White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
What do you think Bill O'Reilly would have to say about this site and it's basic premise that white athletes are discriminated against?
300/Christianity Debate
- Thread starter Triad
- Start date
remark22
Newbie
I just caught this flick, I thought it was pretty good, for a movie. Don't forget this movie was based off of the graphic novel by frank miller, not a thoroughly researched and developed historical project. kicked ass though
Guest 301, O'Reilly is a talking head for the status quo. He is for illegal immigration. He has stated many times that he is for some sort of amnesty and for more green cards and the guest worker program - basically supporting GW's position. That means the only part of illegal immigration he is against is calling it "illegal".
Newsflash: everyone is against child molesters. Recently in disgussing a rape case in which the victim was white and the perp black he questioned what the victim was wearing and how drunk she was, and then said something to the effect of, "what did they expect?".
His support of the war has been undying. At the same time he says that he would not send his son into Iraq. The fact you agree with Old Bill 80% of the time is telling.
To answer WS purposefully obvious question "What would he think of us on castefootball?"; He would call us all racists and then invite Al Sharpton and Alan Dershowitz on his show to discuss how they could shut-down dangerous racists sites like castefootball. That's your Billy boy. Edited by: Kaptain Poop
Newsflash: everyone is against child molesters. Recently in disgussing a rape case in which the victim was white and the perp black he questioned what the victim was wearing and how drunk she was, and then said something to the effect of, "what did they expect?".
His support of the war has been undying. At the same time he says that he would not send his son into Iraq. The fact you agree with Old Bill 80% of the time is telling.
To answer WS purposefully obvious question "What would he think of us on castefootball?"; He would call us all racists and then invite Al Sharpton and Alan Dershowitz on his show to discuss how they could shut-down dangerous racists sites like castefootball. That's your Billy boy. Edited by: Kaptain Poop
In answer to your question, he would obviously say this site and our cause is racist. But almost anybody that would stumble on to this site would say that. I have had friends that I have advised to look up this site and they subsequently told me later on that it was racist. I don't agree with that premise as a whole but clearly there have been plenty of racist things posted here and if that is what they read when they come here, oh well. Now if Bill or anybody else would actually spend just a week at this site and pore over the many articles and posts they might think differently.Kaptain Poop said:
As to your statement that standing against child molestation is a easy thing, sure it is. But to go on a virtual one -man crusade against weak child molestation laws and to take on all the media outlets and local newspapers around the country and the incredible abuse he has taking for doing so should count for something. He has virtually single-handedly been responsible for getting Jessica's law passed around the country. I don't know how to take your statement about how telling it is for me to agree with him 80% of the time. I disagree with him on the guest worker program but if every night he talks about our need to defend our borders and build a fence , isn't that a start? Sometimes you take what you can get. There are far bigger jackasses in the media for you to be concerned about. Try Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Larry King, William Schneider, etc...Edited by: guest301
G
Guest
Guest
White Shogun said:
An odd sort of projection there, Shogun. I don't quite see where in my post I used a weasel-word or implied derogation of the middle- or working-class. An informed and socially mobile middle-class is the life-blood of any progressive society; even "navel-gazers" know that.
So, stoic, ascetic and staunchly heterosexual, Spartan übermenchen stand heroically against a vast horde of twisted bisexuals, effete urbane sophisticates and repugnant moral-relativist hunch-backs. Back home, degenerate, privileged upper-classes diddle drugged-up peasant girls and rape the wives of these same stalwarts, whilst whithered politicos quibble the minute trivia of "democracy"...thankfully, the real men were out in the field bringing democracy to the phags & darkies & mercs by sword & spear.
Frank Miller is such a chicken-hawk. Any common person with faculties enough to put pen to paper should see clearly enough how manipulative this is; I can only assume he knows well enough.
F**king brilliant flick.
"For the first time in my life, I know how it feels to face an existential menace. They want us to die."
"...the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people's heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I'm speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I'm living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built."
"Where I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he motivated our military, but he didn't call the nation into a state of war. He didn't explain that this would take a communal effort against a common foe. So we've been kind of fighting a war on the side, and sitting off like a bunch of Romans complaining about it."
"Mostly I hear people say, 'Why did we attack Iraq?' for instance. Well, we're taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, we're doing the same thing now."
-Frank MillerEdited by: JerveyGotGypped
Jervey,
"An informed and socially mobile middle class is the lifeblood of any
progressive society"--what does being informed and socially mobile
(whatever that means) have to do with class, which in your marxist
lexicon refers only to economic status? Do you mean a progressive or
democratic society, because the middle class is notoriously status quo to
the conservative side? I don't think you really know the answer yourself,
but it sure sounded good. I doubt you have any respect for regular
society. Just look at the way you address a topic, slinging lists of
academic jargon around to try to impress and befuddle (unfortunately,
the victim of such is often the author). You are an elitist, but one with no
status. In other words, not really an elitist at all, but just a wannabe.
Which leads me to my next point. It is often the desire of wannabe
elitists to find some arena of superiority and cling mightily to it. You
wish, like the deacons of old that you despise, to be the superior
moralist. Of course, it is quite easy to feel morally superior to those who
lived many hundreds (in this case, 2500) years ago. You have the benefit
of living in a far more advanced, prosperous, and generous time, which is
mirrored in our modern moral view. However, you failed to truly apply
your favorite tactic here of moral equivocation, and thus you fail to
understand the widepread appeal of the movie.
You see, in order to smear the heroes, you had to equivocate the
peversions of one side to the other. But crowds aren't flocking to the
movie to cheer on sex perversion, drug use, rape, and that most heinous
sin of having money. No, that isn't the appeal. The true moral appeal
and link between the heroes of yesteryear and the audience today is that
of defending one's country, family, friends, fellow men, and way of life
from alien invasion, murder, theft, and annihilation. In fact, the appeal of
that notion is so universal that this film will be an international hit also.
Its just a natural inclination to defend oneself. And those who do it are
considered heroes to all. Well, not to all. You consider them fascists.
That just shows how perverted your own moral compass really is.
I really find your own criticisms laughable, as if you are somehow
fastidious when it comes to "diddling" around or taking drugs. Am I
right? Morality also implies accountablility (remember your Dostoevsky--
without punishment, there is no crime), but I find it difficult to
understand how you can be so morally superior when you answer to
nobody (Godless too, no?). Middle class, upper class, lifeblood, blue
blood--what does it all matter to the King with no pedigree? You can
fool yourself I guess, but some of us are little smarter.
As far as Frank Miller goes, he's entitled to his own opinions, or does that
exceed your mandated limits of tolerance? I guess he may be just a
regular 50 year-old chicken, but he's not exactly primo soldiering
material. Remember, no one is there who didn't volunteer for it. But that
is now and this was then. You've even got your wars mixed up. But at
least you're consistent.
"An informed and socially mobile middle class is the lifeblood of any
progressive society"--what does being informed and socially mobile
(whatever that means) have to do with class, which in your marxist
lexicon refers only to economic status? Do you mean a progressive or
democratic society, because the middle class is notoriously status quo to
the conservative side? I don't think you really know the answer yourself,
but it sure sounded good. I doubt you have any respect for regular
society. Just look at the way you address a topic, slinging lists of
academic jargon around to try to impress and befuddle (unfortunately,
the victim of such is often the author). You are an elitist, but one with no
status. In other words, not really an elitist at all, but just a wannabe.
Which leads me to my next point. It is often the desire of wannabe
elitists to find some arena of superiority and cling mightily to it. You
wish, like the deacons of old that you despise, to be the superior
moralist. Of course, it is quite easy to feel morally superior to those who
lived many hundreds (in this case, 2500) years ago. You have the benefit
of living in a far more advanced, prosperous, and generous time, which is
mirrored in our modern moral view. However, you failed to truly apply
your favorite tactic here of moral equivocation, and thus you fail to
understand the widepread appeal of the movie.
You see, in order to smear the heroes, you had to equivocate the
peversions of one side to the other. But crowds aren't flocking to the
movie to cheer on sex perversion, drug use, rape, and that most heinous
sin of having money. No, that isn't the appeal. The true moral appeal
and link between the heroes of yesteryear and the audience today is that
of defending one's country, family, friends, fellow men, and way of life
from alien invasion, murder, theft, and annihilation. In fact, the appeal of
that notion is so universal that this film will be an international hit also.
Its just a natural inclination to defend oneself. And those who do it are
considered heroes to all. Well, not to all. You consider them fascists.
That just shows how perverted your own moral compass really is.
I really find your own criticisms laughable, as if you are somehow
fastidious when it comes to "diddling" around or taking drugs. Am I
right? Morality also implies accountablility (remember your Dostoevsky--
without punishment, there is no crime), but I find it difficult to
understand how you can be so morally superior when you answer to
nobody (Godless too, no?). Middle class, upper class, lifeblood, blue
blood--what does it all matter to the King with no pedigree? You can
fool yourself I guess, but some of us are little smarter.
As far as Frank Miller goes, he's entitled to his own opinions, or does that
exceed your mandated limits of tolerance? I guess he may be just a
regular 50 year-old chicken, but he's not exactly primo soldiering
material. Remember, no one is there who didn't volunteer for it. But that
is now and this was then. You've even got your wars mixed up. But at
least you're consistent.
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
There are some who are actually able to watch a movie without being drawn into supporting whatever subtle sub-plot has been engineered or grafted into the film by it's producers, whether it exists in reality or only in the minds of those who wish to find it there.
I did not see Xerxes' hordes as representative of an Islamo-facist cabal intent on overthrowing Mom and eating her apple pie on a bed of flags. I saw Xerxes' hordes as an evil and dark empire bent on conquest. I saw the Spartans as men outnumbered and hampered in the defense of their homeland by corrupt priests and rulers. I enjoyed the juxtaposition of 'good v evil,' even if it was contrived and a bit cheesy. I enjoyed seeing white men portrayed as heroes instead of white neo-Nazis bent on controlling the world's money supply with doomsday devices, or bumbling idiots who require a black man's assistance at every task in life. I saw the movie for what it was: a compelling story based on a comic book, (very) loosely based on a historical event.
From what I've just written, I'd say one could just as easily make the case that the Persians represented the United States, in her sex-crazed, hegemonic glory; and the Spartans, Third Worlders around the globe resisting her imperialistic advances!
Perhaps in Jervey's world, the men should have stayed home and thrown down the ruling elites from their ivory towers, ignoring the greater peril at her borders?
In that case, I'd say one could just as easily make the case that the Persians represent illegal aliens, with her hordes numbering in the millions, intent on over running the land of the Spartans, while her rulers fiddled (okay, that's an allusion to Rome, I know.. but you get the picture.)
I don't care a whit about Frank Miller's intent; I enjoyed the movie and have not been brain washed by his pathetic attempt at seduction, if there ever was one. What's more, I highly doubt that that masses of movie goers who saw this film see it the same way the 'elites' do, who think every aspect of life is concerned personally with their philosophies.
I did not see Xerxes' hordes as representative of an Islamo-facist cabal intent on overthrowing Mom and eating her apple pie on a bed of flags. I saw Xerxes' hordes as an evil and dark empire bent on conquest. I saw the Spartans as men outnumbered and hampered in the defense of their homeland by corrupt priests and rulers. I enjoyed the juxtaposition of 'good v evil,' even if it was contrived and a bit cheesy. I enjoyed seeing white men portrayed as heroes instead of white neo-Nazis bent on controlling the world's money supply with doomsday devices, or bumbling idiots who require a black man's assistance at every task in life. I saw the movie for what it was: a compelling story based on a comic book, (very) loosely based on a historical event.
From what I've just written, I'd say one could just as easily make the case that the Persians represented the United States, in her sex-crazed, hegemonic glory; and the Spartans, Third Worlders around the globe resisting her imperialistic advances!
Perhaps in Jervey's world, the men should have stayed home and thrown down the ruling elites from their ivory towers, ignoring the greater peril at her borders?
In that case, I'd say one could just as easily make the case that the Persians represent illegal aliens, with her hordes numbering in the millions, intent on over running the land of the Spartans, while her rulers fiddled (okay, that's an allusion to Rome, I know.. but you get the picture.)
I don't care a whit about Frank Miller's intent; I enjoyed the movie and have not been brain washed by his pathetic attempt at seduction, if there ever was one. What's more, I highly doubt that that masses of movie goers who saw this film see it the same way the 'elites' do, who think every aspect of life is concerned personally with their philosophies.
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Kaptain Poop said:
Kaptain P, brilliant analysis on the "LeperCON" O'Reilly! Fox is basically a NeoCON propaganda arm & O'Reilly & Pawn Vanity are it's top mouthpieces! The fact that the "LeperCON" proposes amnesty (as you alluded to above) shows his true Globalist-minded/traitorous colors. And YES...he'd say everyone on this site is a dangerous, crazed racist and needs to be fully investigated for "Hate Crimes" (ie - exercising our 1st Amendment rights) by the FBI & NSA!!!
Jervey, your little pals who said this site is "racist" (see - PC buzzword) have obviousy been brain-washed by the socialist indoctrination of Government schools and the Globalist controlled "mainstream" media. The site is one of the most accurate, on-point, patriotic websites I've seen!Edited by: DixieDestroyer
Dixiedestroyer, Jerves little pals all wear tiny little caps on the top of their heads just like him. That's why he exspouses such distain for us "stupid illiterate gentiles" that don't have his skill of over-vocabularizing.
Guest 301, I can live with your response. I actually used to watch O'Reilly (years ago) on a regular basis, but I just can't stand the guy anymore. Rethink your views on him. Edited by: Kaptain Poop
Guest 301, I can live with your response. I actually used to watch O'Reilly (years ago) on a regular basis, but I just can't stand the guy anymore. Rethink your views on him. Edited by: Kaptain Poop
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Kaptain Poop said:
KP, lol! Funny stuff.
I am always rethinking my views on things, especially people. I agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others. I watch him for the same reason you used too. There are far worse talking heads than O'Reilly. But I will rethink as you suggested as I hope you will. What other talking head is advocating building a fence down on the border other than Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs? Don't give me Pat Buchannan because he doesn't have his own show anymore. Glen Beck is another talking head that should have some respect on this site over his concern over illegal immigration. His views are not perfect but they are a far cry from what we are getting out of Washington.Edited by: guest301Kaptain Poop said:
Guest 301, I too agree with him on a few things, but lately he has been spending an undo amount of time defending neocon policy. His immigration policy sounds tough until you really take a look at it. He is for the guest worker program and increasing the amount of work visas. You build all the wall you want, but if illegals can legally drive through the border on a highway it kinda defeats the purpose. Does anybody really think Mexicans on guest passes will willingly leave our country?
Glen Beck is a moron that wants to scare us into attacking yet another country. I have never heard him speak about illegal immigration, but my guess is that he pretty much supports the president's view.
Lou Dobbs seems to be a pretty decent guy and has it figured out.
Glen Beck is a moron that wants to scare us into attacking yet another country. I have never heard him speak about illegal immigration, but my guess is that he pretty much supports the president's view.
Lou Dobbs seems to be a pretty decent guy and has it figured out.
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Guest 301, you want accurate info & the hard, cold truth?? Checkout the Alex Jones Show & Dr. Stan Monteith's Radio Liberty. KP is correct, most of the mainstream "conservative" hosts are NeoCON mouthpieces (O'Reilly, Pawn Vanity, Hush Bimbo). I used to be a huge Savage fan (& still listen to him once in a blue moon), but have woken up to the agenda of the Globalist Elite controlled NeoCONs...
www.infowars.com
www.radioliberty.com
www.infowars.com
www.radioliberty.com
I guess you guys (Poop and Dixie) are just going to have to forgive and put up with the prescense of someone who occasionally supports the same policies as the Neo-cons. My reasons are somewhat different and far more altruistic and patriotic than the average Neo-con but that's the way it is. Glen Beck is not a moron and it makes me wonder how much you have actually listened to him and he often speaks on illegal immigration. Almost no politician of any importance speaks on the importance of rolling back legal immigration so I am not sure what you expect from the talking heads.
I do generally support the war on terror and I actually do support taking out the Iranian Nuclear sites. It is vital and necessary that the Americans/British or the Israeli's do so and I predict it will happen before the end of 2008. I know I will get flamed bigtime here for saying all that but that's my position. We all can't agree on everything. By the way, Lou Dobbs just spoke before a congressional committee on immigration and his influence is actually quite amazing considering the slimy network he works for(CNN). He has writen two excellent books on the immigration problem and he absolutely abhors free trade and all the trade deficits we have been running up for the last thirty years. He is a patriot and worth listening too.
I do generally support the war on terror and I actually do support taking out the Iranian Nuclear sites. It is vital and necessary that the Americans/British or the Israeli's do so and I predict it will happen before the end of 2008. I know I will get flamed bigtime here for saying all that but that's my position. We all can't agree on everything. By the way, Lou Dobbs just spoke before a congressional committee on immigration and his influence is actually quite amazing considering the slimy network he works for(CNN). He has writen two excellent books on the immigration problem and he absolutely abhors free trade and all the trade deficits we have been running up for the last thirty years. He is a patriot and worth listening too.
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
Glen Beck advocated nuking Iran. That's when I stopped listening to his show.
Why is it vital that the Americans/British take out Iranian nuclear sites? I can see why you would make the argument the Israelis should do so, but why the U.S. / UK?
So far I haven't seen anyone disagree with your support of Lou Dobbs. I like him, too (so far. Hard to trust anyone in the media, really.)
Why is it vital that the Americans/British take out Iranian nuclear sites? I can see why you would make the argument the Israelis should do so, but why the U.S. / UK?
So far I haven't seen anyone disagree with your support of Lou Dobbs. I like him, too (so far. Hard to trust anyone in the media, really.)
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Guest301, I was a hardcore GOP supporter for 15 years. I voted & campaigned hard for Bush in 00 & 04. It was around 2005 that I read the informative book "The Brotherhood of Darkness" by Dr.Stan Monteith and began listening to Radio Liberty & the Alex Jones show. I still consider myself a hardcore conservative...albeit a paleo-Conservative. I support core conservative values...smaller Government, tax reduction, more individual freedoms & upholding the Constitution. I still listen to Savage & Boortz every once in a while, but I've shifted from a "Super-hawk" to an psuedo-isolationist over the course of the last two years. For further info/details, checkout the following...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1895
I didn't get flamed overnight as much as I expected. Maybe I'm not worth the effort.White Shogun said:
Thanks for the links Dixie and despite my above post. I also have isolationist tendencies but it's hard for me to ignore threats like this especially after 9-11.
What exactly has the President of Iran actually done that makes him a "madman". Has he attacked any nation? No. What evidence do you have that he wants to destroy western civilization? Even if he does want to destroy western civilization, so what? He can't.
When did he EVER threaten to attack America? Gimme a break and think beyond the Glenn Beck show. People in his country may be funding Hezbollah or other groups that intend to fight Israeli aggession, but I could care less. The Iran hostages were all returned safely. Seriously, with our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs in support of Israel it's amazing more bombs don't explode on us.
Guest301, you sound like an Israeli-firster. Are you by any chance Jewish? As far as your history of the 1930s go, do you really think Hitler wanted to make war with America? Why? So he could easily lose the war in Europe. We tried to goad Germany into attacking our ships for years (just like WWI) until we got Japan to do it instead. Both World Wars were very unpopular with the American public at the onset, but the those who control the media started to sway public opinion and make us all think that we would soon be speaking German.
Well, none of that would have ever happened and if it did I guess I'd rather speak German than Spanish anyhow. Iran is no threat to the US, but there is one tiny little middle eastern country that is. One that continually spies on us, controls our banks, controls our media, runs organized crime, and bribes our elected officials. One tiny country that is truly destroying Western Civilization. Any guess?
When did he EVER threaten to attack America? Gimme a break and think beyond the Glenn Beck show. People in his country may be funding Hezbollah or other groups that intend to fight Israeli aggession, but I could care less. The Iran hostages were all returned safely. Seriously, with our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs in support of Israel it's amazing more bombs don't explode on us.
Guest301, you sound like an Israeli-firster. Are you by any chance Jewish? As far as your history of the 1930s go, do you really think Hitler wanted to make war with America? Why? So he could easily lose the war in Europe. We tried to goad Germany into attacking our ships for years (just like WWI) until we got Japan to do it instead. Both World Wars were very unpopular with the American public at the onset, but the those who control the media started to sway public opinion and make us all think that we would soon be speaking German.
Well, none of that would have ever happened and if it did I guess I'd rather speak German than Spanish anyhow. Iran is no threat to the US, but there is one tiny little middle eastern country that is. One that continually spies on us, controls our banks, controls our media, runs organized crime, and bribes our elected officials. One tiny country that is truly destroying Western Civilization. Any guess?
Kaptain Poop said:Guest301, you sound like an Israeli-firster. Are you by any chance Jewish?
(Yes I partially am Jewish(on my mothers side). I am a messianic Jew(christian). I thought that was fairly widely known on this site. Suprised that you didn't know about that. I am also part scotch, irish, greek and a little Su Indian as well. My skin is about as white as it gets short of being a Albino.)
Edited by: guest301
Poop...You told me to look beyond the Glen Beck show. For those that are interested, check out his show tonight on Headline news, 7pm, 9pm and 11pm eastern time. His show will be dealing with the topic are "we in the latter days" and bible prophecy. His guest list is impressive tonight, check it out.
guest301 said:
I also don't think it's unreasonable to consider taking out a potential enemies nuclear capability. It makes a lot more sense then invading and trying to convert the local population. Hell I think they should take out North Korea's stuff too. However the point that was made that it makes more sense for Israel to do it themselves is also valid. Everything they have is from us anyway.
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
guest301 said:
Or maybe we're not the madmen you think we are.
I can live with that and it does make more sense from a need standpoint for the Israeli's to do it. They have a state of the art air force and very skilled and daring pilots. They could get the job done, but not as easily as the USA could. Bush's poll numbers are about as low as you can get anyway, what has he got to lose. I swear that man looks twenty years older now. Bush's domestic policy is so bad that the only thing he could do for me that he might actually do is to take out the Iranian nuclear sites. He sure won't get rid of his guest worker/amnesty program. I worked hard all my life to get Republicans in office( even as a kid) and this is what we get.jaxvid said:
Emotional and ethnic partisanship aside, why should Israel be allowed to have vast nuclear weapons program unchecked by international regulations/inspections and Iran and North Korea should not? Only Israel has the capability to take out all of Europe. Knowing they have no equal in the Middle East, Israel has been very aggressive in taking land that is not theirs. We in turn have to defend their illegal actions and find ourselves involved in the current mess that is the Middle East. I for one would actually feel safer if Iran had Nuclear capabilities.