Free Republic

Actually it doesn't even support Islamic theology. According to Islam, Isa ascended into heaven, and will return to convert the world to Islam in preparation for Judgement Day. The alleged body of Jesus would discredit Islam's theological claims as much as Christianity's. And Muslims would be the ones who would do something violent about it. If there's any hilarious (and I have a dark, morbid, and blatantly immoral sense of humor) about this, is Cameron's attempts to discredit Christianity--attempts that will fail--will earn him a Fatwa from Wahhabi-esque imams.

But this is just bad archaeology (the archeologist who found the site has disowned the conclusions Cameron presents), bad science (what exactly is DNA going to prove?), and worse history. Yes, the disciples of Jesus willingly died terrible deaths for a known lie, a "manufactured myth". The Romans and Sadduccees had all the ample opporutnity to fling Jesus' dead body around, but couldn't, which is why the Sadducceees accused the disciples of sneaking the body out of the tomb--because the body wasn't there. The lack of functional common sense on the part of the so called "enlightened" is dangerous.

She has a fish face.

I'm glad I missed it. I haven't watched the Simpsons since that awful episode (I think Spring 2004) when they showed Clinton nobily in a military tribunal prison and the Simpsons escape to France because the United States is such an awful fascist dictatorship, or whatever. I used to LOVE the show. The Golden Age of the Simpsons, Seasons 3-6, are like core parts of my identity (those were my high school years).

Now, The Simpsons are an abomination. The day after Veteran's Day, what were they thinking?!?

A strategic manuever for Bush and the GOP: about 9 months from now, when the Democratic Presidential campaigns are getting in gear, Bush and Cheney should resign. This would make Pelosi President. First off, it would punish the American electorate for its stupidity, as they'd experience more than they thought they would of the Democratic vision for America.

Secondly, it would destroy the DNC presidential campaign. Hilary, Gore, Kerry, and Edwards would have to run against now an incumbent Pelosi in 08. They can't circle the wagons around her It would be an incompetent year and a half Presidency, Senate, and House in Democratic control, and it would be potentially dangerous to the economy and the world--good. Because it would then lead to recording breaking Republican victories across the board in 08. Take one step back, to take three leaps forward. I don't think divided government would expose the electorate to enough of the Democrats to ressurect an anti-Democrat America. The people need some awful Democratic bills passed as an experience to remind them, "Damn, won't do that again (aka, allow the Democrats to have an inch of power)"

If the Senate is lost as well, I'd like to see Bush and Cheney resign. Then...it would be President Pelosi. A DISASTER. It would be terrible for the country, and maybe that's what this stupid electorate needs, is a quick remember of how awful the Democrats are. After two years of President Pelosi, House Speaker Charles Rangel, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Republicans would retake the legislative and executive branches with margins never seen before. 60 GOP Senators, 50 seat lead in the House.

But seriously, this is just disgusting. What is wrong with our countrymen, heck, this species as a whole. Humanity is a great disappointment.

Well, I do agree with El Shorto on one thing, and that is that the UN should move out of the U.S. Maybe move it to Venezuela, or North Korea, or better yet, the Congo Republic. Or Darfur. Or Bosnia. Or Zimbabwe. So the U.N. reps can see first hand what their stupid anti-liberty anti-free market anti-rule of law pro-whining about the U.S. and Western Civ priorities gets them. Instead of being a force for good, it's an enabler of evil. Plus, it would be hilarious seeing all these two bit dictator lackies having to find good roads to drive their precious limosines along the slave-trade trodden paths of the Sudan.

The U.N. soils U.S. soil, and it should be gone.

This type of stuff doesn't bother me. In fact, I'm glad. The Left should be as tactless, despicable, stupid, irrational, hatefilled as possible. They can call Bush Hitler, call for his assassination, call for the imprisonment of Christians, GOOD! It makes them look all the worse. It shows to normal, decent people, how abnormal and indecent the Left is, and how they can and should never have any sort of power, ever. We have to let them hang themselves, and censoring them doesn't do that. Maybe everyone shouldn't see this movie--I sure as heck won't--but everyone should know it exists. Force Democrats to either renounce its demented leftwing base or defend it, either way, self destruction. Conservatives and Republicans just need to play their cards properly and not go a witch hunting, which plays in the Leftists hands.

There should be a museum dedicated to Leftwing idiocy. An actual, walk in museum, where you can bring your high school age kids. It would document via paintings, TV replays, giant sized pictures, the various insults and insinuations the Left has hurled at non-leftists (particularly in recent years--the Moveon ads, the "Unterfuhrer" comments, the "protest" pictures of signs with the Star of David crossed with a Swatstika, ect.--and compare what Republicans stand for and have accomplished, with what the Nazis stood for and accomplished. If detaining thousands of terrorists is as bad as killing millions of Jews, than killing milllions of Jews is ONLY as bad as detaining a couple thousand terrorists. The moral equivalency is hilariously stupid and corrupt, and such idiocy needs to be immortalized to stygmatize the Left for all eternity.

My prediction, is that the "real" assasin in the "docu-" "drama" is some Conservative Christian straight white male Haliburton employee who kills the President, per his own orders, to make him a martyr for Evangelical Christians everywhere and thus by framing a poor, innocent, Islamomarxist Syrian, unleash America's wrath upon the middle east so that America can nuke Iran, put Muslims in nude pyramids, enslave the Negro, blow up more levees, steal all the oil, heat up the earth, starve the elderly, rip off the burkas of Muslim women only to force them to live barefoot and pregnant in the tiny kitchens of mobile homes in the Ozarks, and to incinerate, of course, neo-Foulcaltian James Joyce literacy clubs. Exactly like the denouement to that stupid propoganda film Bob Roberts, by Mr. Susan Sarandon.

I'd be interested in seeing the whole list. Some of those listed are leftists. Michael Mann presided over the "Bush is Hitler" Moveon.org video competition, and Michael Douglas is a yellow dog Democrat. However, the times I've actually heard Douglas speak on politics, he's always seemed conciliatory and honest, ie someone you can reason with. He doesn't go off on a hatefilled rant like Clooney or Alec Baldwin. He also narrated the excellent "One Day in September" Documentary, which not only condemns the Black September group for its slaughter of Israeli Olympians, but also points out that leftwing groups operating out of East German helped the terrorists break into the hotel or compound to help kidnap the hostages. You never, EVER see Hollywoodians condemn Communism or leftism in any form, yet alone tie any evil to such "noble" principles.

Sam Raimi gave money to GWB in 2004.

Those cute pups deserve so much better

Surprised no one's mentioned "The Incredibles", which has some smart satirical bits about the socialist and the lawsuit-happy mindset. "True Lies" had the bad guys being Arab terrorists and the good guys a super secret ultra-legal anti-terrorist force run by Charlton Heston of all people. Then there was the inferior and grossly sloppy "Executive Decision", also about an Arab terrorist trying to bring down a plane in D.C. Not a good movie, but would never be made in today's Hollywood climate. "Signs" by Shyamalan, starring Gibson, affirms the value of faith and the presence of a designer and Creator (albeit Shyamalan is a Hindu), and the film ends w/ the lapsed preacher returning to the pulpit.

Others that may be included are "The Killing Fields" and "The Dancer Upstairs". The Killing Fields starts off a bit whiny, w/ the accidental bombing of a Cambodian village by a US airplane (suggesting that the Khmer Rouge's subsequent actions are in response to U.S. "aggression"), but by the end, we see the end extent of Marxist ideology, in the gulags where children are raised not only w/o parents but raised w/ an instilled hatred of the institution of parentage. The Dancer Upstairs (directed by Randian influenced John Malkovich) portrays (gasp!) hard line Marxists as terrorists. Something mainstream Hollywood would NEVER do.

And of course, recently there was United 93 and the Andy Garcia movie "Lost City" about the evils of Castro and Che (two movies I've yet to see)...

As a Sooner fan, I'd be disgusted and embarrassed if OU was awarded the BCS trophy by default. Unnecessary Simpsons flashback: "The two sweetest words in the english language, DE-FAULT DE-FAULT DE-FAULT!" No one would respect it, and it would be a point of mockery around the nation. I seriously hope Boren/Joe C/Stoops would turn it down, if we were offered the BCS title based on a 1-0 forfeiture over USC.

Anyways, my guess is that the BCS would be a black hole that year, no national champion, and the unaffiliated AP might choose to retroactively ammend its 2004 AP #1 to Auburn. Auburn would be 2004 #1 the same USC was the media's #1 in 2003.

An embarrassment all around.

That's why I don't think its that bad of a deal for Houston to pass on Bush. Now, should they draft Mario Williams I don't know, but the Texans have far more pressing problems than lack of a running back, and in fact, without an o-line or a viable passing attack, Bush would be a sitting duck back there. He wasn't going to turn that team into a playoff team in one year, two years, four years, and during that time, he'd be fertilized. Houston needs an O-line, a D-line, and a secondary, before they can worry about having "superstars". They could draft Bush, pay him ten years worth of cap room, only to have him ripped to shreads behind a pathetic O-line by Year 3. Then what? Worse off then when they started.

I'm no fan of Benny Hinn, but there's no doubt he's influential. I'm not sure the list is, or should be, a commentary on the theologies, whether sound or flawed, of its members, but simply a list on how much "influence" their opinions have over sizable segments of the Christian population, from Catholic to Methodist to Baptist to Evangelical and everything in between.

Then again, there are noticable exceptions going by the critera of influence. What about the Left Behind guys? Oral/Richard Roberts? Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Hal Lindsey? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Ralph Reed? That foul Bishop Spong? Heck, Reverend Barry Lynn, who just sits and whines on cable about Christianity, and thus provides cover for the increasingly leftwing "mainstream" American Protestant denominations? All these characters are far more influential (unfortunately) than many if not most on that list.

I remember reading a web article about Sirico, and I couldn't find the link if I tried, but he said something to the effect that, "except for Gandolfini and Falco, everyone else on the show is Republican". I'm not sure who "everyone else" means, as I highly doubt it (Steven Van Zandt sure isn't, and Michael Imperioli wrote the Godawful Columbus Day episode that had AJ quoting from Zinn's a People's History of the US), but it wouldn't surprise me if the actors who play Johnny Sac, Bobby Baccala, the Carmines, ect, are conservatives.

As for David Chase, who knows. I've listened to some of his commentaries, and during the commentary for "Amour Frou" (next to last episode of Season 3) after Carmella's line about Hilary Clinton, "She's a Role model for all of us", Chase says, "Yeah, Hilary Clinton is a role model for mobster's wives," implying that he isn't too fond of the Clintons. During the same episode, after Gloria Trilio goes on a rant about a California school forbiding the word "Christmas", Chase comments how that happened in real life in one of his kids' school districts, and how much that idiocy ticked him off--a hardcore leftist would probably condone rather than condemn the school's anti-Christmas actions.

But then again, you look at some of the leftwing tilt starting with episode four--the stereotypical Christian "young earth" evangelical, the narcoleptic Christian proudly wearing his Terri Schiavo vigil T-shirt like a badge of honor, the evil capitalist HMO, and the trendy coding of New Age "innocent, pre-industrial pre-capitalist" Amerind Buddhist mantras in the dialogue and embedded thematically into the storylines, and we just don't know. Is Meadow the voice of Chase, or is she a brilliant parody of a hypocritical white leftwing trust fund WTO protestor? Are the Arabs going to be genuine terrorists, thus reminders of the GWOT that the left so desperately wants us to forget about, or are they going to be scapegoats for an evil fascist Bushitler Homeland Security department looking to build concentration camps and force women to cook in the mobile home kitchen barefoot and pregnant (channeling Meadow Soprano)? Or is Chase simply poking at the absurdities of all ideologies and political spectrums, like a responsible social commentator would? I guess we'll find out.

MST3K is the best show over. Sopranos pretty close, too. I've been watching both shows regularly the past month. If you like Cops, you *might* like Reno 911, but that show isn't for everyone.

I've just now got into 24, most TV shows I find out about 1-4 years later (the new BSG, Deadwood, Lost), and I have to catch up via Netflix. The directing style is impressive and Kiefer is excellence, but even only 16 hours into the first season, the incessant crises--24 of them a season, it appears--tend to dilute the tension and create an "oh brother" response. I've been spoiled by what happens in most of the seasons, who dies and who is a traitor, and with that knowledge the twists and turns and betrayals don't seem to fit. The show lacks breathers, but then again, I'm watching them back to back on DVDs, whereas weekly viewers have a seven day pause to handle the twists and turns.

Ben Affleck? AN ACTOR?!? Crap in a cone can pass itself off as ice cream better than Affleck can as an actor.

I'm starting to appreciate San Francisco, BECAUSE of its filth. It's like a bowel magnet, drawing all the crap in our country to itself. I heartily endorse whatever leftwing commune the San Franciscans want to make, so that the few good people living there leave and become good contributors to better communities, and so the crappy leftists in this country congregate there and save the rest of America from their crap. A couple of "Conservative Free" Zones would mean that the rest of America could be "Leftist Free". I like the sound of that. God bless San Fran, please nationalize the businesses in your town, illegalize Christianity, and make homosexuality compulsive. And then after you've Pied Pipered fellow Leftists scattered across the land, who have been screwing up local politics from Florida to Oklahoma to San Diego, well you'd all collapse into your Leftwing black hole distopia and be a lesson in how *not* to live. Godspeed, you socialist morons.

"So you are saying whomever gets into America should not turned back to their nation of origin. They should be rewarded with jobs and sometimes citizenship."

I can turn it around, and say that you're saying America should become a proto-police state, with high taxes to subsidize its deportation police, an entity that beats down the doors of Hispanics and drags Elian Gonzalez-style illegal family members out of the country.

Only provide amnesty to those illegals who plan on becoming patriotic Americans. If you're a foreigner living here illegally and you don't plan on working on some legal visa, then deport. But a blanket deportation of 11 million illegals would not only create a logistics nightmare, that again the pro-deport crowd ravenously ignores addressing, it also would lose so much good will among the (legalized and growing via high birth rate) Hispanic American voter block (after all, it would be their homes that would get their doors kicked in to find those 11 million illegals and hurl them back to Mexico), that such a policy basically concede the next generation of political power to Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton. And God knows what type of legal precedent such a massive and probably violent deportation would create when our political enemies come into power, a precedent they would use to their own advantage.

There are three issues to be dealt with, and not only are these three problems not only NOT mutually inclusive, but their solutions are not mutually inclusive either. 1) Border Security. 2) Future Illegal Immigration. 3.) Current illegals (namely Hispanics) in the U.S. When it comes to priority, issue 1 comes first, because that involves securing this country from future terrorist attack. Issue 2 is important because it refers to recolonization of the U.S., and the sacrifice of American values to foreign values. Issue 3 is important, but by matter of degree, the least of the problems. Americans are firmly entrenched behind the conservative solutions for problems 1 and 2. Those are doable. The Deportation solution for Problem 3 is less doable, and should not bring down the hopes for the more pressing issues.

Securing the borders from Al Qaeda and deporting 11 million people are not mutually inclusive. Enforcing a new immigration law--a new one is needed, because the old one was never enforced and thus discredited--and kicking out current illegals are not mutually inclusive. We can do one, and not the other, in both instances. It is more important to find a political solution that guarantees the border is secure, than one that tries to hitch a less attainable goal of mass deportation to that wagon. It is more important to prevent future illegal immigration, that it is to worry about those who are already here. 11 million naturalized learning-to-speak English Americans won't bring this country down. But 111 million Spanish speaking illegals after another 20 years of the status quo--the result of liberals not wanting to do anything about immigration and conservatives asking too much to get a workable plan to save this country--will. Again, its about priorities--are you more interested in guaranteeing that a wall is built and that future illegals are hampered from coming here, or are you more interested in the politically unviable and unexecutable policy of mass deportation? Not only are they not mutually inclusive, these issues are starting to become mutually exclusive.

A law is only a law if its enforced. We have not enforced the immigration laws for God knows how long. Trying to retroactively enforce them won't fix the problem--the image of the current immigration law has already been wiped between the cracks and thrown into the toilet. A fresh start is needed on immigration, beginning with the wall. This country--yes, this country--has routinely had its share of law skirting, heck the country came from a common law culture and the west was settled by squatters who "stole" land from either absentee landlords or a government that wasn't enforcing its hard-to-enforce property laws. After that period of "lawlessness", the common sense of common law took hold, and such land was recognized by the courts, and the formerly illegally owned property of the squatters became legally recognized private property. Subsequent squatting (ie, a new illegal squatter taking the land of a formerly illegal now legal squatter) would then be illegal, despite the apparent spirit of "hypocrisy" in such an edict.

A similair situation could happen now with current illegals. Because the immigration law has not been enforced, we don't blame those who saw the law as a paper tiger, and don't hold their desire to live in the greatest country in the world against against them--unless they plan on remaining Mexicans, then the U.S. deports. We adapt the law and make it stronger and enforcable, we have a wall to protect us from terrorists and future colonization, we've created 11 million tax payers (unemployment among illegals is less than among naturalized Americans, think of the tax revenues we can gain to help finace the GWOT and pay off the debt), and we have not only stayed even with Hispanics politically, but we could use the Naturalization process to indoctrinate the illegals into American values.

Now there's a name I hadn't heard in about 7 years. Talk about falling off the face of the planet. What next, the band Toto admits its named after the Wizard of Oz? Judge Reinhold admits he isn't a judge?

I haven't seen Syriana, but I've read Baer's book, and although Baer touches on the American double standards and crack addicted dependency on Saudi oil and gifts (during the Clinton years no less, something I doubt the Hollywood Leftists conveyed in Syriana), the rest of his book is about India, Lebanon, and Northern Iraq, and hardly a leftist mouthpiece. Baer's a Democrat and a Kerry supporter, I think more to do with his adverse reaction to conservative Christianity than hardcore leftwing ideology.

Looking at the reactions to the film's plot and emphasis, Syriana seemed to focus entirely on the "anti-American corporate oil culture" aspects of "See No Evil", and not the depravity of the Iranian terrorists and Hussein's Iraq, or the stupid head-in-the-sand approach that led to the U.S. having only a couple of CIA operatives in the entire Middle East following the Ford/Carter years--also outlined in the book. So it wouldn't surprise me if Syriana ripped off another person's work, because it would be a faint resemblance to Baer's.