I'm not juxtaposing two films with such disparate subjects, I am merely comparing/contrasting the reactions of those with a more politically liberal point of view (dare I say bias) to a film with a liberal message and to another film with a more (assumed) patriotic subject.

It seemed that the original poster's (hford713) reaction to Flight 93 sounded very much like my reaction to Brokeback Mountain. I found that an interesting parallel; again, the reactions, not the films themselves.

As for Michael Moore, again I was pointing out the poster's problem with the Flight 93 director/producer making money, but lack of concern about Moore's remuneration for an endless diatribe based on unsupported accusations presented as a "documentary." It's the "two sets of rules" syndrome, one for those that coincide with your political viewpoint and another set for those who contradict it. That is a basic form of hypocrisy.

Believe it or not, I object to all forms of hypocrisy, whatever the source, and personally avoid it whenever I can. Unfortunately, liberal hypocrisy is so rampant and so hard to ignore. Pointing it out does not equate to a "rant," but then I don't think pointing out fallacies in reasoning equals a personal attack either.

Although I've been looking, the Flight 93 film seems to have come and gone before I could see it, so a film review is not possible at this time.

The flick is still playing in NY to packed houses (well, that would make sense, wouldn't it?) I saw it the day it came out and found it incredibly moving and powerful. And to those who say, "It's too soon...," what's that mean? It's been almost 5 years since The Attack. Is 10 years right? 100 years? 'Til the Sun goes nova? I think the "too soon" crowd are simply trying to deny we are at war. That the West is in peril from an enemy both murderously serious and utterly implacable. Films like UNITED 93 make that fact clear. And that's the problem.

The flick is still playing in NY to packed houses (well, that would make sense, wouldn't it?) I saw it the day it came out and found it incredibly moving and powerful. And to those who say, "It's too soon...," what's that mean? It's been almost 5 years since The Attack. Is 10 years right? 100 years? 'Til the Sun goes nova? I think the "too soon" crowd are simply trying to deny we are at war. That the West is in peril from an enemy both murderously serious and utterly implacable. Films like UNITED 93 make that fact clear. And that's the problem.

for patriotism to become fashionable (for some, it never is the right time).

Remember how M*A*S*H* could point out the absurdity of the Vietnam War by humorizing the Korean War? I guess enough time had passed since the Korean War, so that setting could be used, but how would Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould (or Alan Alda and Wayne Rogers) looked had the setting been in Vietnam?

Our enemies rejoice at every sign of weakness and disunity. They say there are no atheists in foxholes; how many liberals stormed the cockpit on Flight 93?

for patriotism to become fashionable (for some, it never is the right time).

Remember how M*A*S*H* could point out the absurdity of the Vietnam War by humorizing the Korean War? I guess enough time had passed since the Korean War, so that setting could be used, but how would Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould (or Alan Alda and Wayne Rogers) looked had the setting been in Vietnam?

Our enemies rejoice at every sign of weakness and disunity. They say there are no atheists in foxholes; how many liberals stormed the cockpit on Flight 93?

I think that is a disingenuous question. You can't know the answer, I can't know the answer. And I think it reinforces the disunity that you just decried. Unless you mean it metaphorically, because I'm pretty certain that there have been atheists in foxholes.

I think that is a disingenuous question. You can't know the answer, I can't know the answer. And I think it reinforces the disunity that you just decried. Unless you mean it metaphorically, because I'm pretty certain that there have been atheists in foxholes.

Yes, I am SURE that atheists prayed quite fervently to NOTHING during an artillery bombardment! (Know why you shouldn't piss off the Unitarians? Because they will burn a wooden question mark on your lawn!)

And, I do know the answer to whether any liberals may have stormed the cockpit on Flight 93. Anyone willing to stand up and go down fighting would have to have a spine. When the occasion demands, some liberals can spontaneously regenerate a spine, but as soon as they do, they are no longer liberals.

On the other hand, those who cringe and beg for forgiveness, who pusillanimously beg for quarter (ref. Rocks and Shoals, the U.S Navy Manual), who claim to understand and appreciate the terrorists' need to strike back at The Great Satan, well, we know who they are . . .

Yes, I am SURE that atheists prayed quite fervently to NOTHING during an artillery bombardment! (Know why you shouldn't piss off the Unitarians? Because they will burn a wooden question mark on your lawn!)

And, I do know the answer to whether any liberals may have stormed the cockpit on Flight 93. Anyone willing to stand up and go down fighting would have to have a spine. When the occasion demands, some liberals can spontaneously regenerate a spine, but as soon as they do, they are no longer liberals.

On the other hand, those who cringe and beg for forgiveness, who pusillanimously beg for quarter (ref. Rocks and Shoals, the U.S Navy Manual), who claim to understand and appreciate the terrorists' need to strike back at The Great Satan, well, we know who they are . . .

Oh, you KNOW the answer!?!?!? If you know the answer then perhaps you can provide their voting history and voter registrations. Please! What an idiotic thing to say.

I can tell you that there were no conservatives rushing the cockpit because there would be no money in it.

Who said anything about praying? Is praying necessary to be located in a foxhole? One has to be religious to serve in the military? All you can do is cast baseless speculation and pejoratives. It's weak. Stop with the talking points, already.

Thanks for proving AGAIN, that you have nothing to say but bash liberals. I can refer you to many liberals who've served our country (and, no, I'm not referring to any politicians), regardless of their ideology. You think ALL the troops are conservatives? What a joke! You've really got nothing.

Our enemies rejoice at every sign of weakness and disunity. They say there are no atheists in foxholes; how many liberals stormed the cockpit on Flight 93?

Every single one of them.

The whole distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" has become so muddied by the need for one side to make "their" term good and the other bad. Not all liberals are Democrats, as not all Republicans are conservative. It depends on the motive behind the action to properly select the adjective of choice. There are times when you, yourself, will be liberal. Other times, you may be conservative. In the context of politics, it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between the two sides. For example, using your definition of liberal/conservative, which best describes those that throw amendments at the Constitution hoping one will stick?

But, back to your original statement.... who the fuck cares if they were liberals? Or conservatives? Or Democrats, Republicans, atheists, Christians, Jews, black, white, male, female, homosexual or heterosexual? They were someone's family or friend. They were mothers and fathers, brother and sisters, husbands and wives, and most important, victims AND heroes.

I still stand by my earlier point that I won't pay to see this movie. I also stand by my point that the innocent lives taken during the attacks on 9-11 and every other terrorist attack in history should not be pawns in a game of politics or rhetoric. It's one thing to declare that George W. Bush is an idiot and a criminal because he is playing the game of politics as his way of life and playing it wrong.

It's another to make an ignorant statement that no liberal would seek to storm the cockpit of United 93. Liberals by definition seek freedom and liberty. Conservatives by definition show restraint.

If you consider yourself so damn patriotic and love this country so much, then show some respect to ALL of the people who died while not wanting to play the stupid game of "politics/religion/death." Acknowledge them as people and innocent victims and don't use some stupid label that you impose on people because they may disagree with your blind ignorance.

It may be true that our enemies rejoice at every sign of disunity, but when our leaders divide us rather than unite us, what do you expect? We can show a strong front for the world to see when we use might for right and stand unified behind our great country. But, when our faith is eroded over time and nothing is done to strengthen our resolve, our enemies will see us as weaker still.

Oh, you KNOW the answer!?!?!? If you know the answer then perhaps you can provide their voting history and voter registrations. Please! What an idiotic thing to say.

No, your response is idiotic.

I can tell you that there were no conservatives rushing the cockpit because there would be no money in it.

Sorry, conservative and plutocrat are not synonymous!

Who said anything about praying? Is praying necessary to be located in a foxhole? One has to be religious to serve in the military? All you can do is cast baseless speculation and pejoratives. It's weak. Stop with the talking points, already.

It was another simile/comparison, just like there are no atheists in foxholes, so no liberals stormed the Flight 93 Cockpit. The first is considered a truism, the second my extrapolation from that. No one said religion is a military requirement, that is YOUR extrapolation.

Thanks for proving AGAIN, that you have nothing to say but bash liberals. I can refer you to many liberals who've served our country (and, no, I'm not referring to any politicians), regardless of their ideology. You think ALL the troops are conservatives? What a joke! You've really got nothing.

Well, I've got your dander up, sport! "Liberals serving their country" . . . you mean since Jack Kennedy, right? Maybe John Kerry, our first war/anti-war hero? That implies commitment without equivocation, and I have never met a liberal yet that takes an absolute stand on anything. But, you're right, bashing liberals is too easy; I need a more strenuous and aerobic hobby, something with more of a challenge. It's too bad I lost touch with my Punjabi coworker. He used to talk about pigsticking from horseback, just like in the movie "Life of a Bengal Lancer." They squeal too.

I honestly can't believe we're having this argument. I'm fine if you don't want to go see a movie because it contains factual errors...if you're going to have that stance for every movie Hollywood makes. Hopefully someone will make a movie about the "true" 9/11 so you can go put your money down for that.
While its true that not everyone in the armed forces is religious and Republican, they do tend to vote 2 to 1 Republican.

Every single one of them.

The whole distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" has become so muddied by the need for one side to make "their" term good and the other bad. Not all liberals are Democrats, as not all Republicans are conservative. It depends on the motive behind the action to properly select the adjective of choice. There are times when you, yourself, will be liberal. Other times, you may be conservative. In the context of politics, it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between the two sides. For example, using your definition of liberal/conservative, which best describes those that throw amendments at the Constitution hoping one will stick?

But, back to your original statement.... who the fuck cares if they were liberals? Or conservatives? Or Democrats, Republicans, atheists, Christians, Jews, black, white, male, female, homosexual or heterosexual? They were someone's family or friend. They were mothers and fathers, brother and sisters, husbands and wives, and most important, victims AND heroes.

I still stand by my earlier point that I won't pay to see this movie. I also stand by my point that the innocent lives taken during the attacks on 9-11 and every other terrorist attack in history should not be pawns in a game of politics or rhetoric. It's one thing to declare that George W. Bush is an idiot and a criminal because he is playing the game of politics as his way of life and playing it wrong.

It's another to make an ignorant statement that no liberal would seek to storm the cockpit of United 93. Liberals by definition seek freedom and liberty. Conservatives by definition show restraint.

If you consider yourself so damn patriotic and love this country so much, then show some respect to ALL of the people who died while not wanting to play the stupid game of "politics/religion/death." Acknowledge them as people and innocent victims and don't use some stupid label that you impose on people because they may disagree with your blind ignorance.

It may be true that our enemies rejoice at every sign of disunity, but when our leaders divide us rather than unite us, what do you expect? We can show a strong front for the world to see when we use might for right and stand unified behind our great country. But, when our faith is eroded over time and nothing is done to strengthen our resolve, our enemies will see us as weaker still.

"Not all liberals are Democrats," but I submit that all Democrats are liberals, since anyone else has been driven out of the party, except, perhaps for Joe Lieberman (I can respect him, and I might even vote for him).

I show respect every day for the victims of 9/11 by devoting my efforts to ensuring it does not happen again (WHAT DO YOU DO?).

Keeping the facts of 9/11 in mind is not using the victims as pawns, it merely drives us to greater efforts. That is how you can honor them best. Remember the Alamo and Remember Pearl Harbor were not just slogans. They were patriotic calls to action.

If your faith is eroded, I suggest you blame Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Murtha, Byrd, and their ilk. They are the disciples of disunity, and the ones who are putting their political agendas before the interests of the country. It is so easy to say "Bush lied." But, the fact is the intelligence was the best available and would have been more accurate and comprehensive had Bill Clinton not cut intelligence agencies' budgets 7 years out of 8! What makes you think Kerry or Gore would have done different?

Save the 4-letter words for those who are impressed by them down at the schoolyard. They don't buttress weak points or limp reasoning.

I honestly can't believe we're having this argument. I'm fine if you don't want to go see a movie because it contains factual errors...if you're going to have that stance for every movie Hollywood makes. Hopefully someone will make a movie about the "true" 9/11 so you can go put your money down for that.
While its true that not everyone in the armed forces is religious and Republican, they do tend to vote 2 to 1 Republican.

Is your signature quote RAH (Heinlein)? It seems familiar. You're right, it is a shame that political argument has migrated from the political board. But, I'm just as guilty as anyone else.