Yes, your post was in response to another. My sole point is that I entered the thread for the first time in responding to yours. The divergence began there as the usual liberal clamor arose from other posters, not you.

But, how can your personal choice to boycott the film be unrelated to the film's subject? Do you know this director personally and hate him? Have you viewed his work previously and found it wanting? No, you anticipate seeing the events of Flight 93 portrayed in a way that lends itself as a tool to those with whom you disagree politically. That is why liberals have no problem whatsoever with the trash produced by Michael Moore, propaganda, slander, and innuendo presented as documentary. It serves their needs and feeds their hatred. And, you did not bash the film and no one said that you did, because you obviously did not see it, but, once again, that open (closed) liberal mindset refuses to view anything that disagrees with its preconcieved notions.

Your post was a pathetic attempt to prejudge something that you had already refused to experience. Do you really expect to impress someone with your ability to close your mind? Any two-year-old with his fingers in his ears and shouting "No!" can do that.

Let's start at the beginning of this thread and look at how it degenerated into a schoolyard taunt fest.

It started simply with, "hey, check this movie out." And from there, I began with the pseudo-politics by stating that I don't believe that this movie is too soon in the making, but too late as the victims of that flight were not recognized and overshadowed in the immediate aftermath by Todd Beamer's widow and his catch phrase. Shortly thereafter, someone agreed that exploitation of this event for money is a questionable act, that if true, is sickening. YOU then went on to make your first of many broad, sweeping judgements by stating that movies with liberal agenda (Brokeback Mountain) are heaped with praise, and that a "movie with a patriotic message" gets immediately ripped apart by liberals that love gay cowboys eatin' puddin'.

Prior to you stating that United 93 has a patriotic message, someone else posted that United 93 does NOT have a patriotic message, but is clearly a film depicting as they actually happened on the ground, and likely happened in the air.

Then, the point at which this thread degenerated... your blind assumption (based on personal observation, no less) that no liberals stormed the cockpit. That, quite frankly, pissed several people off, including me. I find that rhetoric like that, denigrating the victims of United 93, is highly offensive, way off the mark, extremely untrue, and blindly ignorant by anyone. I feel that ripping on people that make their living insulting half the country (like Rush Limbaugh) is fair game, as they get paid huge sums of money to belittle people. But, when you make ignorant and insulting comments about people that died being heroes all in the name of picking a fight or trolling for an argument, that is pretty sad.

You have an extreme tendency to read these threads and only understand what you wish to: we are all liberals out to trash your way of life and none are worthy to be in your presence because of your great intellect and keen eye of 'personal observation.'

As far as name calling? I only intimated that you might work at Wal-Mart and not some super-secret, hush-hush, classified organization tasked with protecting all that is good in this country. As far as being anti-Catholic? Re-read my post. I never stated anything about Catholics being bad, or Catholicism being evil. I only suggested that there are ignorant people in the world that wish to protect people from themselves and don't believe in freedom of thought. Think about it for a minute.... protecting condoms from Catholics.... what does that truly mean? There are some Catholics in this world who wish to use birth control in opposition to the doctrine of the Vatican and there are people in the world who think they are tasked with making sure that those free-thinking Catholics must obey the church. I was not insulting Catholics... I was insulting you and your kind that believe that us free-thinkers (read by you: us liberals) cannot have a legitimate belief as they are contrary to what you believe. We free-thinkers want to have the right to buy condoms AND believe in the Catholic doctrine (though, I personally don't believe in the Catholic doctrine). To paraphrase, we free-thinkers believe that we can have our cake AND eat it, too, and that there are people out there, such as yourself, who believe that we free-thinkers aren't good enough to have cake OR eat it if we did.

But, I'm sure you'll find a way to have the last word on this matter, likely by doing your best three-year old impression and screaming at the top of your lungs until Mommy or Daddy stuffs the ice cream cone you want so badly down your throat.

Let's start at the beginning of this thread and look at how it degenerated into a schoolyard taunt fest.

Scott, with no dog in this hunt, you did open a door when you told me that you wouldn't see the movie because of, in your opinion, "the exploitation of the tragedy for political and financial reasons". Then Marc B. started with the conspiracy theory of this not being the way it happened and called it an "explotive, 'patriotic' movie". Hford713 then stated that this movie was made strictly for the money and that it made him "sick".

You don't think these not-so-subtle opinions, liberally sprinkled with disdain and very dismissive, might set some people off?

Apply the same words to a Michael Moore film and you'll see a lot of liberals twist off. Apply the same to a religious picture and watch them twist off. C'mon now, you are acting very innocent here when you had your share of stirring the pot.

No one in this debacle is coming out on the high moral ground. There is a lot of belittlement on both sides and everyone involved resorted to the level of a schoolyard brawl.

Which I myself have done on occasion. All well and good, just don't act so shocked and appalled when it does so and claim you were just minding your own business.

My bullshit opinion only.

Scott, with no dog in this hunt, you did open a door when you told me that you wouldn't see the movie because of, in your opinion, "the exploitation of the tragedy for political and financial reasons". Then Marc B. started with the conspiracy theory of this not being the way it happened and called it an "explotive, 'patriotic' movie". Hford713 then stated that this movie was made strictly for the money and that it made him "sick".

You don't think these not-so-subtle opinions, liberally sprinkled with disdain and very dismissive, might set some people off?

Apply the same words to a Michael Moore film and you'll see a lot of liberals twist off. Apply the same to a religious picture and watch them twist off. C'mon now, you are acting very innocent here when you had your share of stirring the pot.

No one in this debacle is coming out on the high moral ground. There is a lot of belittlement on both sides and everyone involved resorted to the level of a schoolyard brawl.

Which I myself have done on occasion. All well and good, just don't act so shocked and appalled when it does so and claim you were just minding your own business.

My bullshit opinion only.

First off, drop "bullshit" from your last line. In total, not one bit of your post is BS. It is true, that I did throw out my 2 cents regarding conspiracy theory, political agenda and exploitation, which does drag out some of the opposing viewpoints. I'll admit that I have thrown a punch or two in this brawl, but I feel that the namecalling, taunting and overall belittlement came from one direction and not from me. I don't deny stirring the pot. I don't deny that I can't stand GWB and the right-wing, neo-con agenda. I do deny stooping to childish levels and blatantly tossing out extremely personal attacks as a means to avoid discussing contentious issues and viewpoints that do not agree with my own. Though, I will admit that I may toss a few barbs and masked comments just to get a rise out of a certain someone. But, to be plain and consistent with the idea of a childish brawl, "he started it."

I like your response. I truly appreciate the honesty and dignity with which you and others on this board continue to maintain, even when we don't agree. I do believe that we should all follow the "Wilson Doctrine" and not resort to pettiness, childishness and personal attacks.

First off, drop "bullshit" from your last line. In total, not one bit of your post is BS. It is true, that I did throw out my 2 cents regarding conspiracy theory, political agenda and exploitation, which does drag out some of the opposing viewpoints. I'll admit that I have thrown a punch or two in this brawl, but I feel that the namecalling, taunting and overall belittlement came from one direction and not from me. I don't deny stirring the pot. I don't deny that I can't stand GWB and the right-wing, neo-con agenda. I do deny stooping to childish levels and blatantly tossing out extremely personal attacks as a means to avoid discussing contentious issues and viewpoints that do not agree with my own. Though, I will admit that I may toss a few barbs and masked comments just to get a rise out of a certain someone. But, to be plain and consistent with the idea of a childish brawl, "he started it."

I like your response. I truly appreciate the honesty and dignity with which you and others on this board continue to maintain, even when we don't agree. I do believe that we should all follow the "Wilson Doctrine" and not resort to pettiness, childishness and personal attacks.

Fair enough. I would say that maybe if you toss a barb, though, it starts a slippery slope. Again, I have had my share of knock-down, drag-outs with several folk on this board. I have NOT always maintained the level of dignity I would like. I'm human as much as anyone. So I just can't be shocked when I call someone ignorant and they respond by calling me an asshole. I mean, what did I expect? You know?

On the other hand, I've seen some people take it from a disagreement on political philosophy to name calling in about half a second. Sometimes it's a carry-over from a prior issue, sometimes it's an innate issue that the person feels necessary to belittle others. Sometimes it's a combination of the two.

Again, I have no dog in this hunt and really don't care one way or the other about flaming. I've done it and had it done to me. I try not to flame but, on the other hand, I can't be hypocritcal when someone flames me.

In essence, I can't throw stones, because my house has some glass in it.

Fair enough. I would say that maybe if you toss a barb, though, it starts a slippery slope. Again, I have had my share of knock-down, drag-outs with several folk on this board. I have NOT always maintained the level of dignity I would like. I'm human as much as anyone. So I just can't be shocked when I call someone ignorant and they respond by calling me an asshole. I mean, what did I expect? You know?

On the other hand, I've seen some people take it from a disagreement on political philosophy to name calling in about half a second. Sometimes it's a carry-over from a prior issue, sometimes it's an innate issue that the person feels necessary to belittle others. Sometimes it's a combination of the two.

Again, I have no dog in this hunt and really don't care one way or the other about flaming. I've done it and had it done to me. I try not to flame but, on the other hand, I can't be hypocritcal when someone flames me.

In essence, I can't throw stones, because my house has some glass in it.

Well, until we meet at a future GU, we'll just have to have a virtual handshake and beer. At that future GU, I'm buying the first round.

Well, until we meet at a future GU, we'll just have to have a virtual handshake and beer. At that future GU, I'm buying the first round.

Sounds good to me. I'll buy the second. After that, I'm switching to scotch.

Then, I have to type some short, terse statement outside the shaded box, so the post will be accepted (otherwise, it is ruled as "too short!"). It's not that I don't understand how to use the quote tool, I just choose to use it in my own way.

BTW, when I lived in Dallas, I was told "real cowboys don't wear spurs" (ref. avatar). If you can't get a horse to do what you want without spurs, maybe you should walk.

Well Joe I missed it. I usually know what was said in the grey area already. I guess it's the price you have to pay for being differant.

As far as my avatar:
Not a bad saying, but coming from you, it reminds me of the old "Pace" picante commercials. ........ NEW YORK CITY?!?!?! GET A ROPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My avatar has more to do with all things western, not specifically with my mentality of riding horses. BTW there are worse ways of controlling a horse, I hope they educated you in those ways also.


KRW

Did Rick Gibney ever make an appearance in this movie? I'm just curious. Google him if you don't know who I'm talking about.


KRW

Did Rick Gibney ever make an appearance in this movie? I'm just curious. Google him if you don't know who I'm talking about.


KRW

Ken,

The movie covers only the air traffic controllers, the military ops center and the plane itself. Nothing else. It shows the military trying to get jets scrambled and the confusion of the day. It doesn't show if the plane was shot down. It does show the terrorists trying to plant the plane into the ground. There are no conclusions drawn, just facts as we know them presented.

All in all it is an amazing movie. Well acted by virtual unknowns and very respectful. My highest recommendation.

Ken,

The movie covers only the air traffic controllers, the military ops center and the plane itself. Nothing else. It shows the military trying to get jets scrambled and the confusion of the day. It doesn't show if the plane was shot down. It does show the terrorists trying to plant the plane into the ground. There are no conclusions drawn, just facts as we know them presented.

All in all it is an amazing movie. Well acted by virtual unknowns and very respectful. My highest recommendation.

Thanks dawg, beteween you and Saynomore, I will catch this movie. (You guys are convincing) I was just curious if the guy that came forward and said he shot it down was in it, or if it only backed up the "official" story which was a call to arms.


KRW