can scare enough people, maybe they can take the White House and supresss the truth by threatening the conservatives in Canada.
Again …. if you want to see fascism, just look at what the Libs were doing to religious groups in Canada. They’ve even come up with this phoney ‘clerical union’, as if clerics are supposed to be unionized and tout the socialist agenda … pretty much what Mao did in China. I can’t imagine why we are trying to liberate Iraq when so many of our Canuck friends needed liberation from the Marxist gulag that was solidifying into power.
These people are desperate … which is why they’ve dropped their usual arrogance to pretend they are reasonable people again.
You’ve seen how many circular lies I’ve caught Hector in … I do not apologize for my tactics … and, yes, these are profiler tactics … but you need to cultivate their arrogance before they slip and reveal themselves.
But I’m not paranoid about this … they’re too arrogant to fool thinking people.
God loves America … how do I know this is true? … He gave us YOU :)
Thank you for having the spirit to call it for what it is … and this is why Marines adore ‘Babes with Brains’ :)

Athling on March 17, 2006 at 12:18 am

This is just too much!
I mean, seriously, wow. I can’t say I’ve ever laughed so much at an anonymous internet poster. Thanks, man.
Though, I got to say, that last post became quite predictable. After my last post I tought ‘hmm, I bet that since I told than I’m not from the US or England, he will think I’m Canadian, and then proceed to rant against Canadian liberals’ And, voil·!
But no, Athling. I’m not Canadian either. And I don’t know much about Canada’s politics, so I didn’t read what you’re babbling about. The entertaining factor about reading paranoid delusions drop if one isn’t familiar with the subject. And I’m just one guy, by the way.
So, that ‘profiler’ thing? Since so far you haven’t said one correct thing about me, I wouldn’t advice to persue it as a career. You’re just not good at it.
On the other hand, the part where you pretended to be ignorant and clueless? Man, that was brilliant. I totally bought it. I didn’t doubt that for a second!
Anyway, even if it became pretty easy after the third or fourth post, it’s been a fun ‘spot the logical fallacies’ game. Thank you.
So, as Ed Murrow used to say, ‘Good night, and good luck’.

Hector on March 17, 2006 at 5:05 am

This is a horribly flawed movie and a perfect example of flawed liberal thinking.
The movie is not about a fascist government or a socialist government or marxists or communist. It is about a whole fictitious and unbelievable government. A conservative right-wing theocracy so extreme that it could we never exist as long as freedom loving people are willing to fight against tyranny. I mean it goes way too far. Orwellian is an understatement. But we know from the first 2 minutes of the movie what they are trying to imply.
As Americans our founding fathers fought AGAINST that sort of thing; and I have a hard time believing that things would ever get that bad without someone taking a stand MUCH sooner.
On the plus side, the movie could be said to be about the importance of freedom… about what could happen if one person (or a small group of people) controlled virtually all branches of government… about what would happen if the media always sided with the ruling party… about what would happen if the government could label anyone that disagreed with them as unpatriotic or lock them up.
On the negative side, in doing this Hollywood seem completely detached from reality (as usual).
For example, in the movie the government convinces people to allow phone calls to be monitored; they allow the government to monitor EVERYTHING, from what they read, to where they go. And the people supposedly allow all this because they are frightened of terrorists.
Now I worry about terrorists as much as the next guy, but this is utter crap. It would be impossible for ANY government to fool an educated populous so completely that they would just surrender their liberties because it make them feel safe.
I mean sure, maybe something small… like driving the speed limit… that we can all agree on… but privacy is too important to just give away like that. People would never let it get away with that.
In the US our founding fathers fought for those freedoms… and our brave soldiers over in Iraq die every day defending them. We would simply not allow it. No one would.
Another thing in the movie that bothered me was the portrayal of government censorship. It made Fahrenheit 451 look tame (the book by Ray Bradbury not the movie by that obnoxious pig Michael Moore, someone should shut him up). I mean everything was censored… from anti-government posters… to nude art work… to music with bad words… to pornography. I mean Alberto Gonzales wants to censored porn… but with the exception of John Ashcroft I don’t think many people are clamoring for censor our art and music.
Another example, in the movie the government has exploited fear to expand their powers until they could control things like the decisions that we make in our own homes. For example, in the movie, gay people are not allowed to marry. I bet the Hollywood folks loved that… the oppressed homosexuals.
Although it makes for a creepy Orwellian story line; free societies believe that people have certain inalienable rights: like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The movie also imagines a world were religion rules the government. This is also utter nonsense. There are far too many religions in the world. I for one can not imagine any society tolerating the establishment of a national religion… if I remember my history that is exactly what our founding fathers were trying to escape… the Church of England. To imagine a world were people would welcome that back is beyond ridiculous.
Another aspect that I found troubling was that the government in the movie had secret prisons where “terrorists” were held indefinitely and tortured. Again, although I see what the Hollywood folk that made this are trying to say… this again is something that people simply wouldn’t tolerate… even out of fear. The bags over the head were a nice touch.
And lastly. The biggest problem I had with the movie. The “hero” fights the “tyranny” of the government by being a terrorist… guilty of treason… and calling himself a freedom fighter.
Now while I do understand that our founding fathers blew up English government property… were guilty of treason… and were probably considered terrorists by the English government… there is a HUGE difference.
We are Americans.
And we will always fight back when the government tries to control us or tax us or take away our guns or our liberties or our rights to make our own decisions and control our own lives. That’s what makes us freedom fighters and not terrorists.
Like the movie said… The people shouldn’t be afraid of the government. The government should be afraid of the people.
And that is something that we never need to worry about. Our government knows that we will rise up if they become too big or too corrupt or if they have too many cronies or if they just start acting like a dictatorship.
It short… don’t go see this movie. Debbie is right. Sometimes I wish there were more limits on free speech.

W on March 17, 2006 at 4:01 pm

W …. yeah, you feel the twisted thing slithering beneath the slick productions and know in your heart that you have encountered incarnate EVIL.
But the best litimus is: ‘If the NEA loves it, it’s got to be perverted or treasonous, or both.’

Athling on March 17, 2006 at 10:54 pm

About Hector … notice he never owned up to where he’s from … like there’s any doubt :)
A pathological liar to the bitter end. And, yes, a lie by ommision is still a lie if deliberate.
However … I’m not arrogant enough to believe that everyone, including my fellow conservatives, will side with me on every issue, or on every perception.
I don’t want to live in a country where everyone has to think a certain way (political correctness)as per one central poitical ideology. In fact, I reserve the right to change my own mind as often and as much as it pleases me.
Republicans can disagree, bicker, and quarrel among ourselves without apology because that is how true democratic process works … a marked contrast to the Liberal lockstep culture that does not tolerate any internal challenge to the party doctrine and the DNC ‘Thought Police’.
The Canadians Libs sued a catholic Church into bankruptcy because a priest told his congregation that homosexuality is an abomination. The Libs in control of the government called this ‘hate speech’ and allowed the litigation to go through.
The world finally got to see what Progressive Liberals do when they think they’ve got total power. I’m trying hard to determine the differences between them, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.
In a free world, if someone doesn’t like the sermon, they can join a different church … it’s that easy. Crushing a church is either siding with an alternative faith, or repressing a religion for political purposes, both of which are violations of the Human Rights charter under the UN.
I won’t quarrel with their opinion about hate speech, they have a right to love to be as perverted as it pleases them … I will, however, quarrel with any political ideology that militantly attacks and represses my religion, then demands that I be ‘reasonable’.
So who’s the FASCIST???
And why should I tolerate people who mean to actively repress me?
But … bottom line … who do you want in the White House?
There is a very simple rule of thumb … which candidate would you allow your children to be exposed to?
Check out Moore on Wikipedia … look at his picture … ask yoursef if you’d let this self possessed drug crazed sociopath around your kids.
If not, then why would you want your kids to be exposed to this man’s twisted mind at the movies?
It’s all about ADULT responsibility. Use it or lose it … if you let the Libs win, you forfeit your adult status to the mommy state run by some very sick and twisted mommies.
Debbie is right … ‘V’ is deliberate, and desperate, propaganda at it’s worst.

Athling on March 17, 2006 at 11:36 pm

One response to W –
I would suggest going back and reading what you wrote because you contradicted yourself at the end.
I would also suggest reading some current events. Often all branches of government, military, money, etc DO get consolidated into one party (see Venezuela). Also, you could say the same thing about our government…
conservative republicans control the House, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court.
Oh, and we already do imprison people without coucil, without a speedy trial and we torture them to get information out of them. Some of them are American citizens. We have ignored our own Constitution and agreed upon international treaties like the Geneva Conventions in how we have imprisoned “enemy combatants”.
You did make one good point though… the British probably did think we were terrorists during the Revolutionary War… that’s because we were! We used guerilla war tactics and did “symbolic” acts of sabotage (see the Boston Tea Party).
For everyone else –
I do want to ask one thing…why do you think that those who you call liberals have as much power as you think they do?
Even if they “control Hollywood”, you (conservatives) control all three branches of government, all the federal courts, the radio media, big business and most of the powerful lobbyists.
I think John Stewart said it best… “You’re not some rag-tag group of rebels trying to overthrow the empire… you are the empire.”
I did like the earlier comment that maybe the reason people are so upset about this movie is that they see bits of truth about our current and future situation in the story line. Whether the movie was written 10 years ago or last year, the similarities may be striking for some…on both sides.
From my point of view, historically, it seems like “liberals” tend to make policies that “conservatives” hate, speak out against, but never actually change when they have the chance. Yet the conservatives spend billions of dollars trying to “fix” these programs (see Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Social Programs, Public radio and television, much of our country’s infrastructure, etc).
Unless you are in business or the business of war, the conservative Republican party seems to have very little for you. However, if you care about social policies, the poor, education, the environment, old people, international agreements, etc…then you probably find plenty of room in the liberal Democratic party. If you find yourself in the middle, then just go and talk to a conservative for awhile and express some opinions…if they are “left” enough, you won’t have to choose anymore. There is very little room in the conservative party for those who do not completely, entirely agree with the current expressed dogma.
Oh, a couple more things that I don’t understand…
Since when did disagreeing with the government become treason? …at least in a democratic country?
And, since when did disagreeing with the reasons for war mean that you hated American troops?
And one tidbit to take with you…we are currently NOT at war. Anyone know when we last fought an actual official war? I think it is weird the we “won” the war in Iraq like 2+ years ago, but are still fighting the war. The “job was done” when the statue of Sadaam fell, but we, today, we are still at war.
I guess that makes sense since this war is not over a country or against a person or a group, but against “terrorism”…it make sense since we are in a perpetual war now that will never end. Terrorism will never go away. We will never kill or capture all the terrorists and the more we try…the more we invade countries, the more people we will anger…the more terrorists we will make. This is an interesting strategy coming from a “Christian”, since Jesus himself promoted pacifism. Hmm…how does that work? Being a Christian nation supposedly, but then fighting a constant war?

mdsnod on March 18, 2006 at 3:03 pm

V for Vendetta or P for Propaganda?

Wow, after an Oscar season that was a French kiss to blue America, now we get V for Vendetta a piece of left wing propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of. Sure it was written about Thatcherite England back when Frank Miller was a raving left winger,…

Demonrats on March 19, 2006 at 12:43 pm

This movie was actually spot on… all one needs to do is tweak the marketing… this movie is probably very much what it was like to live in Sadam’s Iraq…. by plugging that in… I found the movie enjoyable… much to the chagrin of my lovable but left leaning wife…

RCRoy45 on March 19, 2006 at 12:59 pm

My objection to ‘V’ is not the satire.
My objection to ‘V’ is that it is satire directed at conservatives by liberals who, as can be plainly demonstrated in the example of Canada, behave like Fascists when they get power.
My objection to people who define ‘Christianity’ by making incorrect statements about Jesus is also another reason I get fed up with Libs.
When asked about paying the Roman tax, Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s”
The tax paid for political, judicial, and military expenditures. Jesus obviously felt that it was correct to be a good citizen, and to uphold one’s civic responsibilities.
Jesus was not born in Judea … he was born in the Roman sector of Palestine, (the partitioned side). Jesus was a Roman subject.
Because of this statement, all Christians were free to serve as cops and military when the government finally quit persecuting Christians.
Jesus was not a pacifist. Jesus believed in moral and ethical behavior, he did not promote lawlessness, treason, cowardice, immorality, and any of the other Lib platform choices.
As to the American Revolution … it happened because Parliament was behaving like a criminal organization. The Yanks who ‘rebelled’ were fed up with being treated like 3rd rate citizens by their own government. That’s not terrorism … the politicians were the terrorists, and they wree using Judicial Activism to circumvent the law.
I love the way Libs distort history and religion to justify their abuses of both.
But … I’m getting very irked with Republicans who wave the flag then knife the Vets in the back on medical benefits. Bush is burning bridges that the next Republican candidate won’t be able to replace. If the ‘Means Testing’ applies to Veterans, why not to SSN???
If they want to fix SSN, quit handing out critical medical services for free to people who can easily afford to pay their own way. Since when should Trump get full SSN services?

Athling on March 20, 2006 at 2:47 am

Re: Athling
A couple replies…
One, your interpretation of the “give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s” is incorrect. And your reasoning is flawed…or at least, probably far too extrapolated. Especially given historical evidence that points to the fact that the early Christians WERE all pacifists, meaning that that was part of the apostleís teaching. That fits in like with versus like ìturn the other cheekî and ìif they ask you to walk one mile, walk twoî.
A couple questions for clarification of your pointsÖ
One, why do you think those who run Canada are fascists?
Merriam-Webster defines fascism as ìa political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.î
Canada seems to be doing ok versus this definition.
Why is it that, as posted earlier, everything OTHER than American-Western Capitalistic Democracy seems to be fascism? However, I do see ìforcible suppression of oppositionî in this country. I see a growing, centralized government in this countryÖheaded not by the Democrats, as usually stated, but by a Conservative, Republican House, Senate and White House. BUT, I donít call our country a fascist nationÖ nor a socialist nationÖ nor a communist nation. So, why the extremity for EVERY OTHER nation?!?
Second, you wrote, ìJesusÖ did not promote lawlessness, treason, cowardice, immorality, and any of the other Lib platform choices.î Now, I havenít been to a Democratic Convention, but I do keep up with what comes out of these and I have never heard ìlawlessness, treason, cowardice, or immoralityî as part of the platform. Why the excessive extremity?
Third, your argument about the American Revolution was completely circular and subjective.
And I still donít understand who these crazy liberals are who are ruining our country and running everything. However, I do see a majority in the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, all other Federal Courts, the print, radio and television media and the White HouseÖwho ALL are dominated by Republican Conservatives.
After the election, I often heard comments towards Democrats or Liberals of ìyou lost, so shut upî and thoughtÖwhat has happened to our countryÖwinning is fine, but when one party loses, they donít lose their rights to free speech or freedom of the press. However, I find it FAR more ironic that even though the Conservative Republicans have ìwonî, they seemingly canít stop talking about the minority Liberals and how they are destroying America. Maybe they should shut up and do some workÖthey finally have what they want and all I hear is whining and complaining about some fictitious, villainous, enormous group of Liberals ruining the world.

mdsnod on March 21, 2006 at 12:03 am

mdsnod …
Just how long have you Libs had to endure this Republican domination of all branches??? What, 15 minutes now, and America is suddenly a tyranny? Let’s not forget how long you Libs have had control, and how little you did to curb the crime wave. Or did Clinton’s little ‘I didn’t inhale stunt’ tickle your Lib fancy? So please do not tell me that Libs don’t encourage drugs, wanton sex in the Oval Office, and stupidity all the way around (current foreign policy platform).
As to Canada … just because people say they’re liberal doesn’t mean they’re liberal, especially when they start crushing churches on the pretext of ‘hate speech’. If it acts like a Nazi, then it’s a Nazi no matter what the offical label. And pushing that phoney ‘clerical union’ was right up there with Stalin and Mao … so maybe they’re Marxists who act like fascists. I’ve heard from Marxists that Stalin acted like a fascist :)
As to Jesus …
Let’s clarify something. YOU may believe what you want to believe. My issue with YOU is:
(Your words)
“This is an interesting strategy coming from a “Christian”, since Jesus himself promoted pacifism. Hmm…how does that work? Being a Christian nation supposedly, but then fighting a constant war?”
How dare YOU determine what ALL Christians are supposed to believe? How dare YOU think YOU can speak for ALL Christians … by what authority?
If you had stated that YOU believe that all Christians should be pacifists … fine. That would have been intellectually honest. You chose the intellectually dishonest path.
As to my views on Jesus and the pacifism issue … tell me first IF you are a Christian. I don’t deal with imposters who engage in sophistry for the sake of propaganda.
This isn’t a religion course, and for you to accuse me of circular reasoning demonstrates that you are either very shallow in your theology, or an enemy of the faith looking for an opening.
But, hey, nice try .. you are one of the few libs I’ve encountered who actually has a functional IQ. Too bad you people always rely on distortions and myths to sell your propaganda.

Athling on March 21, 2006 at 1:21 pm

mdsnod …
Oh yeah … the American Revolution …
EVERY colony had a contractual CHARTER that specified that all colonial government had to be based upon and consistent with the Magna Charta and British civil laws.
This makes splendid sense. If anyone wanted to appeal a ruling handed down by a colonial court, the legal framework could be readily addressed by the Crown.
The Colonials were part and parcel to the British political and legal process. This also meant that the Colonials could appeal against political decisions forged by Parliament and foisted on the colonies … much like modern American states can appeal againt federal abuses foisted by the Senate.
Every attempt to appeal the ‘criminal’ abuses of the colonies by Parliament was rejected by the appeals courts … which were in the hands of appointees of those same miscreants in Parliament.
When judicial activism is used to disenfranchise anyone of their ‘rights’ under the law, it eventually leads to reform of rebellion. English hostory is releat with rebellions against the crown. And so it happened here as well.
Obviously you never investigated this aspect of the Revolution … yet you try to penalize me for your ignorance.
YES … judicial activism is a dirty word. You libs used it to stack up a huge barrier that makes sensible laws impossible … we Conservatives have to tear that wall down brick by brick … and then you have the nerve to call us lazy??? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nice try though … but you people have copied the very Parliament that drove the Colonies to rebelle … what were you thinking???

Athling on March 21, 2006 at 1:36 pm

Israel -vs- the MINDLESS PACIFIST crowd.
Thanks to a large heretical movement in Christian circles, it is somehow believed that pacifism is manditory. Worse yet, they’ve encouraged non-Christians to enjoy this same expectation.
Funny thing, as I read the Hebrew and Christian Testaments I find plenty of instruction on how to be a good husband and father. I find nothing on merrily abandoning my innocent family to torture and death at the hands of human animals. I cannot imagine how any man could be a good husband and father who would stand idly by and sacrifice his own wife and children to his personal religious belief … it sounds just a bit too pagan to me.
Funny thing, suicide is a mortal sin, but my enemies say that I have a religious obligation to let them murder me and my family … they say it’s written in the Bible. They are obviously the morons who flunked religion 101 and took up drugs 101, sex 696 (bisexual), morality 000, and political ideoloy 666. In other words, only a devoutly perverse mentality would even try this approach.
Let me explain how my faith really works when you threaten my family … first I punch your teeth out, then punch your face in, then I start breaking various body parts … if you were dumb enough to bring a weapon, I shove it where the sun doesn’t shine … nor do I consider it a sin to defend myself and my family from human animals.
The ‘turn the cheek’ instruction is for those who ‘witness’ for their faith. If I care enough to witness to someone, I should be ready to go the extra mile, or even face martyrdom. That’s why I consider it a sin to use institutional forums and peer-group status to pressure people into conversion.
This requirement for martyrdom under certain circumstances is just that … conditional.
Yet, thanks to a deliberate perversion of this requirement, it is said that ‘pacifism’ is a manditory requirement for Christianity. And it is this crowd that would have us sell out Israel under a false and heretical religious principle.
Even Ghandi observed that ‘pacifism’ without a political objective is mindlessly foolish. Organized pacifism forces the ‘oppressor’ to make a very public moral decision. If the pacifism fails, then violence is legitimized.
Dr. Martin Luther King understood and employed precisely the same tactic. He also understood that people do not, and cannot change unless they want to.
Pacifism is to be used in lieu of violence to accomplish a specific goal … not as a life style based on institutionalized cowardice (by some) and pathological suicide (martyr syndrome) by others.
Selling ou Israel on some kind of ‘feel good’ ‘we are the world’ pacifism is elective murder … those who preach this lie are asking you to engage in premeditiated murder. This is the Holocaust with an MTV Happy Face.
I am astonished that there are morons who still try to foist this ‘pacifiism’ scam off on Christians and Jews … especially with Islam all dressed up for a Jihad.
I am even more astonished that there are so called Christians and Jews who endorse it.
If these people really believe in their cause … let them please go to the varous Islamic nations and engage in political pacifism to force those governments to: (1) allow for freedom of religion, (2) freedom of speech, (3) freedom from those mindlessly bloody Jihads, and (4) my personal favorite … protest for the right to spread the ‘mindless pacifist’ movement.

Athling on March 23, 2006 at 10:03 pm

So you think that speaking in black and white is the best way to go. Do you have any idea what this story is based on? Guy Fawkes. Forever he was considered a bad guy for killing in the name of Catholism in England, but was he? I mean the Church of England killed many Irish Catholic Families. One Catholic tried to fight the person really in charge, no families. That is trully what this is about in the movie. He never kills families, only the ones that tried and basically did kill him and his family. To compare this to Bin Ladin is luticrous. That is something that you fear not Liberals. The key here is that to stay free you all need us liberals as much as we need you conservatives. One to fight and one to love. It doesn’t matter who is right it is the fact that if you all shut us all liberals out our country will become FACIST that is the comparison we are looking at. SO PLEASE F****NG QUIT IT, with the whole patronizing, hateful, Biased Party attitude that you are writing and look at the bigger picture. THE MOVIE SAID USA WENT INTO CIVIL WAR. What do you think they meant by that. If we dont start respecting each other we will be back into a CIVIL WAR. Duh, we have already been in one, do not think it could happen again? Liberals keep Democracy alive while the conservative job is to keep the Republic alive. With only extreme liberals we will have Communism with only extreme conservatives we will have a Fascist State, so forget about who is right or not it is about how we can COMPLIMENT each other. Now my opinion on the movie, is that it was awesome, I do believe that freedom of Speech is becoming more and more sacraficed, but thats it I do not want to blow up the White House or anything. We do let things controlled more and more by the government ESPECIALLY MEDIA AND IF YOU THINK MEDIA IS LIBERAL YOUR NUTS. First of all if someone speaks independently the get fired, secondly (besides parts of Canada, Australia, and Britain, and other FASCIST STATES (ex. old Afghanistan)) We are one of the only countries that do not ALLOW NUDITY/SEX, SOME VIOLIENCE, AND CURSING ON THE PUBLIC TELEVISION. that is NOT LIBERAL. And to justify it for the sake of family under Jesus is a little silly since Jesus was never married and had kids? Anyways I do not want to offend anyone religiously because that would be against their RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. But its NOT FREEDOM when you tell me I NEED TO BE CHRISTIAN AND NOTHING ELSE. Besides the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS FOR THE SAKE OF CHRISTIANITY. What if the GOVERNMENT could control what you DID in Church, that use to be the case in ALL OF EUROPE and some now in the Middle East. So stop being scared of it and keep Religious Freedom alive by practicing it on others as well. No need to control the Government cause if you do it will only backlash and the opposite will happen (CAUSING CIVIL WAR) so please STOP THE CHAOS BUT DO NOT BE AFRAID OF IT INSTEAD IMBRACE WHAT WE COULD LEARN FROM IT (hince the message of the movie).

cbuck2 on March 25, 2006 at 5:21 pm

cbuck2,
You are a laugh a second … Civil War??? From who??? The pansey limp wrist Left … LOLOLOLOLOL
I hope so, I really do … I’d just love it … every Marine I know would love it. Every Seal I know would love it. Every Ranger and Green Beret I know would love it. Every A-Teamer I know would love it … and that’s just for openers.
Imagine that … a 15 second civil war against the dope heads and pervs … LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Let me see if I get this from your perspective … if we run the marxists out, we’ll only have fascists remaining?
Yep, typical marxist rant … oh the logic, oh the IQ at work …. give it up man, America grew up, and everyone is tired of that BS, except of course the delusional doped up Left.
And … LEARN WHAT ???
The Guy Fawkes, the real one, had a real cause. I should know, my family is English Papist from that period. And I assure you, that had nothing at all to do with you and your perverse Lib doped up delusions. How dare you equate Catholicism with a political ideology that despizes and actually persecutes Catholicism at every opportunity.
Another thing … not all English Papists were persecuted. There were shires in England where that was really a bad idea. Even Cromwell tiptoed around certain shires after the militias formed.
So … I guess ‘V’ was what? A Lib threat against the rest of us??? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
By the way … and I’ve got this from an expert … the movie was an attempt to explain ‘communication theory’ … and it fell right on its butt because they (the doped up Commie-Wood crowd) don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
The only threat against free communication was Clinton and that dirty little chip they wanted to use to regulate every computer in America.
Once again, the people who don’t have a clue how the real world works try to lecture the rest of us with propaganda flicks that only manage to razzle and dazzle the dysfunctional IQ crowd … and then the dysfunctional IQ crowd rush right out to lecture and threaten (?) the rest of us.
You might try detox and a few courses in adult reasoning before you hurt yourself.

Athling on March 26, 2006 at 1:30 am

Sorry I haven’t posted in a while. Been busy becoming more liberal…I mean…learning things in school:)
Athling –
I am not sure what is wrong with you, but I am sure that something is wrong. But, personal attacks aside, here is a reply to the SEVERAL comments, questions, bad conclusions and bad logic from the half dozen replies since my last post.
#1 The Conservatives have been in power for longer than 15 minutes.
#2 I have NO idea what “Let’s not forget how long you Libs have had control, and how little you did to curb the crime wave. Or did Clinton’s little ‘I didn’t inhale stunt’ tickle your Lib fancy? So please do not tell me that Libs don’t encourage drugs, wanton sex in the Oval Office, and stupidity all the way around (current foreign policy platform).” this is about?!? Doesn’t even make gramatical sense.
#3 Same with the Canada speech after this. Not sure what your point was.
#4 Yes, let’s clarify something since several posts were about an idea that I was not promoting.
First, why get so upset when I say that Jesus and the early Christians were pacifists? This is historically true. Did I say that all Christians were to be pacifists? Did I say that we should let people beat up and rape our wives and children? From the replies, one would think that I must have, but when did I say that? When did Jesus or the early Christians say that?
If you don’t like the term “pacifism” then use another term in its place. My point was to bring out the irony that we are supposedly a Christian nation with a supposedly Christian President, who when faced with an attack, IMMEDIATELY replies with violence.
Afganistan and Iraq were NOT immediate self-defense. They were retaliations. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania crashed because the passengers were defending themselves and the lives of others. Self-defense is time dependent. If you do something to me and several months later I retailate, I can’t really call that self-defense.
Now, if you want to argue that Afganistan was national self-defense to try and eliminate (capture, kill, whatever) the leader of a terrorist organization, maybe that is understandable. But my point still stands…why promote yourself as a Christian and then believe in rampant retaliation…clearly an anti-Christian idea?
#5 The authority I claim is based on scripture…based on what God, Jesus and their followers promoted in the New and Old Testament. Jesus did NOT defend himself. He condemned Peter for trying to defend him. You can say that is a unique situation, but when you follow church history, you see that the early followers, who were greatly persecuted, similarly to Jesus, did not defend themselves. This indicates to me that the early Christians either believed in pure pacifism OR in at least religious belief pacifism.
Either way, the emphasis given is the OPPOSITE of retaliation, the opposite of vengence. SO, again, why support and promote those are “right” while supposedly being Christian, which by all accounts, seems to indicate the opposite OR at least, alternative means?
#6 Yes, I am a Christian. Just not a radical, right wing, “Religious Right”, Republican, zealot. Some may think, “is that possible?”, and it is.
#7 Thanks for the compliment:) “you are one of the few libs I’ve encountered who actually has a functional IQ”
#8 This is another passage that I don’t understand.
“YES … judicial activism is a dirty word. You libs used it to stack up a huge barrier that makes sensible laws impossible … we Conservatives have to tear that wall down brick by brick … and then you have the nerve to call us lazy??? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nice try though … but you people have copied the very Parliament that drove the Colonies to rebelle … what were you thinking???”
What are you talking about?!?
#9 Oh, forgot one…
You said, “This isn’t a religion course, and for you to accuse me of circular reasoning demonstrates that you are either very shallow in your theology, or an enemy of the faith looking for an opening.”
But you didn’t address my circular reasoning point at all. This is what bothers me so much about the Conservative movement today….there aren’t even attempts to make counter points or persuade people with reason anymore. It’s just “you are an idiot if you don’t buy into exactly what I am saying!” The conversations can’t even exist because Conservatives REFUSE to have conversations!
#10 You said, “Let me explain how my faith really works when you threaten my family … first I punch your teeth out, then punch your face in, then I start breaking various body parts … if you were dumb enough to bring a weapon, I shove it where the sun doesn’t shine … nor do I consider it a sin to defend myself and my family from human animals.”
VERY Christlike…ha!
#11 You said “is a manditory requirement for Christianity”. I never made that point or promoted that thinking OR promoted it as something for all people. Self-defense is different than retaliation, retribution or vengence.
#12 I agree with your thoughts on Ghandi and MLK, Jr. Good points.
#13 Your tone needs to change. I understand not agreeing with me or with others, but your tone is militant, belittling, and rude. If you want to discuss issues, then discuss them. If you want to berate people for not believing EXCATLY what you believe, then go away. I am here to discuss and raise awareness of differing views and to discuss how to blend our thoughts and views together. You seem to be here to make fun of other people, put them down and make them feel inferior.
If THAT is the Conservatism that you are trying to promote, then you are doing a good job. You seem to be fitting my impression of the criminal Conservative media that is rampant on our tvs and radios, but I think the long term view of so much anger and hate is bad for your movement.
And if THAT is the Christianity that you are trying to promote, then you are need to repent. Jesus was not about all the anger, hate and malice that you are spewing. Discussion and disagreement, debate are one thing. But the extremity of your words go far beyond debate.
Not trying to be rude, just honest.

mdsnod on March 31, 2006 at 11:28 pm

mdsnod …
Learning something at school? I guess that’s a Left handed slap at my educational level and IQ. I rescind my remark about you having functional IQ. Let me guess, you’re becoming just what America needs … one more socialist political science major.
Talk about Lib arrogance and elitism … I love it … thanks for proving it so well
I’m a Marine. We only concern ourselves with ‘functional IQ’ … I’d love to watch you try to repair a jet engine in the light much less assemble a modern infantry rifle in the dark. Every ‘ranking’ member of the Marine Corps must take psychology … it helps us control our troops in time of duress, it helps us identify enemy morale issues in a fluid combat situation, and we can clearly identify enemy propaganda as it is diseminated at the various levels, including ‘urban myth’ tactics.
The Clinton white house staffers treated Marines like crap … something I’ll never forget or forgive. Then a stupid bimbo staffer stood up and said, “The brightest and best do not serve in the military.” I guess she judged all Marines by ALGORE. And I guess she missed the part where ‘citizen soldiers’ established the Republic, the Constitution, and more importantly the veterans entered politics to establish the Bill of Rights.
The Libs have had a death grip on the federal bureaucracies since FDR. Did your school tell you about federal unions established back in that era to protect the socialists? That’s why it’s an up-hill battle to reverse any marxist politics the Libs foist on us. And, even now, the socialist bureau feds work at cross purposes with any Republican administration.
But … now for the good suff.
Pacifism is a requirement of ‘witnessing’, even to the point of martyrdom. Yet there is a scripture that warns against going into the ‘filth’ too deeply lest you sully your own white gown. In short, don’t be stupid. ‘Innocent as a dove, clever as a serpent’ … duh?
I guess those Roman Christians who were thrown into the arena went voluntarily??? Hey, don’t just take me … take my wife and kids … whoopie!!! … Do you hear yourself talking when you say pacifism was a requirement in the early church???
The Church of Rome keeps records … guess what the records state … probably not what your Commie instructor told you in comparative religion class?
Jesus DID NOT volunteer to be tortured and murdered. He did stop his followers from using violence against the Romans for two reasons: (1) Jesus was a Roman subject and subject to Roman law, and (2) The charge against him was political, not religious, and he knew he was innocent, and that the Legal System that his taxes paid for would acquit him … which it did.
So … I must assume that this notion of pacifism was learned at your socialist learning academy in comparative religion classes, as it is not doctrine in any Nicene Orthodox church. So, you are probably another type of Christian … which is fine by me. Just don’t try to pretend that you are the orthodoxy.
And YOUR readings of scripture are so ‘NOT IN CONTEXT’ that I must assume that you are a ‘child’ in the faith, or an enemy of the orthodoxy trying to use shallow sophistry to do what??? … not convert anyone … just distort the truth to make enemies for the Orthodoxy.
Here’s an IQ test … ‘IF’ you are a Christian, then you also believe that the pre-incarnate Christ established Israel and the Temple. He came NOT to change the LAW, but to fulfill it …. your take on theology is NOT consistent with this understanding. Show me one place where Temple law commands suicide, or pacifism … and show me one place where it actually ‘specifies’ this in the New Testament.
Even if you do not think my arguing points make sense … every conservative on this site knows exactly what I am referencing … which means I do it for them, not you. ‘Your job’ is to reveal who and what you are … which you do quite splendidly by the way.
Canada is something all American Libs want swept under the rug ‘as soonest’ … mainly because defecting Yanks pushed the last Lib government into some really stupid policies.
Bush responded immediately??? What kind of time distortion drugs are you taking? Even if he wanted instant gratification, he had to get the Libs to sign on … which they did … then the military told him ‘point blank’ that we don’t rush into anything since LBJ screwed everything up in Viet Nam … and since Carter rushed and screwed up the ‘rescue’ attempt by mixing different military branches with different procedural techniques … all for a big PR campaign that ended in a huge failure.
Yep, Carter was another Military man who should have known better … so … I guess the Brightest and the Best in Democrat circles are anybody but ex-military.
What conversations??? Every reply the LEFT makes is based on a lie, a fraud, a distortion, a revision wrapped in sophistry best reserved for college freshmen and those who sway too easily into the mind trap.
Best of all, You prove your Cristian ‘pacifism’ by insulting my IQ before attacking my theology …. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Thank You for performing so splendidly … you’ll go far in the DNC mental and spiritual dystopia …
You only have to believe in ‘baby sacrifice’ to sign up … a very Christian sort of practice, right?
And you tell me to repent???
God said, ‘Hate the Sin, and not the person’ … and you dare criticize me for hating the sins of the Left???
Repent … you are definitely headed for Hell.
Not being rude … just honest.

Athling on April 1, 2006 at 4:44 pm

At –
I had to read your response twice to understand it. I still don’t get most of it, but I will try my best. Most of it is random ranting that doesn’t have anything to do with what I wrote OR anything that has anything to do with what anyone has written on here. Why can’t you respond to obvious points? All I hear is about how stupid I and all other liberals are and why we are ruining America, but if I ask you how that is happening or if I try to discuss the issues with you, you are either unwilling or unable to actually, logically, reasonably discuss issues. You just attack me and half of the rest of America and say things like “Even if you do not think my arguing points make sense … every conservative on this site knows exactly what I am referencing” which just solidifies my hypothesis that Conservatives aren’t really able to have conversations about issues, but instead, are completely indoctrinated into their own way of thinking.
I will try to reply to the points that made sense and to the points that had anything to do with what I said. Can you at least TRY to discuss the issues rather than throwing absurdities at me that don’t make any sense?
One, you must not have read what I posted. That is the only explanation as to why you would continue to attack a pacifist issue that I never promoted! Go back and read what I wrote and try again.
Two, ah, Jesus was NOT acquitted. What are you talking about?!? He DIED on a cross, killed by Roman soldiers, accused by Jewish religious leaders. And, he was NOT a Roman citizen or they wouldn’t have been able to crucify him. Your history is wrong.
As is your theology, he DID choose to be tortured and murdered. That was part (if not most) of his role in coming to earth. Read some New Testament.
Three, one question, since I am obviously not as “learned” in this area as yourself…but what is the “Nicene Orthodox” beliefs on pacifism, oh great church history expert?
Four, didn’t I already point on several verses or ideas that might promote a form of pacifism? “Turn the other cheek”, “give your cloak also”, “walk two miles”, “give to those who ask”, etc…most of the Sermon on the Mount? Please, great theologian, let me know where I am wrong?
Five, you said, “Every reply the LEFT makes is based on a lie, a fraud, a distortion, a revision wrapped in sophistry best reserved for college freshmen and those who sway too easily into the mind trap.” WAY over the top…good propoganda, though.
Six, you said, “Repent … you are definitely headed for Hell.” and I will reply with your own words, “How dare YOU determine what ALL Christians are supposed to believe? How dare YOU think YOU can speak for ALL Christians … by what authority?”
I decided not to address the abortion aqusations or the things that simply didn’t make sense. If you would like me to, then please explain further (better would be more helpful) what point you are trying to make OR why it is important to the conversation at hand.
Finally, I am studying Mechanical Engineering. So, I may not be able to “repair a jet engine in the light much less assemble a modern infantry rifle in the dark”, but there are probably a lot of things that I have been trained to know and understand that you do not either. I don’t think attacking each other’s abilities outside of this conversation is necessary.

mdsnod on April 1, 2006 at 9:18 pm

mdsnod,
In your posting you stated that you had been gone, ëactually learning somethingí Ö given that you are not a conservative, given that you disagree with the conservative opinions on this site, that was either a dimwitted choice of words, or a deliberate insult.
Actually, you are free to believe what you want. I wonít come to your house and kill you for it. In fact, Iíd protect you from that kind of thing. You, on the other hand, would just stand there and watch my family get murdered because your ëpacifismí overrides any other obligation to any other human being. But, hey, thatís between you and your version of god Ö my God cleared the Temple merchants out with a whip because he will not tolerate those who lie, cheat, and steal in Godís name Ö so much for your mindless pacifism.
Here are some ACTUAL facts about Judea and the Roman administration at the time of Jesus. It is important to remember that the gospels were written by people who viewed the Roman government as an everyday institution without needing to explain every detail. Across time, that is no longer true, and it is necessary to clear up certain misconceptions. Fortunately the Romans left excellent records.
1.) Fact: Judea was NOT conquered by the Romans. Judea was an ally and a protectorate of the Roman Senate. The Judeans DID NOT pay the Roman tax, or bow down to the Roman gods. The taxes they did pay went into the local administration ruled and administrated by the Herods. Pontius Pilateís money DID NOT come from Judea, his finances came from Damascus Ö the Roman records for Damascus clearly state that he, and every other Duc Legates of Palestine, was on that payroll rather than Judea.
2.) Fact: Due to Hellenistic Jews, the Herods and the Romans agreed to partition Judea in order to separate the secular and sectarian Jews. This was a very bad idea and caused even more trouble. Barabbas, among others, was a freedom fighter trying to force the Romans to restore the partitioned lands back to Judea. All Jews in the partitioned lands (Palestine) were technically under the administration in Damascus. However, due to the ongoing rebellion, Palestine was placed under a Duc Legates, a military governor Ö Pontius Pilate simply being the most famous.
3.) Fact: St. Luke, 2:1, states that Augustus Caesar declared that a census would take place and the whole world taxed. What that passage does not state is that the Roman Tax for the Jews stayed in Judea under the local administration. But what that gospel did say was that Joseph had to leave Nazareth, a city in the Roman sector, to be enrolled in Bethlehem. But, since Joseph lived and worked in Nazareth, he must pay the ROMAN TAX, not the Judean tax. THEREFORE Ö take a deep breath Ö Jesus was raised in the Roman sector as a Roman subject Ö thatís what the partition was all about Ö having a choice Ö although Joseph had originally moved there to elude the Herods. But, by doing so his status was Roman, not Judean. The Herods were ethnic Arabs, imposters ruling Judea.
4.) Fact: It is against Godís Law to number the children. By treaty, the Romans simply could not force the Jews to violate their religion to comply with the census. For Jews taxation was done by head of household, not actual numbers Ö but since Joseph lived in Nazareth, his entire family could be counted and taxed accordingly as Roman subjects. Worse yet, it was Hellenistic Jews who were assessing the taxes throughout Judea Ö that is, ëtheyí were determining who was a Judean Jew and who was a Romanized Jew Ö and they were very corrupt, and very hated for it.
5.) Fact: Jesus was acquitted Ö or maybe you somehow forgot that Pontius Pilate publicly stated that Jesus was INNOCENT. In other words, the crucifixion was a sham forced by back room politics rather than Roman Law Ö which is why Pontius washed his hands and made the crowd take the Blood Debt onto their own heads. So, yes, Jesus was acquitted Ö then ëmurderedí, not ëexecutedí.
6.) Fact: Jesus stopped his followers from attacking the Romans because he knew that charges against him were ëpoliticalí not religious, and he was innocent, nor did he want his followers branded as rebels and traitors like Barabbas Ö which is the irony when the crowd called to free Babrabbas.
7.) Fact: Early pacifism applied to witnessing, even unto martyrdom. But when it came to raising families, God expects the parents and community to protect and defend the young Ö not abandon them to Sodom and Gomorrah Ö now known as the DNC Öthe party of the 666 crowd Ö. Oooops, thatís ëhate speechí when I speak the truth, right?
If you are not a student of history, particularly military history, you might not know how the Roman system actually worked. Pontius Pilate was a Duc Legates (Military Governor) not a Legate (Civilian Governor) Ö Judea did not have a Legate. Judea was an ally, not a conquered nation Ö and a military governor was needed only in context to the partitioned zone. And, to better understand the times of Jesus, it is best to read the Books of the Maccabees.
So quit telling me Iím wrong when you have no idea what you are talking about.
Jesus, by way of living in Nazareth, was a Roman subject Ö and all of your disinformation cannot change the Roman system, or the Judean arrangement, both of which are REAL history, not revisionist propaganda.
As for me Ö. I am not a pacifist in civil matters Ö nor should I be. How dare you criticize me if I have enough guts to defend my own family, community, and nation from the 666 animals.
You hide behind the military every day. You hide behind the cops every day. Yet, there you are preaching not only mindless pacifism but demand that all Christians have to embrace mindless pacifism or be disqualified as Christians. Your version of pacifism is hypocrisy; itís simply not a requirement of scripture Ö regardless of what your Marxist professors tell you Ö and it is seditious. You actually state that Christians are manditory pacifists and have no right to defend the government against a criminal take-over. That sounds awfully Marxist to me Ö itís the tactic they use mainly in South America.
When the Centurion sent his servant to Jesus asking for a healing, Jesus stated that the Centurionís faith was greater than all in Israel. If the Centurion had been a convert, an adopted Jew, he would have been accounted as a child of Israel. Thus, Jesus DID NOT require that this man convert or set aside his status as a military man before Jesus would help him Ö So, yes, when Jesus said to, ìRender unto Caesar what is Caesarís, and to God what is Godísî, Jesus was speaking as a good Roman subject Ö or are you promoting the belief that Jesus was like Barabbas?
You can disagree all you want Ö no harm done.
But thatís not your purpose here Ö your purpose here is to go one step furthur and brand my views as ëhate speechí Ö a typical DNC Marxist tactic.
And, yes, the Left is doing its utmost to redefine ALL religion to suit its godless agenda. Thatís why no one can actually talk to Lefties Ö every word out of your mouths is premeditated contradiction, distortion, and revision for the sake of shameless propaganda.
And thatís what this is all about Ö ëVí is propaganda, and youíre here to defend it, and try to get in some ëpolitically correctí revisionist propaganda about christianity.
Of course, youíll just complain that Iím ranting and that I make no sense.
All propagandists side step when the light of truth falls on them.

Athling on April 6, 2006 at 2:28 am

Iím very glad I found this review. I thought I was going crazy. I wrote this exact same opinion of V for Vendetta to 2 separate movie review sites, only to watch them vanish. In one case, not only was my review removed, but I was banished from the site. Somebody out there must really believe that shooting Christians in the face will solve the worldís problems. I canít believe that such obvious hate-mongering has been accepted so passively by the public. If it directed itís bile against any other group there would be rioting in the streets.

JohnG on June 7, 2006 at 10:18 pm

My gawd Debbie, you are even stupider than I had heard. Guess ‘blonde’ does not automatically make you smart eh.

balzar on January 10, 2008 at 2:20 pm

This review made me laugh. Americans really are the lowest common denominator of humanity.

hggfd on December 18, 2010 at 12:57 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field