Posted on 01/29/2010 8:48:31 PM PST by goldstategop
Edge of Darkness:
You know the drill: an evil American defense contractor (arent they all evil, in the Hollywood playbook?) mass-murders innocent left-wing activists and employees who are trying to expose the companys evil activities. Oh, and did I mention that the defense contractor, Northmoor (probably supposed to be Northrop), is in bed with an evil, effeminate Republican Massachusetts U.S. Senator, to whose campaign its CEO is a big contributor? Well, they made this movie before Scott Browns election, but ya never know. Things can always be quickly edited to fit Hollywoods latest propaganda narrative.
But, wait. .... Then, theres the conspiracy: the evil the company is trying to hide is that it manufactures dirty bombs and nuclear weapons for the Defense Department, which are designed to look like they were made in third party countries. The word jihadist is used in reference to that (jihadist dirty bombs), so apparently, sub rosa, evil America is framing or trying to frame the jihadists and other countries in terrorist attacks and poisoning left-wing activists with radiation. Nauseating enough for you?
Mel Gibson plays a Boston cop (with a transparently inaccurate Boston accent), whose daughter was an employee of the defense contractor. She was helping the left-wing activists and trying to expose the companys evil, villainous activities. The activists died of radiation poisoning that the defense contractor visited upon them to kill them. And Gibsons daughter is poisoned and shot. He investigates, preaches and moralizes, is in a lot of action scenes, and makes friends with a hitman. Then, everyone dies. Capitalism, defense contractors, and Americas weapons to defend itself and our national securityall of these are evil. The end. ...
The only truism here is that, Mel Gibsons Jew-hatred aside, theres something in this movie for every flavor of America-hater and far-lefty.
(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...
“66CE”
66AD.
She has never attacked Christianity and has called out JEws for anti-Christian hysteria.
“I was being neutral. Would you prefer the Jewish year 3827 or the Roman DCCCXIX anno urbis conditae?”
Screw neutral. It was Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi—the year of our Lord Jesus Christ—66.
Sick of this PC crap.
“from what we know of Roman torture and crucifixion historically “
And how would Emmerich have known anything about that history?
Emmerich lived at the beginning of the 19th century. The topic was popular, as are the traditions (accurate) of the Catholic and protestant churches.
Additionally, there is more than one treatise on medical aspects of crucifixion in German. IOW, the historical aspects would have been common to many religious of the day.
Most of the archeological aspects, however, have been discovered in the 20th century.
Also, Emmerich was not Gibson’s only source for the movie.
“Dom Guéranger (whose word, as Rev. Frederic Windischmann tells us, is of more weight with him than that of a thousand others) expresses his conviction that Anne Catherine Emmerich had a mission from God and that she faithfully fulfilled the same; otherwise God never would have lavished so abundant and so extraordinary favors upon her. It was hers to bring before the mind of the German nation the Gospel in its most minute details just at a time when the Divinity of Christ and the Gospel truths were most strenuously denied by the philosophers so-called of the day. And here the learned Abbot expresses his astonishment at the way in which she fulfilled her mission. That a poor, uneducated peasant-girl in her heart of Europe should describe in their smallest details the various characters and languages, manners and customs of different and far-off countries; that she should do all this with perfect accuracy with respect to the varied circumstances of geography, topography, and archaeology of times long passed, is certainly sufficient to astound even the most prudent and learned. Rev. F. Windischmann, himself a warm friend of Father Schmöger, considers it something very wonderful that in all Sister Emmerichs descriptions of the various circumstances and situations in which the Sacred Person of Our Lord figures; viz., at meals, at marriage-feasts, on journeys, etc., we find not the least trace of anything unworthy of Him. All and everything He does or says is animated by a certain nobility indicative of His Divine Personality. This, he concludes, Anne Catherine could never have done had her work been a mere human invention. These facts would seem proof sufficient to establish the truth of Sister Emmerichs revelations. But we have still some others to bring forward.”
http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/anne_catherine.htm
Considering how HE handled his children family and wife well I suppose he is more of a loser than we knew. My daughter worked for a pr firm and her boss was friends with the Gibsons and told her Mel was always running around on Robin and was an a-hole. I cannot stand anyone that humiliates another person especially their wife in public like Mel has done. None of my money is going into his pocket.
Point taken. However, I was speaking of his on screen performance. I feel that I am unworthy to judge his personal short comings, at least in a public forum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.